Aryan Diffusion (Part 3)


“If we were to occupy India, the very first preoccupation of our administrators would be to set up countless Commissions to enquire into the conditions of every aspect of human activity with a view to their amelioration; our Universities, full of solicitude for the welfare of the natives, would immediately open sister organisations all over the country; and we should finish up by quickly proving that India has a civilisation older than our own!” – Adolf Hitler

Indus Valley civilization only began to be archeologically discovered in the 1920s. Prior, it was presumed by Western academia that the swastika, and hence Aryan blood, was brought to India by the Vedics – a misconception reinforced by the Vedics enthusiastically calling themselves ”Aryans” in the Rigveda, which Western academia accepted at face value. Iranian racial theorists, on the other hand, had always disputed this claim, since it was well known to them that the Vedics were nomadic herders prior to settling in India. The Rigveda referred to the enemies of the Vedics as the “Dasyu”, yet in Iran it was the “Dahyu” (cognate with “Dasyu”) who were considered Aryan on account of being a settled people, as opposed to the nomadic Turanians - including the Vedics. Moreover, the Vedic description of the characteristics of the Dasyu such as refusal to perform animal sacrifices, refusal to engage in rituals, and general antipathy towards Vedic tradition, are precisely what we would expect of actual Aryan individuals.

Another clue is the positive Rigvedic connotation of the term “Deva”, referring to the Vedic gods, and negative connotation of the term “Asura”, referring to the pre-Vedic gods that had been deposed by the Deva. This is in direct opposition to Zoroaster (see next page), who used the term “Daeva” (cognate with “Deva”) to refer to the false gods that Aryans must not be deceived into following, so that our loyalty remains solely with the “Ahura” (cognate with “Asura”). The Rigveda specifies that the Deva were gods of natural forces whereas the Asura were the gods of moral forces, and considers the conflict between them to be perpetual and unresolvable. In contrast, Zoroaster promised that the Ahura would ultimately triumph over the Daeva, leading to the end of time. (In English, shards of both opposing worldviews obliviously co-exist in the positive connotation of “divine” (Vedic sense) and negative connotation of “devil” (Zoroaster’s sense), even though etymologically – and indeed theologically – the terms are cognate.)

So, while the lores of both sides recall a Deva vs Asura war, each lore calls its own side “Aryan” and the opposing side “non-Aryan”. One side had to be lying, but which? The question was settled by the unearthing of swastikas from Indus Valley sites, which originated as Neolithic farm sites. This confirmed once and for all that Aryan presence in India began long before even the most generous estimate of when the Vedics could have started arriving. Concurrently, clay figurines of similar age have shown that ‘yoga-like’ physical exercises were practiced by the Indus people, and were certainly not introduced by the Vedics who have traditionally taken credit for it. The same applies to technologies such as canal irrigation and drainage systems, which we now know predated the earliest Vedics by thousands of years despite the Vedics traditionally taking credit for it. Ayurvedic medicine too is mostly a plagiarism of Siddha medicine from the Indus Valley era, but which inverts the elemental profiles for childhood and old age, suggesting either remarkably distinct physiology or otherwise a completely different definition of health. In short, Zoroaster was telling the truth: the Vedics were the impostors.

“The Brahmins who called themselves ârya in India, were no more aware of the real origin of this name and its connection with agricultural labour, than the artist who now speaks of his art as a divine inspiration suspects that the word which he uses was originally applicable only to so primitive an art as that of ploughing.” – Max Mueller

The Vedics stole the swastika from the pre-existing Indus Valley civilization. The word “swastika” (coined by the Vedics) simply means “lucky object”, indicating that the Vedics had no comprehension of its true meaning and hence that (as archaeology now confirms) they had merely acquired the symbol. Moreover, the word is absent from the earliest Rigvedic Sanskrit altogether, indicating that the Vedics only began using it after some time in India. (It is possible that Hitler was aware of this, hence preferring to call the symbol “hakenkreuz” instead.)

By contrast, both Zoroaster and the Jain Tirthankars understood the solar meaning of the swastika. As a symbol it is given much more importance in Jainism than in Brahmanism (or even later Hinduism), with the 7th Tirthankar King Suparshvanath using it as his official emblem. In Indus script, the swastika is an actual logogram, though its original pronounciation is unknown.

Vedic cattle worship (with an emphasis on milk), which permits sacrificing them under certain conditions, is a bad forgery of Jain cattle worship (with an emphasis on ploughing and manure), which does not permit violence against them at all. Later-era Hindu cattle worship is a confused amalgam of the two, but has at least lasted, so that killing cows is illegal in several regions of present-day India.

The Vedics had done their best to cover their tracks by giving “Deva” a fabricated synonym “Sura” and then retconning “Asura” as “A-Sura” to mean “non-Sura”. This concealed the true “Asura” etymology “Asu-Ra” meaning “autonomous light”, whose origin is simply the sun as worshipped by Indus peasants. The effect was to make the Asura followers appear to be the deviants as compared to the Vedics who stood for rectitude. But they had neglected the swastika itself as the clue that would one day expose their lies. From here it is not hard to try to guess who the Vedics were. Krishna was explictly described as a herder and an archer, as typical of a Turanian upbringing. The Vedics were among the most extreme racists ever known to the world. And the names Brahma and Sarasvati, the patriarch and the matriarch of the Devas respectively, bear an uncanny resemblance to the names of another patriarch and matriarch that we know all too well.

External link: Abraham = Brahma; Sarah = Saraswati

“The warlike moral outlook of the Vedic Indians could not but be definitely different from Akhnaton’s, although their conception of the universe might have been more or less the same as his.” – Savitri Devi

This means not only that 19th century theories about “Vedic Aryans” are flat-out wrong, but also that the Ramayana and the Mahabharata reflect Aryan thought only to the extent that pre-Vedic ideas had managed to be infused into a Vedic base. The Jain versions of the same epics, which predate the Vedic versions, almost certainly better represent the pre-Vedic Aryan worldview. Better still are the tales of the 24 Tirthankars (meaning “Fordmakers”) that are the true focus of Indus Valley mythology.

Which pratik looks more Aryan?

These begin with King Rishabha encountering primitive men and teaching them farming and associated Neolithic crafts such as pottery and weaving, with heavy emphasis on non-violence towards any living being in daily life, thus founding the sun-worshipping Suryavansha (“Sun Dynasty”) in the land that came to be named after his son Bharata (who is the original Suryavanshi Bharata, not to be confused with the later Chandravanshi of the same name whom the Vedics claim the land was named after). This could correspond to the pre-Mehrgarh (possibly Helmand basin) eastward spread of wheat, barley and other crops to the Indus basin indigenously populated by turtle/alligator-hunting populations collectively known as Vanavasi (meaning “forest dwellers”), although Rishabha also pioneered the cultivation of local crops, hence his title Ikshvaku derived from “ikshu-” meaning “sugarcane”. Rishabha organized society into two professional groups, the vaishya (peasantry) and the kshatriya (military). Those not qualified in either profession were classified as shudra (labour). This was not a caste system, as there were no prohibitions for shudra to become qualified, nor a hierarchical class system, as there was no notion of pre-eminence of one group over another, but simply economic specialization. Having thus established for all the villages self-sufficiency in basic material needs, Rishabha promptly renounced his throne to concentrate on ascetic practice and set an example for others to do the same, finally achieving transcendence as the 1st Tirthankar.

“An active life, which was always demanded as an ineluctable duty of the world renouncing thinker, gave place more and more to the aim of journeying into the universe of the soul. This transition to the pure light of knowledge led to the noble attempt to overcome nature through reason. There is no doubt that many Indians, as individual personalities and aristocrats, were successful in this quest. But for later men only the teaching remained, devoid of its vital racial prerequisite.” – Alfred Rosenberg

Each of the subsequent Tirthankars inhabit societies apparently spread across an increasingly wide land area, and increasingly fallen from the original society of Rishabha despite textual guidance from the Purvas that Rishabha had left behind. Archaeology suggests that the subject Vanavasi populations (whose unassimilated relatives are speculated to include groups such as the Nihali in present-day India around the Narmada-Tapti basin, the Vedda in present-day Sri Lanka, and the Ban Rajas in present-day Nepal), never took the Suryavansha worldview to heart; on the contrary, they wore it away from the Suryavanshi themselves. For example, the Neolithic practice of burying farm animals in the same graves as humans never spread beyond a small area in the northwest, and was eventually discontinued even at the sites where it was once practiced. The primary cause of degeneration was no doubt the steady mixing between Aryan blood and Gentile blood, but the process was likely hastened by Rishabha’s sangha system through which ascetics were economically provided for by non-ascetics (which in practice encourages non-ascetics to massively outnumber ascetics so that each non-ascetic has to donate less). By the time of the 9th Tirthankar King Suvidhinatha, it is stated that the sangha system itself was already breaking down from corruption, and that society was becoming increasingly formalistic and mercantile. Correspondingly, the later Indus Valley civilization as known and referenced in legend by its trading partner Sumer (“Meluhha” might be cognate with “Mehrgarh”; “Aratta” might be cognate with “Harappa”) was a land of riches, luxury and exotic commodities, a far cry from Rishabha’s original intentions of a simple economy just sufficient to comfortably support spiritual practice as should be the true focus of society. Jainism also never succeeded in phasing out the sacrifice-based Sarna tradition indigenous to the Vanavasi, which continued to be practiced around the outskirts of civilization.

Wars against foreign invaders, absent from the myths of earlier times (matching archaeological clues of Indus Valley civilization being relatively peaceful), occurred from the time of the 16th Tirthankar until the time of the 19th Tirthankar, by the end of which the Suryavansha apparently ruled over its defeated foes. (An uprising against the Suryavansha shortly before the time of the 21st Tirthankar was also rapidly quelled.) These foes, who used bows as opposed to the Tirthankars whose signature weapon was the chakram, were almost certainly the branch of Turanians who were later to become the Vedics (the Rigveda glorifies archery; it was only from the Vedic period onwards that archery began to be considered a prestigious skill in India). In other words they had not really been defeated at all, but had simply switched to a more subtle method of taking over.

The 20th and 22nd Tirthankars were not even Suryavanshi, suggesting the extent to which Aryan blood had diffused to appear in other lines. The story of the 22nd Tirthankar Prince Neminatha relates his decision to reject marriage and become an ascetic after seeing the thousands of animals that his family had planned to slaughter for his wedding feast. The arranger of Neminatha’s marriage in the first place was none other than his cousin Krishna (a Chandravanshi), suggesting the rise of Vedic societal position and influence by that time. While many forces attempted to obstruct Neminatha, he was said to have been magically protected by the goddess Durga and thus eventually succeeded in his spiritual quest. (Durga might have been originally based on the 19th Tirthankar Princess Mallinatha – the decisive vanquisher of the earlier Vedic military invasion, hence her prefix ”Durga” (meaning “invincible”) - who had gone through the same ascetic path in her own time, but who was later falsely recast by the Vedics as one of the Deva, despite references to Durga existing even among pre-Vedic Sarna cults.) This struggle for Neminatha’s soul reflects the power shift between the declining Suryavansha and the ascending Vedics: while Neminatha achieved personal salvation as a renunciant, Krishna came to predominate over the very society that Neminatha had renounced.

External link: High-Resolution Analysis of Y-Chromosomal Polymorphisms Reveals Signatures of Population Movements from Central Asia and West Asia into India

Green: Suryavansha; Orange: Suryavansha+Vanavasi; Purple: Vedic incursion 

One legend claims that King Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon had personally visited Neminatha, a friend of his, after the latter had become an ascetic. (Note from the picture that the Mesopotamians had a Turanian problem on their northern frontier too!)

The Vedics perverted division of labour into a hierarchical caste system by encouraging non-shudra to consider themselves better than shudra, among non-shudra encouraging kshatriya (which included Vedics) to consider themselves better than vaishya (which did not include Vedics), and then adding a new, Vedic-only caste - brahmin – to the top of this hierarchy. Their cunning was to give the kshatriya enough dominance over the vaishya and the shudra to more than offset their domination by the brahmin, and the vaishya enough dominance over the shudra to more than offset their domination by the brahmin and the kshatriya. Thus the kshatriya and the vaishya actually became not less but more powerful by submitting to the brahmin, leaving the shudra too weak to resist the three higher castes combined. Finally, the Vedics permitted downward motion between castes based on disgrace, but never upward motion based on merit. This threatened their own members with the possibility of falling from privilege should they betray the Vedic tribe, while preventing non-Vedics from competing against Vedics within the system.

The pre-Vedic concept of karma proposed simply that every willful action no matter how apparently insignificant ultimately produces consequences that permeate the entire universe. This positive proposition gives people hope as individuals to change the world through active struggle. The Vedics twisted it into one of the most heinous ways in all civilization to convince the oppressed to passively submit to oppression: we are supposed to believe that all victims’ lot in this life is evidence of their sinful behaviour during past lives, and therefore thoroughly deserved. Animal slaughter was justified in the same way: we are supposed to believe that all animals must have done something during past lives to deserve being sacrificed/eaten in this life. Bystanders are also thusly persuaded not to try to aid the oppressed: we are supposed to believe that the victims will be reborn in better conditions after, and only after, they have suffered adequately in this life to pay off their predetermined debt of sin, so that aiding them only delays this process from completion.

“We teach India’s starving millions that our common Motherland is their hell, namely the place where the forgotten sins of their past lives have landed them to suffer and purify their souls, — while we exploit their labour … And then we accuse them of anti-patriotism as soon as they become Mohammedans or Christians and escape our control. Shameless hypocrites indeed we are, and we are paying for it.” – Savitri Devi

In this way, Vedic tradition stabilized into Brahmanism. Nonetheless, Indus Valley intellectualism lived on in the minority subculture of Sramanism (which the Vedics referred to as “nastika” meaning “heretic”; a few theorists tenuously consider “Gnostic” to derive from this term, though some non-Sramanist and obviously non-Gnostic schools, e.g. Carvaka, were also included in the “nastika” category) under the informal lead of Jainism, encouraging logical scepticism towards the Vedas and Vedic ritualism, all the while promoting universalist ethics. The 23rd Tirthankar, Prince Parshvanatha of Varanasi, and the 24th Tirthankar, Prince Vardhamana (a.k.a. Mahavira) of Kundagrama, were historical Suryavanshi and famous teachers of Jainism who lived during the Vedic period. The entire ethical dimension of what eventually became later-era Hinduism is owed to Jain influence, to the extent that diluted Jain ideas were able to slowly penetrate Brahmanism over time. (Thus some later-era accounts re-invent Krishna, formerly Neminatha’s rival, as subsequently having a change of heart and becoming Neminatha’s disciple, and hence or otherwise becoming a rival of Indra (one of the Deva) instead, preaching against sacrifices and other rituals, as in the Bhagavat Purana story of the lifting of Govardhan.)

Massive population explosion led to urban shift from the Indus Valley to the Ganges Valley. The switch of cultural centre facilitated the accompanying switch from Jain mythology to Vedic mythology, starting with rewriting Ikshvaku (ie. Rishabha) as merely one of many sons of the fictitious character Manu, thereby allowing the Vedics to claim comparable prestige to the Suryavansha by claiming descent from other sons of Manu.

To this day, Jains remain demographically clustered not too far from the Indus Valley.

But whereas Parshvanatha and Vardhamana merely attempted to reform Vedic tradition, Prince Siddhartha of Kosala disagreed. Descended from a remote eastern Suryavansha splinter line known as the Sakya (hence his later title Sakyamuni – “Sage of the Sakya”), which still spoke Pali (whose linguistic origins predate the Rigveda) instead of Sanskrit (a Rigvedic-derived language), Siddhartha believed that Vedic tradition and especially the caste system could not be compromised with, but had to be overthrown. Having studied with Jain and other “nastika” teachers for years and concluding that it was a complete waste of time, he rapidly radicalized Sramanism into Buddhism (which he called “Arya Dharma” (meaning “the noble way”) in direct challenge to Brahmanism which called itself “Sanatama Dharma” (meaning “the unchanging way”)) as the ideological foundation for revolution against brahmin domination, discarding countless elements from older Sramanist schools – everything from refusal to use retaliatory violence to refusal to wear clothes/shoes – that made its followers ill-suited to practical activism. The Sakya clan was massacred, but those who managed to escape changed their name to Maurya and made an improbable comeback generations later to establish the Maurya Dynasty, during which King Asoka, having completed the territorial unification of India, finally had a chance to implement Buddhist and wider Sramanist ideas in practical social life.

“A hungry human “untouchable” would be turned out of an orthodox Hindu kitchen no less ruthlessly than a hungry animal considered unclean. And among the true Hindus who believe in the efficacy of animal sacrifices, there are possibly still some who would not shrink, on principle, before the idea of human sacrifices, were such to be sanctioned by religious authority. On the other hand, in the “Buddhist period,” and in the days when genuine Buddhist influence was still powerful in the country; when, thanks to the efforts of one or two absolute monarchs who were at the same time exceptional men, kindness was made the keynote of Indian life … real, universal kindness, extended to all that lives, irrespective of species.” – Savitri Devi

External link: The Edicts of King Asoka

The Wheel-Turning Emperor

Needless to say, the population as a whole by this time was of far too low quality in blood to follow the ethically demanding Edicts of Asoka for long. In particular, while a few brahmins sincerely adopted the new worldview, the vast majority did not. Consequently, the Sunga counterrevolution easily succeeded as there was little public opposition to it, following which Brahmanism was promptly reinstated. Pusyamitra Sunga became the first brahmin in history to rule directly as king, marking total Vedic victory over the Suryavansha. (As a matter of trivia, the Maurya still exist to this day as an agricultural caste, with a farming community of their own. The name “Sakya”, on the other hand, has come to be used as an adopted surname by Mahayana monks in place of their own family name, in memory of Siddhartha’s bloodline.)

“Although Asoka might not be described as “an ascetic,” the creed in the name of which he protected all life (and first gave up war) was an ascetic one: a creed of renunciation of this world; a way explicitly intended to lead men out of the endless cycle of birth, death and re-birth.” – Savitri Devi

It should be noted that the Sunga Dynasty outwardly appeared to promote Buddhism alongside the traditional Hindu cults, financing the construction of many new Buddhist shrines and temples, but merely in order to co-opt Buddhism. This heavily corrupted version that de-emphasizes reliance on personal effort (the essence of Sramanism) in favour of reliance on external aid was the version later introduced to Tibet, explaining why present-day Zionists support Tibetan Buddhism over the relatively less corrupted versions exported during the Maurya Dynasty. In most parts of India itself, Buddhism gradually phased out on its own. Even in areas such as Sri Lanka where it was able to remain the demographically major religion, deprived of its revolutionary essence, it decayed into little more than a form of slave psychotherapy that encourages non-involvement in all practical conflict, at best as politically non-threatening as Jainism before it, at worst propagating an almost Vedic conception of karma (e.g. evildoers should not be killed by one’s own hand, instead one should passively wait for them to be killed by illness or accident, as only then can we be sure that they died at the ‘right’ time according to their predetermined debt of sin). In comparison, Mohammedanism was at least able to produce one positive monarch in King Akbar I (who also attempted to syncretize Mohammedanism with Jainism), and Sikhism – with the help of land donated to the Sikhs by Akbar - was able to create its own nation.

“Buddha is one thing and Buddhism is another. Buddha was an ascetic warrior, an Aryan of heroic caste, a Shastriya who tackled immortality by direct attack and with the arms of a warrior, with sword drawn … Buddhism has been totally altered and is today no more than the shadow of what it was.” – Miguel Serrano

“Caste mentality has reconquered the Vaishnavas. The Mohammedan converts and their descendants seem to be the only ones in India (and perhaps in the world) to have thoroughly shaken it off. Any man who has accepted the message of Islam is a Mohammedan and treated as such, always and everywhere, religiously and socially, by his Mohammedan brothers. … It seems that wherever there is, now, on Indian soil, a large Mohammedan population, there was, formerly, a large Buddhist population. The very dress which characterises the Bengali Mohammedans, — the coloured “lunghi,” — is the dress of Burma and of Java, a Buddhist dress. There is a reason behind this: all these Mohammedans’ ancestors were converts from Buddhism.” – Savitri Devi

The 24-spoked Asoka Chakra on the national flag of modern-day India waits for those who can live up to the ideals that it represents. To those who despair that all 24 Tirthankars prophesized to appear within this temporal cycle have already appeared and departed, let them be reminded that Siddhartha and Asoka were not prophesized, yet appeared anyway and achieved more than all the Tirthankars combined. This is the point of Sramanism: karma is will, not fate. Whoever now has the will to turn the wheel has the potential to begin a new temporal cycle altogether, where all the mistakes we once made during the old cycle need not be made again.