Still, students in schools throughout the world must pass examinations on theories that scientists themselves admit are unproven. Why? The answer is that a theory is accepted not on the grounds of its certitude, but on the grounds that nobody has yet disproved it. "The best anyone can say of a theory is that it has not been disproved." (Ferguson, page 26) This principle forms the basis of modern scientific knowledge. This same principle, ironically, is considered a fallacy in classical philosophy: *argumentum ad ignorantium*, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. An argument that says something is true because nobody has proved it false, or that something is false because nobody has proved it true, is held to be invalid according to this rule of fallacy.
The Peer-Review Cartel (study byRajiv Malhotra)
Now that India has been free for a number of decades from British rule, researchers, historians, and archeologists can all begin to take a new look at the true history of India. We can have a more unbiased view of the numerous new findings that keep cropping up that give an increasingly accurate understanding of how ancient and how advanced was the Indian Vedic civilization. Now more than ever there is a serious lack of support and opposing evidence for the theories that were made popular by the British, such as the Aryan Invasion Theory, or that it was the invading Muslims who gave India the great contributions to Indian art, music, or even architecture with the construction of such buildings as the Taj Mahal, Delhi's Red Fort, Kutab Minar, and other buildings throughout India. With the newer and more accurate historical findings, many of these ideas are falling apart like a house of cards.
Let us remember that the Aryan Invasion Theory, which was developed only within the last 200 years by the British and German Sanskritists and Indologists, presents the idea that the Vedic Aryans were not from India but invaded India from outside around 1500 BC or so. This, along with giving credit to other invaders for India's distinguished achievements, such as its great buildings and other cultural developments, was a work of false history and propaganda to help justify the continued rule of the British over Indians, since the Indians themselves were supposed to have invaded India thousands of years earlier. Indians were, after all, to be dominated so the British could continue to rape the land of its natural resources. Yet, some of these ideas remain the hypothesis for which all of Indian history is based, at least among those still influenced by what's left of the British form of indoctrination.
However, these days there is much more evidence being presented by newer, younger and bolder researchers that show the falsity of these antiquated ideas. Furthermore, there are also more questions that are no longer answered by the old beliefs about India's history and the Aryan Invasion Theory. The theories of the old scholars are being overturned.
We also see that new students of archeology and history are hesitant to accept these ideas in the face of the newer findings and evidence that keep being discovered, such as the latest discovery that ancient Indian civilization could date back to 9,000 years ago (January, 2002).
I've even talked to some students who are informed about the truth of Indian history and archeology who confronted their professors about the outdated inaccuracies and overtly misleading information that they were teaching in schools and universities. One professor admitted that it was wrong, but she had to teach it because it was in the book the college was using and that's what she had to teach.
I've even had friends discuss with educated Muslims the idea of the Taj Mahal not being built by the Muslim invaders but only capturing it, and they readily agreed that anyone who really knew their history would admit this was the case. There was no argument with this. India had the mathematics (Shulba Shastras) and architectural treatises and abilities, along with knowledgeable craftsmen, to have built such structures, while the invading Muslims did not bring such knowledge and facility. In fact, the chronicle of Al Biruni, who accompanied Mahmoud Ghazni, relates the surprise and awe of the Muslim invaders to see such buildings. Thus, they had to have already been in existence.
It is interesting that the common laypersons are quicker to see the logic in the new research findings and in considering these new architectural discoveries than the academic scholars. The academicians who cling to such ideas tend not to write more books justifying what they teach, but seem to spend more time on trying to debunk, criticize or discredit the new findings or theories that seem more relevant and able to answer or put to rest the age-old questions. Just a few of these questions include: Where is the pre-Aryan language that existed if the people of India were not part of the Vedic culture? What existed in India before the Vedic culture, if it was brought by invaders? If the Vedic Aryans invaded the Indus region after 1500 BC, then how is it that the Vedas glorify the greatness of the Sarasvati River which is known to have dried up no later than 1800 BC? How did the Vedic Aryans know of the Sarasvati River at all, unless they were already there and a part of the advanced Vedic culture from thousands of years ago? How is it that Arabic and European countries were able to make advancements in mathematics only after they learned the numeric system that originated in India, now called the Arabic numerals, with its unique symbol of zero? Why, when we seriously look at the way the area of India, the Middle East and Europe developed, it appears that the advanced nature of society came from India rather than from outside and then back into it? When we read in the Puranas of the advanced organizational nature of the Vedic cities and their fabulous palaces and buildings such as in Dwaraka as found in the Bhagavat Purana, why should we think that India had no amazing structures before the Muslim invaders entered the country? Should we think that ancient Indians only lived in forests and tents? That's what it seems many academicians would have us believe. Anyway, these and other questions have not and cannot be answered by the old ideas on India's history such as the Aryan Invasion Theory.
So it is unfortunate that many of these academics still hold on to these ideas as the basis of their views. I was writing to one linguist in Australia who was opposing my presentations on Indian history and wanted me to admit the validity of his concepts. He was completely one-sided and very defensive. I didn't understand why until I realized he was defending himself personally. I stopped writing when it became obvious that the basis of his arguments came down to the Aryan Invasion Theory. The reason why some of these academics take this so personally is that they have the most to lose. The basis of their job, or their own identity, and their value to society and the whole basis of everything they thought they knew about history becomes threatened if it is proved that what they have been teaching is false. Nonetheless, on what substantial evidence did that linguist base his idea of history? Most of it is all circumstantial, and for a time the idea of the Aryan origins was changing with great rapidity at every new discovery, as it still does. Thus, there is no reason why they should not take a good look at the alternative suggestions and new evidence that is being presented lately, and which show that things could not have happened their way.
The fact of the matter is, unfortunately, and as we can plainly see, much historical analysis is but a big ego trip; theories and opinions meant to do little more than support the premise of the superiority of one culture over another. There is a need to take a new look at reason and cultural development without this sort of interference of ego.
Now more than ever before truth is prevailing, and the corruption of the British and Muslim theories and stories that have been put forth to demean India and the Indian race and its Vedic culture, is being recognized on an increasing scale. For this reason, the academics that still cling to such theories as the Aryan invasion are a dying breed. Maybe then we can be free from their closed-minded prejudice that came from the theories and attempted validations meant to do nothing but support the premise of the superiority of the European and Caucasian races over the darker skinned Indian people.
Eventually, truth prevails. And after a few hundred years of ideas that were purposely contrived to demean the culture and history of India, we are now learning that the truth is quite different, and India was more advanced than the old British theories give it credit. And we can see that these old theories are falling by the way side.
The threat to the Aryan Invasion Theory is coming as a surprise only to those who have not kept up with, or outrightly rejected, all the new evidence that is continually being uncovered, and all the new questions that cannot be substantiated by such concepts as the Aryan Invasion Theory. Thus, it is a revolution that is going in like a needle and out like a plow to propose that the Aryan Invasion is but a fictional account, and that the Muslims who invaded India merely captured the major monuments of India without really building them.
So these proposals for rejecting the European conception of history are no different than the archeological evidence that was presented in Drutakarma's and Sadaputa's book on "Forbidden Archeology." Some people will accept it, or even applaud it, but many will call it preposterous. Of course, when their whole identity, their occupation of teaching, and their whole value system is being threatened, naturally they have no other option than to disagree or discredit. Many examples of people being discredited for their newer findings have already been presented in "Forbidden Archeology." And it is a real shame that true understanding is thrown out when it does not mix with the theories of the establishment. Their bias is there from the beginning.
As time goes on, more and more evidence will accumulate to show the truth of India's Vedic history. As the evidence mounts, the old theories will slip away and anyone still clinging to such ideas as the Aryan invasion or the false history of India's architectural structures will only look foolish. It is taking some time to reveal this truth, but out of all the cultures of the world, it is India that has best withstood the tests of time and remains the oldest living culture in the world. And this is not due to remaining dependent on the views of outsiders who think they know India's culture and history better than Indians, or those who still are influenced by the stories of India from invaders and dominators who disliked or even despised India and its people. Now is the time for those of us connected with, or who appreciate, India's historical and Vedic culture to work to reveal the true and advanced nature of India, which was already in existence before the credits of its wonders were attempted to be taken by outsiders.
Q: In term so modern scientific reasoning, it can be explained that matter or substance is essentially mankind and all the material worlds. Gravity, which is related to matter is essentially the power of God. Gravity is omnipotent, omnipresent and omnivalent. So in my scientific opinion, I believe, that God and gravitation are synonymous. Could you comment?
A: The Vedic opinion, although also scientific, is slightly different. The Vedic science operates under opposite paradigm from the modern science: it is God-centered, whereas the modern science tries to explain away God. If we are to judge by the results, the modern science tends to aggravate the problems rather than to solve them.
Mankind, or human being, is composed not only of matter (body) as you say but also of an immaterial substance (jiva, sometimes called "soul", but this term is not precisely defined in Western philosophies/theologies). This substance is us, or "I", whereas the material body we call "ours". To understand their difference is the first step in Vedic education.
Yes, gravitation is a power of God and thus it is different from God. According to the Vedic view, sakti (energy) and saktiman (source of energy) are both different and non-different. Example often given is that of milk: milk is the energy of cow, thus in one sense it is non-different from cow; in other sense it is not the cow. Milk depends on the cow - there is no milk without a cow but there are cows without milk. So shakti is subordinate to its source.
Gravitation is one of the energies of God. If we speak about the law of gravitation, then there must naturally be a lawmaker. To claim that something appears by chance or out of nothing is unscientific. It cannot be demonstrated or proven. In this case the lawmaker is God Himself, the Supreme Person (Purusottama).
Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) 3.13.42:
O Lord, for the residential purposes of all inhabitants, both moving and nonmoving, this earth is Your wife, and You are the supreme father. We offer our respectful obeisances unto You, along with mother earth, in whom You have invested Your own potency, just as an expert sacrificer puts fire in the arani wood.
The so-called law of gravitation which sustains the planets is described herein as the potency of the Lord. This potency is invested by the Lord in the way that an expert sacrificial brahmana puts fire in the arani wood by the potency of Vedic mantras. By this arrangement the world becomes habitable for both the moving and nonmoving creatures. The conditioned souls, who are residents of the material world, are put in the womb of mother earth in the same way the seed of a child is put by the father in the womb of the mother. This conception of the Lord and the earth as father and mother is explained in Bhagavad-gita (14.4). Conditioned souls are devoted to the motherland in which they take their birth, but they do not know their father. The mother is not independent in producing children. Similarly, material nature cannot produce living creatures unless in contact with the supreme father, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Srimad-Bhagavatam teaches us to offer obeisances unto the mother along with the Father, the Supreme Lord, because it is the Father only who impregnates the mother with all energies for the sustenance and maintenance of all living beings, both moving and nonmoving.
This particular energy, gravitation, belongs to a form of the Lord called Sankarsana.
My dear Lord, You are the origin of the subtle material ingredients, the master of all integration as well as the master of all disintegration, the predominating Deity named Sankarsana, and the master of all intelligence, known as the predominating Deity Pradyumna. Therefore, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You.
The whole universe is maintained by the integrating power of the Supreme Lord, who is known in that capacity by the name Sankarsana. The material scientists may have discovered the law of gravity, which maintains the integration of objects within the material energy, yet the master of all integration can create devastation by the disintegrating blazing fire emanating from His mouth. A description of this can be found in the Eleventh Chapter of Bhagavad-gita, wherein the universal form of the Lord is described. The master of integration is also the destroyer of this world by virtue of His disintegrating energy. Sankarsana is the master of integration and disintegration, whereas Pradyumna, another feature of Lord Vasudeva, is responsible for universal growth and maintenance. The word suksmaya is significant because within this gross material body there are subtle material bodies - namely mind, intelligence and ego. The Lord in His different features (Vasudeva, Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Sankarsana) maintains both the gross and subtle material elements of this world. As mentioned in Bhagavad-gita, the gross material elements are earth, water, fire, air and ether, and the subtle material elements are mind, intelligence and ego. All of them are controlled by the Supreme Personality of Godhead as Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, and this will be further explained in the following verse.
Names of Romani tribes such as the Machavaya, the Lovari, the Churari, the Gitanoes, the Rudari, the Manush are distinctly Sanskrit based.
The Roma are a distinct ethnic minority, distinguished at least by Rom blood and the Romani, or Romanes, language, whose origins began on the Indian subcontinent over one thousand years ago. No one knows for certain why the original Roma began their great wandering from India to Europe and beyond, but they have dispersed worldwide, despite persecution and oppression through the centuries.
There have been several great migrations, or diaspora, in Romani history. The first was the initial dispersal from India about a thousand years ago. Some scholars suggest there may have been several migrations from India. The second great migration, known as the Aresajipe, was from southwest Asia into Europe in the 14th century. The third migration was from Europe to the Americas in the 19th and early 20th centuries after the abolition of Romani slavery in Europe in 1856-1864. Some scholars contend there is a great migration occurring today since the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe.
The Romani language is of Indo-Aryan origin and has many spoken dialects, but the root language is ancient Punjabi, or Hindi. The spoken Romani language is varied, but all dialects contain some common words in use by all Roma. Based on language, Roma are divided into three populations. They are the Domari of the Middle East and Eastern Europe (the Dom), the Lomarvren of Central Europe (the Lom), and the Romani of Western Europe (the Rom). There is no universal written Romani language in use by all Roma. However, the codification of a constructed, standardized dialect is currently in progress by members of the Linguistic Commission of the International Romani Union.
There are four Rom "tribes", or nations (natsiya), of Roma: the Kalderash, the Machavaya, the Lovari, and the Churari. Other groups include the Gitanoes (Calé), the Sinti, the Rudari, the Manush, the Boyash, the Ungaritza, the Luri, the Bashalde, the Romungro, and the Xoraxai. The first European descriptions of the Roma upon their entering Europe emphasized their dark skin and black hair. Through integration with Europeans over the centuries, Roma today can also be found with light skin and hair.
The spoked-wheel image represents a sixteen-spoked chakra, adopted at the First World Romani Congress in London in 1971 as the international Romani symbol. The chakra is a link to the Roma's Indian origins (the 24-spoked Ashok Chakra is in the center of the national flag of India, the Tiranga) and represents movement and the original Creation. The green and blue flag with a red chakra in the center was adopted as the Romani flag, as well as the motto "Opre Roma" (Roma Arise). The song "Gelem, gelem," also known as "Djelem, djelem" and "Opre Roma," was selected as the Romani anthem. April 8 was proclaimed International Romani Day. There have been four World Romani Congresses to date. Among the chief goals of these meetings are the standardization of the Romanes language, reparations from World War II, improvements in civil rights and education, preserving Romani culture, and international recognition of the Roma as a national minority of Indian origin. Among the chief Roma organisations, the International Romani Union has consultative status to the United Nations Social and Economic Council.
The Romani people have been known by many names, including Gypsies (or Gipsies), Tsigani, Tzigane, Cigano, Zigeuner, and others. Most Roma have always referred to themselves by their tribal names, or as Rom or Roma, meaning "Man" or "People." (Rom, Roma, Romani, and Romaniya should not be confused with the country of Romania, or the city of Rome. These names have separate, distinct etymological origins and are not related.) The use of Rom, Roma, Romani, or the double "r" spelling, is preferred in all official communications and legal documents. In response to the recommendations put forth by Roma associations, the Council of Europe has approved the use of "Rroma (Gypsies)" in its official documents (CLRAE Recommendation 11 - June 1995). The trend is to eliminate the use of derogatory, pejorative and offensive names, such as Gypsies, and to be given proper respect by the use of the self-appelation of Roma, or Rroma.
|Please support us:|