For a longer version of this paper, see www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/zoro.pdf Subhash

19 Jul 26 2003: boota comments on Kak has an agenda and is NEVER HONEST. Though he belongs to the "Kashmiri Brahmin clan who are known for their intellect and honesty" Bhhota Singh Lance Naike Jamadar Havaldar ************************************** Eastern Command bot polish hua ..??? since when??????? i have SEEN.............kACHRU rAINA cHACKOO kAUL sHARMA bHATT gUPTA bHAN ...nONE OF THEM WERE WORTH SECOND LOOK FOR ANY TRAITS???????? mYTHS MYTHS MYTHS ..THATS WHY iNDI never was a SINGLE country ...

Idol is ideal to motivate the multitudes!

Kak has an agenda and is NEVER HONEST. Though he belongs to the Kashmiri Brahmin clan who are known for their intellect and honesty. Idol worship is a part of the Hindu and ancient Iranian culture, it never came from outside as Kak wants subtly to plant into the Indian culture. Kak is always trying to undermine the Indian civilization also Kak must be informed that the Aryan Race has its origins in India. Sardar Boota Singh Mazhabi-Sikh Read below about idol worship in India: Eklavya Near the ashrama of Drona, where Arjuna and his brothers used to take lessons in various arts, there lived a small bright boy, shudra by caste (lower caste). His name was Eklavya. He had great desire to learn the art of archery from Dronacharya. But his mother had told him that as a shudra, Acharya Drona would not accept Eklavya as his disciple. It was futile to dream of such a privilege. But the boy was not be put off, his determination knew no bounds. Near his house, under a tree Eklavya installed a clay idol of Dronacharya that he worshiped as his Guru! Daily, morning and evening, this devotee put flower and natural perfumes in front of this image and took Self-Lessons in the art of bow and arrow. The talented young Eklavya soon acquired high knowledge in archery. He attributed his success to his Guru Dronacharya. One day, as it happened, Acharya Drona and Arjuna were passing near the hut of Eklavya. It was pleasant and peaceful afternoon and people were taking rest. But the tranquility and silence was broken by constant barking of a dog. Eklavya did not like this, and therefore, he shut the mouth of the dog with an arrow! Dronacharya and Arjuna were surprised to see the dog with his mouth sealed with an arrow! Naturally the curious Arjuna asked his Gurudev as to who could have done this delicate job. Even Dronacharya was amazed and knew the archer must be exceptionally skilled artist. They decided to trace this skillful fellow and reached the spot where Eklavya was practicing wonders with his bow and arrow in front of the clay image of Drona. It took no time for Dronacharya to understand the situation. He realized that Eklavya was superior to Arjuna in some respects. Dronacharya loved Arjuna very much and had declared him to be the best archer on the earth. Hence the Guru thought for awhile and came to a decision to remove Eklavya as a competitor to Arjuna. Dronacharya went to Eklavya and said, "O young man, who has taught you such wonderful skills in archery! Who is your Guru?" Seeing the Guru in front of him, the boy Eklavya was more that overjoyed and said, "Why, O Gurudev, this all is your grace! I worship you as my Guru. Look you are there in that image!" Dronacharya was pleased with the dedication of Eklavya, and said, "I bless you my son. But as is customary, won't you give me my fees - Guru-Dakshina!" [It is customary in India to give to the Guru whatever he demands as his fees - Guru-Dakshina for the knowledge the Guru has given to the disciple.] Eklavya was overwhelmed to see Dronacharya had accepted him as his disciple! Out he said, "O Honourable Teacher, whatever you ask, this humble disciple of yours will try his utmost to offer you as Guru-Dakshina! I am blessed." And now comes a very touching and pathetic incidence in Mahabharata. Guru Drona said, "O Eklavya, I am pleased with your respect for Guru. I want the thumb of your right hand as my fees- Guru-Dakshina." The trees and atmosphere around stood still for a minute! Even Arjuna was stunned on listening to the unusual and almost cruel demand of his Guru. To ask for the thumb of an archer was equivalent to almost kill him! How could Dronacharya demand such a heavy prize from one disciple to protect the honour of the other! But Eklavya had no such remorse. Unruffled and with due humility, cheerfully and without protest, he cut his right thumb and placed at the feet of Dronacharya. Gods in the heaven silently praised the greatness of Eklavya's sacrifice.

Dr.Kak, Another very interesting topic to study would be Roman mithraism. It is said that during the first century AD mithraism was very popular among the romans and christanity was still in infancy. the mithra-sun connection, baby sun rising from a rock-like egg(martanda) are very interesting. for more information please got to www.mithraism.org

As time passes Kak seems to get more honest, though he still continues to be a liar to further his personal interests. Yes indeed both India and Iran have had a similar past and have close cultural and ethnic bonds. But to mention that Indians (Kashmiris) came from Iran is not true. Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi is honest and correct when he mentions the Aryan Race came from India. I agree the Aryan Race may have originated in Iran at the same time also. This inscription from ancient Iran is proof enough: I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings The king of many countries and many peoples The king of this expansive land, The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid, Persian, the son of a Persian, 'Aryan', from the Aryan race

sorry, my post should read that hapta-hendu is one of the sixteen lands which precede the parsis' historical habitat in persia. In fact none of the proper persian lands are mentioned in this decisive list; only regions of india and gandhara. Considering that Dr. kak has strongly argued that the kassites, mittani, and the Pontic Sindoi all emanated from Indian populations, the parsi migration fits into an overarching pattern. ofcourse, the parsis were to retreat back into india after the "cultural transformation of Iran" but this movement as well indicates the civilizational center.

Sb's comments below deriving the vedic tradition out of "Indo-iranian" are nonsensical. We know that Avesta list the hapta-Hendu as the second land alloted to the Parsis, out of which they they emigrated to their historical residence in Persia. Hapta-Hendu is synonymous with Sapata-Sindhu in India. The Avesta also posits the original home as araiyanam vaejo which is synonymous with aryvarta (interior India). So clearly SB has her sequences mixed up. the same east-to-west gradient is also corroborated by the Vedic literature when it enumerates the rivers of India starting with ganga-yamuna and proceeding to saraswati-sindhu-sutudri-... It cannot be casually dismissed when two separate traditions, one organic and the other reactionary, posit an identical civilizational center.

Subhash: As I said earlier, articles like this foster discussion on important topics, such as the developing (or rather well-developed) thesis of IE (in particular, to be technical, Indo-Aryan**) migration into the Indus Valley. So let’s move on to some important clarifications I wish to point out in your discussion here. [**This technical term is used to describe the branch of Indo-Iranian migrating into the Indus valley; let’s not get side-tracked into discussions of race here.] § Regarding Avestan/Vedic, and disregarding questions of what fed what, it is more important for folks to be aware of the early Indo-Iranian beginnings of both Vedic and Avestan cultures, which development is reflected likewise in linguistic ancestry of the Vedic and Avestan languages. It may be important to mention that the Avesta, as recovered, is only a fragment (about 25% or so) of the full work (or body or works), which was lost in the cultural transformation of Iran. The organization and the time clues provided by both the Avesta and the Vedas point to their coeval nature [structural and supporting evidence continues to refine the timelines and consensus is growing]. Of course, the Vedas continued to develop as the influence of Vedic culture grew, and the rise of Islam arrested such developments in the Avesta. § An important point is that the Avesta as known represents the old Iranian branch of the older Indo-Iranian religion/culture as adapted by Zarathusthra. [To provide an analogy: consider the situation if nothing else was known about the Vedas, but some works of the Samkya school, along with some tantalizing Vedic threads here and there, hinting at a greater body of work.] § The Vedic Asura[Avestan Ahura]/Vedic Deva[Avestan Daeva] polarization is well known, old and complex. Also very clear is that an Avestan-Vedic inversion is too simplistic an explanation. The old equipoise of the Asura/Deva (that is both were gods/goddesses, and had equal status in early Vedic/Avestan, and thus in the early conjoined culture) changes character over an immense period of time, as the Vedic and Avestan take different paths. In each culture some Asuras and Devas are elevated, and some other Asuras and Devas are downgraded. So a strict inversion is an oversimplification. § So I’m very puzzled by your “crucial evidence” of the “three-way division” of Asura/Deva/Daeva(?). And more puzzled by their linkage to the concept of the gunas, which is obviously a much later Vedic development, and thus seems like a big and unnecessary stretch. This goes seriously against consensus opinion. One should not confound much later developments (such as the possible Kashmir confusion of deva/daeva, which as you yourself point out could be a result of much later Persian migration (Old Persian, which is not very old by Avestan standards, has Daiva instead, which makes this confusion even more probable)) with the hoary, fundamental, established Asura-Deva axis of the Vedas and the Avesta. I think your characterization of Puranic gloss simplifying this into this dichotomy does not keep well. [But your approach is a whole lot better than Puranically glossing over much earlier Vedic evidence, which has become a rather tedious way of fashioning untenable theories by the zealous.] I think it’s crucial to remember that any settlement in Kashmir could have had very little or no influence on early Vedic, and even less on Avestan, since, to make it clear, it has to be a retroactive and overwhelming sort of influence, that rewrites, in a manner of speaking, a lot of what came before (and a lot and lot did). Regards.

Hi Mr.Kak, The Vedas were narrated to the Rishis from God himself. In this picture why are the Atharvans credited with the Atharva Veda? Who are or were the Atharvans? What is the earliest existing Veda related document existing currently? What form is it in and where is it? Would greatly appreciate your answer. Sriram