Yoga is Hindu. Period.

[Anonymous]

PP said

"Linguistically the RV is many centuries older than the Brâhmanas and the Mahâbhârata. Palaeoastronomy (astrophysicist N. Achar) has shown that astronomical references in the Shatapatha Brâhmana are true for the date 3000-2950. Several astronomical references in the epic are true for 3100-3000! Thus the RV must be from about 3500 and before. "

but see


https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/hindutva-crazies-on-the-dating-of-the-rig-vedas/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#Criticism

[Anonymous]

Okay, at this point the racist PP (yes PP, I can call you racist if you insist on calling people like us "Hindutva", especially if you're arguing the validity of race-based theory while trying to couch it in linguistic terms and then backtracking, especially if you are doing so in a thread about the cultural appropriation of the religious practice of yoga) clearly did not read the academic articles I linked 4 pages back.

I was going to write a long response. I shortened it because I frankly don't have enough whisky on hand to deal with people like you.

The Aryan theory is almost NEVER argued in exclusively linguistic terms. N.E.V.E.R.

I don't care if you think you're exclusively arguing about whether or not Sanskrit is an Indo-European or Syrian language. If you read my posts, I actually mentioned that the Vedic pantheon (which is what your precious articles are referring to you, but oh look at that, you don't know enough about Hinduism to realize what I was saying) was supplanted by the largely Puranic pantheon, and the Yoga Sutras were written after the Puranic pantheon took center stage in Hinduism.

In other words, yoga took center stage with the advent of Krishna and Shiva. Puranic Gods. The key texts that teach yoga, that every modern practitioner of yoga derives their practice from, are texts written in worship of Krishna and/or Shiva.

So what the fuck is your point, exactly? You think only "Hindutva" people have refuted the Aryan migration theory and the refutation of said theory is based only on ideology? I quoted a list of scholarly articles - not a saffron turban to be found amongst them - refuting it.

You think migrational patterns of the ancient world have any bearing on cultural appropriation today, or dissolve the very existence of the concept of cultural appropriation? So if we all came out of Africa in the first place, are you going to use that historical migration as an argument that black people don't have cultures, civilizations, ethno-religious identites (hello Yoruba) and experience systematic prejudice or have those religious traditions warped and appropriated into something else entirely? (hello vodou)

Let's be perfectly honest: You're just pissed that we called you out on cultural appropriation because having your white privilege pointed out pushes your buttons.

[Anonymous]

ok

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous

There's more and a different pp gave you plenty of scientific and academic links, including DNA evidence. But hey, what does that matter when there are still some people saying their had to be an Aryan invasion just because I say so.

Are there some in academia (many so called "Indologists" that still cling to this outdated theory? For sure. Should we be highlighting their ignorance as a way to argue against the truth? No.



Not so called Indologists. Actual Indologists, linguists, etc. Against mostly Hindutva nationalists. They are not ignorant, they are the leading scholars in their fields.

Your PP is quoting, apparently, from Hindutva websites that cherry pick studies and slant evidence.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and following up on how the Aryan invasion theory is never, ever, ever mentioned in exclusively linguistic terms in popular culture? Yeah. If you 're going to go there, you may also want to acknowledge the fact that it's completely bound up in racial identity in popular culture, not in academic or scientific culture, and this is reflected in the fact that the Persians decided to call their country "Land of the Aryans", despite the fact that "Aryan", in Sanskrit, refers to nobility of character or social status, never racial origin. To this day, Arabs and Iranians think they're "Aryans", as do a bunch of white supremacists.

So you and previous PP bringing up Aryan invasion vs Aryan migration in a thread where 1) yoga appeared as a system after the early migration periods of Vedic India, and hence not related, and 2) we are discussing racist attitudes, white privilege and cultural appropriation...is just amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, at this point the racist PP (yes PP, I can call you racist if you insist on calling people like us "Hindutva", especially if you're arguing the validity of race-based theory while trying to couch it in linguistic terms and then backtracking, especially if you are doing so in a thread about the cultural appropriation of the religious practice of yoga) clearly did not read the academic articles I linked 4 pages back.

I was going to write a long response. I shortened it because I frankly don't have enough whisky on hand to deal with people like you.

The Aryan theory is almost NEVER argued in exclusively linguistic terms. N.E.V.E.R.

I don't care if you think you're exclusively arguing about whether or not Sanskrit is an Indo-European or Syrian language. If you read my posts, I actually mentioned that the Vedic pantheon (which is what your precious articles are referring to you, but oh look at that, you don't know enough about Hinduism to realize what I was saying) was supplanted by the largely Puranic pantheon, and the Yoga Sutras were written after the Puranic pantheon took center stage in Hinduism.

In other words, yoga took center stage with the advent of Krishna and Shiva. Puranic Gods. The key texts that teach yoga, that every modern practitioner of yoga derives their practice from, are texts written in worship of Krishna and/or Shiva.

So what the fuck is your point, exactly? You think only "Hindutva" people have refuted the Aryan migration theory and the refutation of said theory is based only on ideology? I quoted a list of scholarly articles - not a saffron turban to be found amongst them - refuting it.

You think migrational patterns of the ancient world have any bearing on cultural appropriation today, or dissolve the very existence of the concept of cultural appropriation? So if we all came out of Africa in the first place, are you going to use that historical migration as an argument that black people don't have cultures, civilizations, ethno-religious identites (hello Yoruba) and experience systematic prejudice or have those religious traditions warped and appropriated into something else entirely? (hello vodou)

Let's be perfectly honest: You're just pissed that we called you out on cultural appropriation because having your white privilege pointed out pushes your buttons.

We are talking about two different things. One is cultural appropriation. It happens, all the time, to all religions, that is the case even in Sanskrit originated on Mars.

The other is the Out of India theory, which is junk history, and is propagated MOSTLY by Hindutva advocates. It is not the scholarly consensus.

And yes, AFAICT the language was brought by people migrating. But that does not make it a racist theory. Good luck using that to shut up POVs you disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Your PP is quoting, apparently, from Hindutva websites that cherry pick studies and slant evidence.

Yes honey. Definitely going to let Harvard know that their study debunking the Aryan invasion theory was actually a brainwashing experiment by Hindutva fanatics.

[Anonymous]

"If you 're going to go there, you may also want to acknowledge the fact that it's completely bound up in racial identity in popular culture, not in academic or scientific culture, "


I am interested in the scientific question.

[Anonymous]

We are talking about two different things. One is cultural appropriation. It happens, all the time, to all religions, that is the case even in Sanskrit originated on Mars.

Yeah, at this point I can't take you seriously, as I wasted way too much breath explaining what cultural appropriation actually is, and I notice you couldn't refute any of it. You don't know how it works, you don't know what it is, you couldn't respond to a single side example I gave either in my recent post (where I mentioned vodou, which is an African Traditional religion, and the logical error in diluting cultural, religious and ethnic identity to the extent where you stretch as far back as pre-historical or ancient world migration pattern). So if I want to call you a racist in denial about your white privilege, I will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your PP is quoting, apparently, from Hindutva websites that cherry pick studies and slant evidence.

Yes honey. Definitely going to let Harvard know that their study debunking the Aryan invasion theory was actually a brainwashing experiment by Hindutva fanatics.

I see what you did there. Again it is Aryan Migration.

And the Harvard study was a genetic study that was not probative of whether or not there was a migration. It is subject to differing interpretations. And there are other studies showing differing results, as is common in genetic studies.

Your dishonesty is showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We are talking about two different things. One is cultural appropriation. It happens, all the time, to all religions, that is the case even in Sanskrit originated on Mars.

Yeah, at this point I can't take you seriously, as I wasted way too much breath explaining what cultural appropriation actually is, and I notice you couldn't refute any of it. You don't know how it works, you don't know what it is, you couldn't respond to a single side example I gave either in my recent post (where I mentioned vodou, which is an African Traditional religion, and the logical error in diluting cultural, religious and ethnic identity to the extent where you stretch as far back as pre-historical or ancient world migration pattern). So if I want to call you a racist in denial about your white privilege, I will.

You can call me whatever you want, but it is not persuasive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your PP is quoting, apparently, from Hindutva websites that cherry pick studies and slant evidence.

Yes honey. Definitely going to let Harvard know that their study debunking the Aryan invasion theory was actually a brainwashing experiment by Hindutva fanatics.

No, the cherry picking of that particular study, and the interpretation of it you give, is from the Hindu fanatics.

[Anonymous]

BTW, thanks for the link to the paper ABOUT the genetic study

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2009/09/aryan-invasion-theory-myth-large-harvard-study/

here is more from that link

"I am sure that the die hard Secular Perverts in India and their foreign sympathizers will not stop from their nonsensical rhetoric…. but I guess they should be challenged to bring out some solid proof instead of folk-lores, stories and rhetoric.
Its time to rewrite the Indian History books! And this time, it should be based on scientifically established history and not fictionalized one. Those stories were interesting… but no more."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your PP is quoting, apparently, from Hindutva websites that cherry pick studies and slant evidence.

Yes honey. Definitely going to let Harvard know that their study debunking the Aryan invasion theory was actually a brainwashing experiment by Hindutva fanatics.

No, the cherry picking of that particular study, and the interpretation of it you give, is from the Hindu fanatics.

I'm not sure you understand what cherry-picking means? Correct me if I'm mistaken: are you writing a peer-reviewed article with academic sources cited from both sides of the issue at question in your argument...or are you only citing sources that support your position?

And what sources did you cite in your argument, by the way? Blogspot and magazines? Wow, you really put in some effort there pal.

I see what you did there. Again it is Aryan Migration.

And the Harvard study was a genetic study that was not probative of whether or not there was a migration. It is subject to differing interpretations. And there are other studies showing differing results, as is common in genetic studies.

Your dishonesty is showing.

To be honest, I quoted that Harvard article originally to refute an earlier PP who argued the Aryan invasion theory. I wasn't arguing the migration theory for the out-of-India position. I don't give a shit about the out-of-India position because it's not relevant to yoga. I do give a shit about the Aryan invasion theory vs the Aryan migration theory, because that argument is being used to attack the origins of yoga. Thanks for playing though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, thanks for the link to the paper ABOUT the genetic study

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2009/09/aryan-invasion-theory-myth-large-harvard-study/

here is more from that link

"I am sure that the die hard Secular Perverts in India and their foreign sympathizers will not stop from their nonsensical rhetoric…. but I guess they should be challenged to bring out some solid proof instead of folk-lores, stories and rhetoric.
Its time to rewrite the Indian History books! And this time, it should be based on scientifically established history and not fictionalized one. Those stories were interesting… but no more."

Once again, you have no idea why I quoted that article in the first place, so I direct you to my earlier post. I'm not even talking about the "out of India" theory.