Pranayama is a very deep but often misunderstood aspect of Yoga. From ordinary breathing practices to yogic mastery of the vital force and promoting the higher energy of consciousness, it is all pranayama at various levels. In the following article, we will explore the deeper aspects of Prana and Pranayama, including how to achieve a unitary prana beyond the fluctuations of the ordinary breath, senses and mind.

In many classical Sanskrit texts, the term Yoga is used primarily for Pranic practices, while the term Jnana or knowledge is used for meditation. This is reflected in the teachings of the great modern sage Ramana Maharshi, who uses these terms in this manner. Many Yoga Shastras and Yoga Upanishads explain Prana and related factors of Pranayama, chakras and nadis in great detail. Sometimes the term Hatha Yoga is used for this Pranic Yoga and Raja Yoga for the Yoga of meditation. So Yoga and Pranayama are closely related and sometimes equated.

Yoga is not just control of the mind but also control of the Prana, which two go together. Mind and Prana are often said to be like the two wings of a bird, with the mind as the power of knowledge and the Prana as the power of action. Both always move and act in accord with each other. Yet Prana has deeper meanings as well.

Prana: Levels of Meaning

Prana is a word, much like the term Yoga, which has a broad range of indications and several different but interrelated levels of application. You may be surprised to find that Prana can mean much more than what you may have already thought it to be. These different meanings are not contradictory but complimentary. They help us bridge the gap between our ordinary breath and the highest energy of universal consciousness.

Prana in the higher sense is the spirit, the awareness that inhabits the body and mind, but transcends them. This higher Prana is much more than the physical breath. It is the great Prana, Mahan Prana, which is synonymous with the energy of consciousness, Chit-Shakti. This is the non-elemental, unmanifest Prana of the immortal life. It is inherent in Eternal Being or Sat and is above all biological functioning.

Pranic based Yoga practices aim to access this supreme Prana, though it is a process that can only occur by degrees, starting at a physical level. We should always remember that immortal prana as our ultimate goal of Pranayama practice. This is the Prana Purusha of the Upanishads, the Supreme Self, whose nature is the highest life energy beyond birth and death.

Prana can also indicate the cosmic creative force, the Ishvara, or Cosmic Lord, such as we find mentioned in the Yoga Sutras. Ishvara is the energy that creates, sustains and dissolves the universe. Our own individual soul or Jivatman can also be referred to by Prana, being the essence of our individual Prana. Jiva or the soul means Prana or life. This Prana of the soul is what allows us to take various births and to ultimately transcend the process of birth and death.

Prana and Breath

Prana is a cosmic force and pervades all of life and nature. Prana is not simply oxygen, which is but a carrier of prana at a physical level, but the very energy of life, and the basis of all other energies in the universe, including those that appear inanimate to us, like the force of gravity.

Yet it is the Prana that works within our own embodied existence that is the main concern for us. Most of us are first acquainted with Prana by its association with the breath. Often Prana is translated as breath or means breath. The breath is the main action of Prana in the body, and through the breath we can gain mastery over Prana at various levels, including accessing its higher forms.

Yet Prana is not merely the ordinary breath, it is the energy behind the breath. Pranayama practice is not simply breath work but moving to a deeper level of energy and awareness, accessing Prana at a level through, behind and beyond the breath.

Prana is also often regarded as the ‘vital force’ or ‘life energy’, which is sustained by the breath but pervades all bodily and mental activities. The vital force sustains speech, mind, the senses and our internal organs. Prana is the basis of Vata dosha in Ayurvedic medicine, the biological air humor, the most important of the three biological humors, which rules over all activities, functions and movements in the body, and is closely aligned with the nervous system.

The five senses are closely related to prana. The cognitive senses serve to take in various pranic influences, particularly the eyes and the ears, which take in the Prana of light and sound. But also the tongue, skin and nose.  The skin brings in both Prana and oxygen and conveys it through the sense of touch. The tongue takes in the Prana from the food. The nose takes in the Prana of fragrance, including subtler Pranas from the air than mere oxygen.

The motor organs work to discharge various pranic impulses as in speaking, moving, eating, elimination and reproduction, which are all pranic activities connected to our vital urges.

The mind has its own pranic connections, beginning with its connection to the senses, with our various associations and relationships, which form our own pranic network. Emotion itself is pranic energy within the mind, with its patterns of attraction and repulsion.

Yogic thought divides our nature into five sheaths, fields or enclosures (koshas). The first is that made of food (Annamaya Kosha), which consists of the gross body made up of the bodily tissues and organs.  The second is that made of Prana or Pranamaya kosha, related to the five Pranas and the five motor organs primarily. It governs movement, vital urges and the breath. Often the term Prana is used for the functions of the Pranamaya kosha.

However, the Pranamaya kosha is just the field of the outer or manifest Pranas, particularly those that interface with and energize the physical body. It is not synonymous with Prana as a whole. Prana operates in the deeper Koshas of mind (Manomaya Kosha), intelligence (Vijnanamaya Kosha) and bliss (Anandamaya Kosha). In fact, Prana in the deeper sense is often related to Ananda or bliss, which is the main power of creation and the main motivating force behind all aspects of life.

Pranayama

The manifest pranas are an expression of rajo-guna, the quality of agitation and turbulence. To reach sattva guna or a deeper peace and balance, we must calm and internalize the prana, which implies to calm and unify the energy of the breath. That is why Yogic Pranayama, like Asana, follows after the Yamas and Niyamas, the principles of sattvic living and rests upon them.

Pranayama is often regarded as control of the breath or mastery of the breath. When it is a question of control of the breath, the issue arises as to “who is controlling the breath?” If we use the mind or the ego to control the breath, it is not Yoga but a physical exercise. In Yogic Pranayama it is the witnessing consciousness that should be developed as the real master of the breath.

Pranayama often emphasizes holding the breath. The question here arises as to “what we are holding in the breath?” Some people may be holding negative emotions, fears, desires, or even ego energy in the breath. It is important to allow the breath to naturally deepen, so that there is a natural holding by the power of the inner Prana and awareness, not simply an ego effort. One should energize the breath with devotion, aspiration and a seeking for higher knowledge. Above all, one should not think any harmful thoughts about anyone while doing pranayama.

The goal of yogic pranayama is not simply to exercise the lungs and make us breathe better, though these are a natural part of it. The goal is to develop a ‘unitary prana’ in which the fluctuations and disturbances of the breath cease and one can access the inner energy of consciousness beyond the breath. This unitary Prana or breathless state is called ‘kevala kumbhaka’ in yogic thought. It is often practiced along with yoni mudra, closing all the sensory openings in order to access the inner light. It is the fruit of extensive Pranayama practices or mastery of the Prana.

Prana and Kundalini

Kundalini can be defined as the higher energy of the unitary prana. To access it, we must first balance the breath between the Ida and the Pingala or the left and right nostrils, the lunar and the solar currents. This implies taking our minds to a state of unitary attention and unitary awareness beyond the mind’s dualistic fluctuations of attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, love and hate.

It is only the unitary prana that can enter into the Sushumna or the central channel and opens the chakras, unfolding their powers.  As long as we are caught in the dualistic prana, the Kundalini lays asleep and dormant at the base of the spine, and the chakras are closed, working only at outer level to sustain our outer existence, not affording steady access to higher states of consciousness.

One can activate this unitary prana directly through the unitary awareness if one has the ability to create a strong focused meditation, but that is relatively rare. Only a few Yogis along the Yoga of knowledge are likely to have this power.

Nadi Shodhana: Alternate Nostril Breathing

All yogic pranayamas can aid in the development of the higher unitary prana, but for this purpose the main method emphasized is usually ‘alternate nostril breathing’ or nadi shodhana. This serves to balance the dualistic outer prana so that we can access the higher unitary prana.

The Pingala nadi that flows through the right nostril has a solar, heating, fiery and Pitta nature. It is stimulating and promotes movement, expression, action and digestion. The Ida nadi that flows through the left nostril has a lunar, cooling, watery and Kapha nature. It is calming and promotes rest, introversion, relaxation and sleep.

During the day our breath fluctuates between one nostril and another. Generally Pitta constitution people, those of fiery nature, will find the right nostril to be more open than the left. Those of Kapha or watery constitution will find the left nostril to be more open than the right. Vata dosha or airy types will experience greater fluctuations.

The practice of alternate nostril breathing, done with concentration and part of a sattvic life style, helps balance the breath and develop the unitary prana behind it.

After the practice of alternate nostril breathing, if done correctly, one can for a time enter in the flow of the unitary prana, in which inhalation and exhalation come to an end, or become very subtle. This is generally experienced as a flow of energy in the region of the Third Eye, a kind of light, pressure and vibration emanating from that location but expanding to pervade the entire body. One can learn to work with and direct this unitary prana through the various nadis and chakras or out of the body altogether.

Hamsa So’ham Nadi Shodhana

This is a simple method of combining mantra with alternate nostril breathing.

In Sanskrit symbology, the breath is governed by s and h sounds. This is common to many languages, but perhaps nowhere stressed so much as in Sanskrit. Especially the sounds Soham and Hamsa are used relative to the breath. In this special method, one can use both Soham and Hamsa relative to alternate nostril breathing.

In this regard, one should note that the Sa sound has a lunar energy while the Ha sound has a solar energy according to the ancient science of mantra. Similarly, the mantra So’ham also has more a lunar or Soma energy, while Hamsa has a solar energy. Inhalation in general has a more lunar energy and exhalation has a more solar energy as well.

In this procedure, one uses the mantra So for inhalation through the left or lunar nostril, followed by the mantra Ham for exhalation through the right or solar nostril. Then one uses the mantra Ham for inhalation through the right nostril, followed by the mantra Sa for exhalation through the left nostril. This process of So’ham Hamsa makes one round of alternate nostril breathing.

During this practice, one should let the breath naturally deepen. There need be no overt effort to hold the breath but if this occurs naturally it can be allowed.

After one has done this practice for fifteen minutes or more, one should let go of the breath and enter into yoni mudra, or simply just sit quietly with the eyes closed, allowing the background unitary prana to come forth.

The more one practices this alternate nostril breathing, the greater the access to the unitary prana, which will gain in strength even behind the ordinary breath. Begin with at least fifteen minutes morning and evening.

But remember to keep a peaceful prana in all that you do. Then all your pranayama practices will work in the best possible manner. The higher Prana is a power of peace, not a power of self-assertion! This unitary prana is best accessed through a deeper peace and surrender of our personal will to the Divine will, and an alignment with our highest Self.

]]> http://www.vedanet.com/2013/03/practice-pranayama-to-access-higher-energies/feed/ 0 http://www.vedanet.com/2013/02/yoga-and-ayurveda-2/ http://www.vedanet.com/2013/02/yoga-and-ayurveda-2/#comments Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:05:14 +0000 admin http://www.vedanet.com/?p=2401 The article was originally published at Kerala Ayurveda Academy and Kerala Ayurveda India.

By Vamadeva Shastri (David Frawley)

From the book, “The Mind of the Guru, Conversations with Spiritual Masters” by Rajiv Mehrotra of the Dalai Lama Foundation in India (Viking, India, 2003). Foreword by His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. The book featured twenty prominent spiritual teachers worldwide.

Part 1. On India

Q: You have often been described as an Indian in an American body. You have written extensively on the Indian traditions of the Vedas, Ayurveda, Vedic astrology and a whole range of issues associated with the Hindu Indian heritage. You have helped articulate this to the West and to India itself. There is a great deal of debate on what it is to be Indian, what is the Indian identity. Could you explain your perception of this “Indianness” in India.

A: In India there is a wonderful continuity of literature and culture. The culture is very diverse, with unique characteristics and a distinctive spiritual emphasis on dharma. It has a sacred orientation towards spiritual, yogic and meditational practices that have a broad view of culture -its unity, diversity and multiplicity. Moreover, under this greater dharmic orientation there is an integration of art, science and spirituality.

Q: In the contemporary debate, the manner in which we explore our diversity in a uniquely Indian perspective is a major issue.

A: First of all, compared to the ancient cultures of Egypt, Babylonia and Greece, India is the only ancient civilization that has managed to endure the course of time. What little remains from those other civilizations, the religious practices like murti puja – the worship of images – and temple worship are still performed in India today. The unparalleled continuity of civilization in India has brought these ancient spiritual practices into the modern scientific age.

Further, I feel that the view of consciousness, the science of consciousness, consciousness as the supreme reality, human life as a species for the evolution of consciousness, is unique to the Indian ethos. India has nurtured the culture of consciousness in all its forms without clashing with, or contradicting, the diversity of religions, philosophies, spiritual practices and lifestyles which are integrated into the culture.

Q: To what degree might this be a romanticized version of a vision of India.

A: To some extent it is a romanticized version of an aspect of India. More importantly I would say that it is an image of the soul of India that is still struggling to emerge in the modern age because India as a civilization was under foreign rule for nearly a thousand years. While India was under the British, there was a systematic attempt to undermine the older institutions and values of its culture.

Also, while under foreign rule, inertia was a by-product of the society and many customs were initiated that did not reflect the older and more dynamic civilization. While still beneath the surface, I believe that the true spiritual and progressive essence of India remains the most dynamic force in its culture today.

Q: How would you describe the value of this heritage and tradition in the context of globalization, the new economic order, liberalization and the influence of capitalism?

A: We are moving towards a more global or planetary age, but so far this globalism is being defined materialistically and in a consumeristic way. Unfortunately, I would have to say that, coming from America, most of this globalization is still colonialism in another form or, more aptly, Americanization in another form.

Indian traditions can offer the world the means to bring us into a true planetary age whereby we can connect to the spirit of the planet and with the greater universal consciousness. It is not just a matter of free trade. Today India is entering into the global arena and consumerism is coming here. At the same time, the India we have still represents the socialistic model such as used to exist in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

So it is not a clash between spiritual India and the modern West, but between this old Soviet model and to a great extent a bureaucratic model that must undergo change. The Indian people can compete well in the global market if they are taken out of the shackles of their own government and bureaucracy. Indians are achieving well outside of India in the global context. They are among the most educated and affluent of ethnic groups in countries like the US and UK. The question is, why aren’t they allowed to do so well in India?

Q: What potential do you see in the Indian heritage that can contribute to the changing aspects of culture in coming to terms with new values such as materialism?

A: There are two sides to this particular issue. First, the global consumer is not much of a culture at all. Fast food, violent movies – that is no real culture. In fact, the so-called culture in Europe and America revolves around nineteenth century art and music. We are seeing a phenomenal destruction of culture all over the world, just as we are seeing a destruction of species.

In countries such as India there is a greater diversity of culture and a greater antiquity of culture. For example, the literature of any of the main regions of India is much older than the literature of any English or European culture. There needs to be a preservation of culture today just as there is this idea to preserve different species and habitats. Second, the spiritual practices of Indian culture can be popular and transferred to other cultures in the world once they are offered to the global community for examination and global adaptation.

Q: There is resistance and suspicion in India that promoting and preserving the cultural aspects of the Indian heritage might lead to a dull uniformity. And this in turn might become another form of totalitarianism, contrary to the spirit of plurality that you referred to.

A: India is the most diverse country in the world and the danger would be anarchy and not totalitarianism. Unfortunately, many people here have a Western education and the ideas that they have about society, the world and the human mind have actually prevented them from understanding their own civilization. Consequently, when they look at their civilization from these wrong ideas, it looks wrong to them. It is like an image in a distorted mirror.

I would encourage these people to study the Indian traditions more – the scriptural texts and modern teachers of India – before making uninformed judgments. We should try to understand the traditions of India through the people who have practiced them, lived them and represent them rather than accept the views of people who are incapable of understanding a culture so different from Western traditions.

Part 2. On Ayurveda and Vedic Astrology

Q: How does Ayurveda view the mind and what is the value of that perception when modern medicine looks at the mind as a biochemical complex. The US Surgeon General recently released a report which makes the case that all mental illness is biochemical in nature, not unlike a case of indigestion, the common cold or virus.

A: The Vedic tradition has self-realization as the goal of life – self-realization as an inner change in consciousness, enlightenment or the realization of our divine nature. In the Ayurvedic view we recognize that that there is an integral and organic connection between body and mind, but there is a higher spirit and self that transcends both body and mind. It is that higher self that we are truly seeking. To discover that higher self we need to initiate the quality of purity or sattva guna at the level of the mind. When the mind is at that peaceful and silent state, it can perceive the higher reality.

In the Ayurvedic view we cannot reduce the mind to biochemical reactions. Certainly in Ayurveda food affects the mind and the impressions we take in through the senses affect the mind. The environment affects the mind, but the mind itself is its own entity and at a certain level transcends the body not only in dream but also in the after-death state.

The Western world has been too engrossed in the material aspect of reality and they are looking at the mind externally. But in the Western world, even with all of psychiatry and the use of drugs to deal with the mind, there is a phenomenal explosion of mental and psychological illness. The biggest epidemic in terms of illness going on today in the West is probably depression. It is estimated that half the people over the age of fifty suffer from some sort of depression and at least half of these will end up taking some sort of anti-depressant drug. The drugs may have a temporary effect, but they will not cure the problem. Unless the people taking these drugs recognize the need for a change in the quality of their thoughts and lifestyles, their mental condition will not change.

Q: What are some of the approaches that Ayurveda would recommend for the treatment of diseases of the mind, like depression?

A: In Ayurveda we like to look at everything in a holistic way relative to the entire human being, which is body, mind, spirit and all aspects of our life and behavior. So we start at the physical level with certain dietary changes – lighter foods that can help at the physical level. We also look the exercise level as a sedentary lifestyle creates depression. Also, what is very important are the impressions that we take in through the senses. The impressions that we take in feed the mind like food feeds the body, and if we are taking dull and disturbing impressions through the senses then naturally the mind is going to get very dull. There are many forms of sensory therapy such as visualization and meditation, music, colour therapy and aroma therapy. We can change the energetics of the mind and Ayurvedic looks to the practical tools to do so.

The mind is connected to the breath. Certain forms of pranayama are helpful for people who are depressed. Circulating the prana through all parts of the body-mind system also increases health and happiness. And of course there is meditation. If we can bring the mind to a silent and calm state, the mind will heal itself. To facilitate meditation we may require certain mantras like Om. Certain mantras will change the energetics of the mind. The mind has a sound pattern and if we change the sound pattern behind the mind this can change the inertia or any blockages that lead to depression or other types of reduced mental functioning.

Q: The mind is a series of thoughts at one level and people who suffer from mental ailments are uncomfortable with the thoughts that come. Frequently these are based on past experiences or childhood trauma. The Western approach is to try to retrain the mind and go back to the source of conflict and resolve it in some way. How does the Ayurvedic tradition resolve the conflicts from these imprints on the mind that are creating difficulties for the individual?

A: The yoga and Ayurveda tradition recognizes that there are some prime tendencies (samskaras or vasanas) that are responsible for our karmas and for these traumatic experiences. Anything that threatens our lives tends to create a strong samskaras.

This whole concept of the Ashtanga Yoga tradition, where you have asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhi, are ways of creating higher samskaras. The body is put in a posture that places the energy in a sattvic state. By energizing the breath, senses and mind we are creating a higher samskara.

The Ayurvedic view is that to eliminate a lower samskaras you need to create a higher samskara. It may be a daily meditation routine, eating sattvic food at a regular period, a spiritual retreat, going to various tirthas and temples, etc. There is a whole science of samskaras in the Hindu tradition and cultivating these higher samskaras will reduce the negative. As in the Western tradition merely exposing the negative samskara doesn’t necessarily eliminate it. That is, making a patient aware of the pain does not necessarily reduce the pain.

So the yogic tradition is a holistic science of human development. It is a science of changing our consciousness in a practical way by using the tools of posture, breath and mantra. Ayurveda adds to this certain dietary, herbal and Pancha karma methods that can help eliminate from the body the disease-causing doshas that trigger or support negative mental states.

Q: You have done a great deal of work on Vedic astrology. Traditionally there has been an intimate relationship between Ayurveda and astrology in being able to diagnose ailments and prescribe treatments. Astrology is viewed with considerable skepticism by the Western scientific establishment but is, of course, an intrinsic part of our traditions in India. What is the basis of astrology?

A: First of all, the basis of astrology is that there is a meaningful movement of time. There is a certain rhythm or order to time. Each day is going to be different relative to certain positions of the sun, moon and plants. Time is a movement of karma and it is also a movement of prana. Karma, prana and kala (time) are closely related. In this Vedic view there is an intimate relationship between the individual and the entire universe, between the microcosm and the macrocosm. So the Vedic view is that what is happening to us at the individual level and the species level is also going to be reflected at a cosmic level through the movements of the stars and planets. Through an understanding of these harmonic inner changes and the movement of time we can adjust our lives accordingly.

For example, we have a weather report that tells us how to deal with atmospheric changes. There are also certain psychic and cosmic sciences that through the stars and the planets. Even modern science tells us how much the sun and the moon affect biology and psychology. Astrology just extends this principle to the other planets involved. Even modern science with its quarks, quasars and black holes is not far from astrology. It is recognizing that there are certain influences that are beyond time and space or ahead of time and space. So we are getting to a point where there can be some validation for the influence of astrology. It is also not a fatalistic system. There are certain things that we can do; there is a certain way to master and understand our karma by being aware of the forces and how they work.

Q: Why is it so difficult to access a good reliable astrologer?

A: There are several reasons for that. First, because astrology has not had a good reputation in this country, people have not supported it. They don’t pay astrologers properly. And second, as something psychic and spiritual, it is easier for quackery and false imagination to come into astrology. There are many good astrologers in India today and many of them have a good scientific bent. For example, one of my friends is the head of surgery for a small Delhi hospital as well as an accurate and profound astrologer. So if people who have a scientific and spiritual view come into astrology I think that they can enhance its prestige, but when astrology is marginalized and sensationalized it gets a bad name.

Part 3. On Yoga, Gurus and Meditation

Q: A very essential part of the India tradition has been the idea of sadhana, or spiritual practice and the role of the guru. What been the role of a teacher for you and what do you see as the role of a guru?

A: All aspects of life have teachers. Some people say that you don’t need gurus and my response is that in that case you don’t need school teachers, music teachers, etc.

Q: But a guru is something more than a teacher!

A: At the first level the guru as a teacher is very necessary. However, when you get to the spiritual level, you are going to need more than a teacher who gives information. At this level, the guru will be conveying to you a higher state of consciousness. For that the personal example becomes more and more important and the simple teacher role less and less important. So in the Indian tradition there has always been the recognition that the highest knowledge, the reflection of consciousness or self-realization requires, or at last is facilitated by, these great gurus and teachers. If you look at the twentieth century in India and up to the present day, India is still producing these great self-realized teachers in a way that other countries in the world have not.

Q: How do you evaluate a guru?

A: A true teacher emanates a magnetic quality that connects us to them and of course there are different paths. We may be attracted to different teachers in different ways. But there is a certain blissful quality of love, a consciousness, almost an intimacy at the level of the soul that puts us in touch with the entire meaning of our lives. And I think in a true teacher there is also friendship, kinship and compassion. Ramana Maharshi said that around a great teacher the first thing you will feel is a certain quality of peace that will put your doubts to rest.

Q: So many have been misled by false gurus. What are the risks of that happening and what would you recommend to someone seeking the path?

A: The risk of false teachers is not only always there but I think that all of us will have to go through at least one false teacher to find a true teacher. But the important thing is to set forth in motion a process of aspiration and sadhana where we are seeking a higher truth and devoting ourselves to certain practices. So sincerity on the part of the aspirant is very important. We also have to beware of false imagination.

Spiritual transformation is about the evolution of consciousness. It is a conscious endeavor. False gurus make many offers. Some offer instantaneous enlightenment, almost like an appeal to get-rich-quick schemes. Finally, when the spiritual guru comes into our lives, we have to be sincere and patient and seek peace rather than run after experiences. We need to seek an inner heart connection rather than run after famous personalities and their charisma because charisma can also be created from a purely rajasic level. We also need to have our own internal connection – faith in ourselves and connection with the divine. If we have that, a path will open up for us. It will take time and it may not necessarily be in the form that our mind would like it to be.

Q: You inevitably point to the importance of sadhana, and there are numerous sadhanas available to us which are the strength of our tradition. You have also written extensively on yoga as a sadhana. Yoga to most people is a process of physical postures and techniques to be preceded by yama and niyama, ethical rules and modes. Most yoga teachers tend to exclude yamas and niyamas. What are the dangers? Why is that ethical system, that framework, so important before commencing a sadhana?

A: It is an American contribution to limit or emphasize the asana or physical aspect of yoga, and now you see that is being re-imported back into India. Classical yoga as defined by Patanjali is a practice of meditation, not a practice of asanas. Now with any endeavor, we have certain basic values, and certain lifestyles are necessary to support it. So yoga requires certain values and a certain lifestyle and these is what yama and niyama teach us whether it is truth, ahimsa or shaucha (purity).

In order to develop at the level of consciousness we have to have the right lifestyle, daily activity, food, impressions, relationships and the proper character. Yoga is about developing energy, but what character, what person and what vessel is that energy coming into? If you don’t have a good vessel it does not matter what you put into it. So preparing the vessel is as important as the techniques that are used to put into the vessel.

Q: Obviously creating the right vessel for the practice of yoga is extremely important. What are the dangers if this is ignored?

A: The danger is that yoga increases our energy and thought power and that if the proper vessel is not created, the same practices can create a stronger ego. That is the main danger.

Q: The objective of these processes is a calmer mind and for a person to be happy. But inherent in this is the cultivation of the values of love, compassion and the recognition of interdependence and a whole range of issues that make humans human. What are the techniques that cultivate these values that we identify as human values?

A: They are more than human values. They are dharma, which is the sense of unity on all levels of the universe – humans, plants and animals. This will cultivate a higher sense of compassion within us. So some sense of values is behind all the yogas, but particularly Bhakti Yoga. The cultivation of devotion is not about the love of God as some abstract entity. It is the love of the divine spirit that is everywhere.

Then, the foundational practice of all yoga is Karma Yoga because life is fundamentally action and the foundation of Karma Yoga is service. Action is not something that we do only for ourselves. Action is interdependent with the entire universe – breathing, eating, the processes that are always going on. We are partaking of the entire universe. The universe is also moving through us. This foundation of Karma Yoga is essential to bring these higher values into yoga practice so that your yoga is already a form of service and not something you are doing only for personal gratification.

Q: What kind of sadhana would bring about the transformation of the mind that might develop the values of love and compassion?

A: Sadhana works on different levels, and in yoga we address the entire human being, starting with the body and the type of asana that will change the level of thought and awareness at a physical level. Changing the diet is another way, because of a lot of our negative psychological patterns rooted in the subconscious mind are caught in various food cravings. The breath and how we breathe is connected to how we use our emotions, how we hold our energies, our thoughts. By changing our breath, we can change these factors.

The whole range of sensory therapies, particularly sound and mantra, can change the energy field of our mind. We can change the stream of our subconscious thoughts. When we sit down to meditate, the mantra comes up. Om Namah Shivaya, and then in meditation we can transcend the mind. So yoga and Ayurveda provide us with tools on all the different levels and sadhana is the practice on all these levels. If people try to sit down and meditation without dealing with the breath and without dealing with thoughts, values and diet it will seldom work because you have not created the lifestyle and values to support it. Our lifestyle is the field in which we grow the plants that are of benefit for our spiritual development. If the ground is not even cultivated then even if you put the best seed in it, it is not going to grow.

Q: What would you describe as the essential ingredient, the essential motive to meditate?

A: Meditation accrues on many levels and I would also discriminate between meditation techniques and the meditative state. Meditation techniques are used to prepare the mind for meditation, which is a very essential thing. I would describe the state of meditation as bringing the mind into a concentrated calm state, particularly the idea of ekagrachitta, the one-pointed mind.

Once the mind is brought to that state, solutions to the problems of life naturally fall into the mind like falling rain. There is a certain state of mind that we can arrive at in which the solutions to life, the answers to life’s problems come, but that requires tremendous preparation and that preparation for meditation is as important as meditation itself. Meditation, as it is, requires that we have this concentrated, still, silent space in the mind.

Q: What is the direction of your personal sadhana?

A: I take an integral approach – the threefold approach of pranayama, mantra and more formless mediation. I find pranayama is a more important way for internalizing the mind, a kind of pratyahara. It also gives us the internal energy so that when we close our eyes to meditate we don’t fall asleep.

Secondly, the use of mantra. Most of the problems that we have with meditation are that people get eaten up by their subconscious thoughts. If we do regular mantra practice, by changing the sound patterns of the subconscious mind, it becomes our ally in meditation.

From that point meditation is the practice of self-inquiry, particularly that which Ramana Maharshi taught, and the whole process of introspection and examining the meaning of our lives can occur once we have brought our mind into the sattvic state.

The other aspect of meditation is surrender, or the devotional aspect, where we surrender or open up to the divine reality, which is also the same as the higher self. So I try to take that kind of practical and integrated approach a have a number of tools. For example, if my mind gests sleepy than I may do pranayama, or if one mantra appeals tome then I may hold on to it until something comes out of it.

Alternatively, if you fall naturally into a meditative state you just let it be and flow with it. It is like a dance, a tapestry. It is like cultivating a garden and growing flowers. Once you have done that cultivation in the mind and when you open your mind and close your eyes and look within, it is like entering a vast garden in which there are always things growing and developing, as opposed to just looking within and discovering a darkness or blankness within.

One of the two keynote talks given at the close of the International Conference on Dharma-Dhamma, Bhopal, India, Sept. 23, 2012, which was attended by several hundred scholars from throughout the world. It followed the groundbreaking ceremony for a new university for Buddhist and Indic Studies at Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh, India supported by the governments of Madhya Pradesh India, Sri Lanka and Bhutan.

Dharmic Traditions

I would first of all like to thank the government of Madhya Pradesh, the Mahabodhi Society, and the India Foundation for organizing this important conference, and more significantly, for helping to develop this new dharmic institution at Sanchi. May it flourish and be the precursor of many more institutions of a similar nature all over the world. A dharmic university and dharmic education is essential to peace and understanding for all humanity.

I am speaking before you as a traditional scholar of Dharmic teachings, particularly of Vedic and Yogic teachings, extending to Ayurvedic medicine and Vedic astrology. Though I was born and raised in the West, I have tried to follow traditional teachers and the views of traditional texts from India. I am happy that a place is given here for such traditional scholars, for whom dharmic teachings are not a mere object of academic study and research, but part of a daily life, sadhana and spiritual practice. For any dharmic education to be real, the spirit of dharma must remain alive in the minds and hearts of its teachers and students. They must study and practice dharma at a personal level as well as at an intellectual level.

India has nurtured a variety of spiritually based dharmic traditions over many centuries and many millennia, marking the unique contribution of its civilization to the world at large. These Dharmic traditions have lived together in peace and mutual respect, sharing a common Dharmic culture and a common aspiration to the highest truth. India-origin Dharmic traditions have been shared by the surrounding great countries of Asia and have become integrated with the native cultures of many Asian countries as well, which have much in common with them, like Chinese Taoism and Japanese Shinto. We could say that Dharma is the light of Asia and the common factor behind all its forms of spiritual aspiration.

The Rigveda, the oldest available of the dharmic texts from India, reflects the teachings of dozens of great sages or rishis, as part of one great spiritual family. It emphasizes a relation of friendship, kinship and equality between human beings and the devas, the spiritual forces of the universe, leading to the supreme truth. It honors all nature and asks all human beings to respect the whole of life.

The Upanishads, the cream of Vedic philosophy, consist of the inquiries, questionings and dialogues between various sages and yogis and an open discussion of their meditation based experiences. The Upanishads do not try to promote any person, belief or doctrine as final for everyone. They emphasize a greater Self-realization beyond speech and thought, name and form, but approached from a variety of angles.

The Buddhist tradition or Buddha Dharma is similarly foremost a tradition of inquiry and meditation. Buddhism teaches the individual how to perceive the nature of truth and reality through meditation, and does not rest content with any belief structures of the mind as final. The same freedom of thought and spiritual practice extends to all Buddhist traditions. Their emphasis is on enlightenment of the mind and service to all, not merely promoting one religious identity or another.

Dharmic Pluralism, Diversity and Questioning

This, what we could call, Dharmic pluralism, has created probably the most extensive and comprehensive set of spiritual philosophies in the world, which contain a diversity of great spiritual insights and deep understandings covering all aspects of life. There are many schools of Vedantic, Yogic, Buddhist and Jain thought, with various degrees of interrelationship. All these great Dharmic philosophies include studies of higher consciousness and universal awareness such as modern science is just beginning to suspect exists behind the time-space universe as a whole. Dharmic traditions reflect a spiritual science or way of knowledge more so than any mere faith or religious creed.

This Dharmic pluralism is not afraid of dialogue and debate. It encourages us to question everything, including to question the Dharmic teachings themselves, so that we can find out for ourselves what is the highest truth.  Dharmic teachings make truth more important than any belief, and the truth that we can directly perceive and experience more important than any merely conceptual truth. In Dharmic tradition reason is also honored and given a place, but aligned with meditation or inner perception, as a means of its articulation.  No irrational beliefs or unquestioned presumptions and preconceptions are required.

Dharma does not insist that we all simply verbally agree with each other, or that one point of view should be promoted as the same as or supreme for all people, in order to remove any potential problems that differences of views may create between people. Developing the proper mode of questioning is regarded in Dharmic traditions as more important than merely repeating any particular verbal answer or credo as correct. There are rigorous traditions of debate in all dharmic traditions including in Tibetan Buddhism and in Hindu Vedanta that continue to the present day.

We must recognize that each individual is different and the spiritual path or way of life that is appropriate for one person may not be appropriate for another. This is a fact of dharma at an individual level. There is not only a unity to life but also an infinity to its expressions, and one that transcends any fixed theology or philosophy. The karmas of living beings vary and must be understood, respected and adjusted for.

Different philosophies may appeal to different people, and what may seem logical to one person, may appear flawed or incomplete to another. The important thing is not to automatically promote one philosophy or another as correct for all, but to encourage deep thinking and the development of a higher intelligence in each individual, for which the exercise of dialogue and debate is essential. It is not the verbal form of what we know that is primary but our actual inner experience in our own minds and hearts.

Individually Based Spiritual Experience

Dharma emphasizes the importance of individually based spiritual experience through meditation over any outer dogmas, creeds, formulas or ideologies. Dharma is more a path of practice than of belief or an ideology. It emphasizes right living and right perception over theological correctness.

Dharma brings us to Svadharma, which is to know our own dharma, which also means not to try to impose our own dharma, however valuable it may be, upon others. Dharma is a way of self-knowledge that requires deep introspection to find the truth, which also means questioning ourselves, our preconceptions and our motivations.

Dharma reflects the universal principles and eternal laws of the greater universe of consciousness. Yet it also reflects the adaptation of these natural laws relative to the actual circumstances of each person, community, culture and country. Dharma has many levels that are interrelated and interdependent in the great web of life. Our individual dharma must also be seen in light of these additional aspects of dharma.

Svadharma is not simply a matter of each person doing what he or she would like to do at a personal level. It is not mere individualism or relativism. It means following our inmost dharma that connects us to the entire chain of life and the greater universe in which we live. It implies service and sacrifice, not simply personal fulfillment, pleasure or enjoyment. It is not hedonism or desire based individualism or consumerism.

While there are eternal principles of dharma, these are not rigid outer constructs. They require flexibility in their application. There are for example, universal principles as to how water moves, but this movement will vary according to the terrain on which it occurs. The unity of water produces an amazing diversity of landforms and ecosystems.

Yet the highest truth, as recognized by all dharmic traditions, is said to be beyond words, beyond the mind, and is more a matter of intimation than direct instruction. We can point to that higher truth, but cannot reduce it to a convenient set of rules that are the same for everyone. All teachings are but expedient methods to draw us to a deeper Self-realization or higher awareness. What is important is not to reduce the highest truth a name or form, but to help each individual approach its direct experience according to the way that is in harmony with their own dharma, nature and circumstances. This supreme dharma is often best expressed in silence.

Dharmic traditions allow for differences in name and form and are not afraid of them. They do not promote uniformity but allow for the natural diversity that is inherent in all life to have its proper expression. They embrace all life and culture and do not divide people into separate or competing identities.

Common Dharmic Values and Practices

Through having a pluralistic approach to truth, we must also recognize that Dharmic traditions share a similar foundation of ethical values and spiritual practices, regardless of any philosophical or doctrinal differences that they may have, which are most often generally minor. All dharmic traditions emphasize non-violence, truthfulness, non-possessiveness, compassion, and selfless service as principles of right action and right behavior. These principles of dharma form a universal ethics that can be adapted by everyone.

Dharmic traditions promote similar spiritual practices of ritual, mantra, and many forms of inquiry and meditation. These common values and practices bind all Dharmic traditions close together and override any philosophical or theological differences that may appear at the surface. It is these values and principles that constitute the essence of dharma, and the highest Dharmic philosophies are expressions of these as well.

Such common dharmic values and practices can perhaps be summarized as a respect for all life as sacred, and as an honoring of meditation to find the truth over mere belief in what truth is supposed to be. They reflect a common dharmic acceptance of the law of karma, that there is a specific ethical and spiritual consequence of all of our actions.

One could say that in the realm of Dharma the message of meditation is more important than any verbal message. The figure of the Yogi, Jina or Buddha in meditation has dominated Asian art and iconography, reflecting this fact.

Threats and Opportunities for Dharmic Traditions Today

Dharmic traditions have suffered and been marginalized in many parts of Asia throughout the colonial era, and also continuing into the post-colonial era, particularly in communist countries, which have sought actively to suppress them. They are only slowly undergoing a revival, and one that is still being opposed by many other forces, politically, economically and even religiously.

Dharmic traditions today face a great threat from exclusivistic belief systems for which belief is more important than any actual experience or mode of behavior. Simplistic beliefs can be easier to propagate, particularly in this era of the mass media and its stereotypes, than the truth of Dharma that cannot be reduced to a single formula to be given mechanically to all. Dharma is a way of life that must be learned with awareness, dedication and perseverance. Dharma is not a matter of a quick emotional conversion, but a reorientation of the consciousness through a higher knowledge and devotion.

Dharmic traditions today also face a great threat from the rampant consumerism that is spreading throughout the world, which undermines common dharmic values that emphasize simplicity and living close to nature. This dharmic culture of meditation can be very different than the media culture of the pursuit of sensation and the quick accumulation of consumer goods. Dharma transcends the daily news and reflects enduring rather than transient trends in human life. Dharmic based meditation requires that we can detach from the world of consumerism and the mass media.

In this regard, Dharmic traditions need to unite in their defense of dharma, not simply to protect their older traditions but also to sustain a deeper truth and spirituality in the world. This requires a spirit of mutual harmony and respect, and an honoring of the diversity inherent in all dharmic traditions. It requires an honoring of dharmic pluralism, while affirming common dharmic values and practices.

Yet on this basis of dharmic tolerance, it also requires an enthusiastic effort to share and expand the role of dharma and expand the place of dharmic traditions in the modern world. Dharma remains relevant and essential to all beings in all countries and continents.

This revival of dharma further requires a dharmic critique of adharmic trends in modern cultures and even in Asian countries, governments and educational systems. Dharma needs to regain its critical voice and capacity to educate and promote ethical values. The voice of Dharma needs to be heard again.

In facing these current challenges, Dharmic traditions should not become contracted, defensive, or retreat under the weight of the formidable forces opposing them. We should reclaim the expansive spirit of Dharma and seek to spread the message of Dharma, with all of its many facets, to the entire planet.

Dharmic traditions have much in common with science as an objective pursuit of truth and searching for the foundations of consciousness in the universe. Many of the positive trends in modern culture, with the seeking of greater freedom in life, can be connected with older Dharmic traditions of Asia.

Many people in the world today, including many educated people in the West, are open to the message of dharma and are seeking to go beyond antiquated belief systems that only serve to divide people into warring camps. Dharmic traditions have a new worldwide appeal and spread over the last more than one hundred years and now have followings in every corner of the world. This will undoubtedly continue to grow in the decades to come.

Dharmic traditions should prepare for this global expansion by creating new teachers who can facilitate it, putting dharma in a new idiom of global, scientific and universalistic thought, with relevance to all people and all cultures, yet also preserving the unique approaches and formulations of different dharmic teachings and practices.

Dharmic and related traditions lay at the heart of the great cultures of Asia and are necessary for the cultural revival and cultural integrity of this important region of the world, which holds the world’s largest populations – a region that is slowly emerging out of centuries of foreign domination to a place of centrality in world affairs.

Yet dharmic traditions are also at the forefront of the new spirituality that we see gradually emerging throughout the planet, on every continent, emphasizing yoga, meditation, natural healing, mind-body medicine, and ecological sustainability. All these are important areas of dharmic teaching and dharmic research, and part of a new dharmic renaissance that needs to e fostered.

However, Dharmic traditions cannot be maintained mechanically or passed on as a mere matter of belief and custom. They rest upon education born of dialogue, not of indoctrination that suppresses any questioning. New Dharmic institutions are required both to pass on and to renovate Dharmic traditions. Such dharmic institutions need to encourage original thinking and the development of new insights, not simply carrying on the old formulas, much less inertia of the past. They also need to be open to dialogue, debate and a variety of points of view. A new call for Dharmic education needs to resound throughout the world, and India, the ancient homeland of dharma, is an ideal place for this work to begin.

There are many new possible positive developments for dharmic traditions, which have the creativity and adaptability of life itself. The power of Dharma can lead humanity forward to a new age of oneness, tolerance and peace, and a unity between all peoples, with all nature and the greater conscious universe itself.

We hope that such dharmic gatherings as the one here today, and the development of such new dharmic institutions as those being proposed here, can serve the role to renovate dharma for the world as a whole. It would work a great transformation and alleviate tremendous suffering to restore Dharma everywhere.

A world without dharma cannot be sustainable. Yet only a living and revitalized dharma can sustain the world, resting on truth and a respect for the sacred nature of all life. Let us work together to bring that about. Let us light the flame of dharma within our own hearts, which is both the highest meditation and the highest Vedic ritual.

The proposed Aryan Invasion or Migration into India that most history books present as a fact so far has not yet yielded any solid evidence to support it. There is no archaeological, genetic, or literary evidence that shows it to be the case. On the contrary, existing evidence is of a continuous development of civilization in India since the end of the last Ice Age.

The proposed destroyed cities of the Indus Valley have proved to be a myth, with no real evidence of any destruction by invaders. There is no evidence of Aryan ethnic types, Aryan horses, Aryan cows or anything Aryan leaving any trail into India in ancient times. There is no Aryan culture in ancient India apart from the indigenous culture of the region that exhibits fire altars, Brahma bulls, figures in meditation and Yoga postures, swastikas, chakras, pippal leafs and other symbols quite in harmony with later Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, traditions that called themselves Aryan.

The only so-called evidence left that claims any real evidence of an Aryan intrusion is linguistic speculation: that affinities between Indian and European languages require that the Vedic culture came from Central Asia in late ancient times. In this article, we will examine the role of linguistics and why we cannot use it as a primary means for determining culture or history. This means that so-called linguistic proof of the Aryans is as questionable as the others. In fact, the term Aryan, which in Sanskrit means noble or pure, has no racial connotation until colonial European scholars proposed it a few centuries ago.

Culture and Language

In order to understand the role of linguistics in determining ancient history, we first need to understand the place of language in human culture. In this regard, spoken language is one of several important factors of culture but not the only one or necessarily the most important.

Civilization and culture are based mainly upon the primary structures of religious, political and social organization which make up the customs, practices and laws of a people. Behind these are the practical necessities of the geography and climate of the region in which the people live. These factors develop in a particular historical context and in an interaction with other such cultures.

Culture is, therefore, a complex phenomenon consisting of varied social and natural factors. To understand, it we must take a broad view of its various aspects. We must avoid the temptation to reduce a culture to a single factor like language, religion, ethnicity or geography and use that as the last word or sole determinative factor. To identify language, culture and even ethnicity, which the Aryan theory has tended to do, is a wrong identification, a confusion of factors that are seldom homogenous in existing cultures.

Each culture certainly has a particular language that we indeed must recognize in order to understand it. This ‘cultural language’, however is, first of all, not a particular spoken tongue, but the terminology of the culture according to its prime values, beliefs, attitudes, and customs. These key words, phrases, ideas or beliefs could be called the ‘prime mantras’ of the culture. To understand a culture, we must understand this language, which means understanding the particular culture’s way of thinking and looking at the world, not just its grammar or etymology as linguistics tend to focus on.

Some cultures – generally with strong national boundaries and limited historical horizons – are dominated by a single outer language, like the German language for German culture. This ‘national language’ may reflect the culture as a whole, being the main spoken language used by the people living in it and and also reflecting its prime values. But this is the exception.

Certain broader ‘cultural languages’ have arisen over time relative to complex civilizations or empires like Greek for Hellenistic culture, Latin for the Roman empire, Sanskrit for classical India or Mandarin for China. These cultural languages have not been the spoken language that all or even most of the people residing in these cultures used in their daily lives. They were a lingua franca or language of general communication for economic, business, intellectual or religious purposes.

Other cultures or cultural zones may be dominated by a particular language family like Indo-European languages for European culture. Here the cultural connection is more general and uncertain. A language family can reflect a number of cultures and various historical changes. It is a far more tenuous entity than a particular language or dialect. We cannot give too much emphasis on it as a determinative factor of culture and it more easily crosses over many cultures and geographical regions.

Much more important than the outer form of the language is the inner culture that the formal language serves as a vehicle for. In other words, the prime ideas and values of a culture are more important than the outer language forms it adopts.

In fact, a non-Indo-European language like Hungarian can easily be used as a vehicle for European culture; just as a non-Indo-European language like Tamil can be used as a vehicle for Indian culture. The nature of the culture is more important than the structure of the language used to transmit it. And some degree of linguistic diversity exists in all cultures, whether it is non-Indo-European languages like Basque or Finnish in Europe, or those in India like Tamil.

Linguistic Reductionism

To try to reduce culture to outer linguistic and grammatical forms is a mistake of thought, a kind of one-sided reductionism. By isolating outer factors as the most important, the inner essence and development of the culture can be obscured or lost.

This issue is particularly important for the Indo-European problem, where there has been an effort to use linguistics – which is focusing on the outer language forms as the primary factor for determining culture – in trying to understand the history, culture and even ethnicity of those speaking Indo-European languages. There has been an attempt to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European culture as part of a Proto-Indo-European language, for time periods centuries or millennia before we have any written record and try to derive the culture of all later Indo-European speaking groups from it, like a tree from a seed..

This reduction of culture to a particular outer language form is untenable to a deeper view. We cannot define culture by a spoken language, though we can use culture to understand a spoken language.

This means that there is no Indo-European culture that can be defined on linguistic grounds, whether relating to PIE (Proto-Indo-European) or later. There are only Indo-European languages and even this affiliation is rather loose. Indo-European languages can share many factors with non-Indo-European languages as well as have their own differences that can be more major than their similarities.

Indo-European languages can reflect any number of cultures through various different places and historical periods like the Hindu, Persian, Greek, Roman or French. We cannot reduce all these cultures to some single original monolithic linguistic cultural entity called ‘Indo-European’. It would be like defining the development of modern civilization according to sound shifts in the English language, as if science and technology were by products of English language variations!

Yet this is what linguists do when they try to use proposed language shifts in Indo-European tongues to identify some original Indo-European language, culture and ethnicity from which they all arose.

Our understanding of ancient India has in particular suffered greatly from this ‘linguistic reductionism’. There has been an effort to take ancient Indian teachings like the Vedas that are composed in an Indo-European language, remove them from India and from the key ideas and values of Indic civilization, and try to explain them according to language developments of European languages and the ideas of comparative European mythology. This negates Vedic spirituality and culture almost altogether.

There is an Indic civilization and many Indic cultures but these are not limited only to those who speak certain Indo-European languages. There is a European civilization and many European cultures but these are also not limited to Indo-European language speakers.

European civilization can be briefly described as a combination of Judaeo-Christian religious views, Greco-Roman social and political views, and folk practices of the peoples in a certain geographic region and time period, leading to internal developments of art, science and other social changes. Most European groups speak Indo-European languages, but the primary religious ethos comes from a non-Indo-European language speaking culture altogether! We cannot speak of European civilization primarily as a certain Indo-European linguistic entity, nor understand its historical development according to morphological changes in these tongues.

Similarly, we can speak of Indian civilization as a combination of Indic dharma traditions like the Hindu and Buddhist, their corresponding political and social orders, the folk practices of the peoples as developed in the Indian subcontinent, as modified by Islamic, Christian and Western influences in recent centuries and other internal developments. We cannot speak of Indic civilization as primarily a linguistic entity, whether Aryan or Dravidian or both, whether indigenous or coming from the outside. Indic civilization has its own value and identity through its different forms and phases, just as European civilization does.

Most importantly, the prime concepts of Indian civilization are present in the ancient Vedic texts including ideas like dharma and karma, practices like mantra and meditation, an honoring of great rishis and sages, a pluralistic view of reality, and a recognition of the Divine presence permeating the world of nature. They are also present in ancient Tamil and other Indian languages, both of the Indo-European and Dravidian language families, as also in Nepalese.

Yet when linguists look at ancient India, they try to define its people and culture by outer language considerations, particularly Aryan versus unaryan, as if the people of those ancient times neatly defined themselves according to the modern idea of discrete language groups, treating those who spoke languages from other language families as inherently alien to them. The ancient world had a great deal of linguistic diversity and even those speaking languages belonging loosely to the same language family were certainly not aware of it!

The Vedic people of ancient India did not identify themselves as a linguistic entity but as a cultural and religious entity (in which language, of course, had some part, with Sanskrit as their main sacred tongue). Their divisions of Aryan and unaryan were not simple linguistic divisions but cultural divisions of good and bad, friend and foe. Even in the Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic text, Vedic tribes of all the five groups of Turvashas, Yadus, Anus, Druhyus and Purus – which included those who spoke the same or kindred tongues – can be found at times lumped among the Dasyus or enemies of the Aryans.

The search for an original PIE culture is inherently questionable. Language and culture cannot simply be equated. Even if some original PIE existed to some degree as a language, it may not have had any particular culture associated with it apart from the other cultures around it which spoke different languages. There is no way to identify PIE from non-PIE speakers from a cultural standpoint, whether in terms of horses, birch, salmon or anything else. That PIE might have had such words doesn’t mean that non-PIE groups did not have them.

Conclusion

Civilization and culture combine many factors. When we isolate a peripheral factor like language family and try to make it stand on its own as the prime determinative factor, we easily run into confusion. When we try to reconstruct languages for prehistoric periods, where we have no records to verify our speculations, and try to identify them with a particular culture or locale, we are on even yet shakier grounds.

To really understand Indian civilization requires first that we understand the values, perceptions, and aspirations behind it, not just the morphology of Indo-European languages. That is the real study of Indian civilization through which its culture, history and languages can be determined in their proper place. Those who use linguistics to study ancient India usually ignore this altogether. They have missed Indian civilization and its spiritual greatness and are trapped in their own linguistic swamps, trying to define single words and missing the great ocean of spiritual meaning that is our true heritage from the ancient world.

Does this mean that linguistics has no place in the examination of ancient history? No, but that its role is secondary, not primary. It cannot substitute for more solid forms of evidence. We must learn to understand what the ancients said and meant, not just classify whatever grammar fragments we have found as their real message! Otherwise our ignorance of our real history remains. In this regard, the spiritual message of the Vedas is as unrecognized today after some centuries of linguistics, as it was before that discipline arose.

In recent years, the government of India and several state governments have decided to revise history books, particularly relative to the ancient period, bringing up recent data that calls into question the Aryan invasion and the many theories that have arisen from it. Over the past few decades numerous archaeological finds have been made throughout North India, considerably widening the civilization of the region and uncovering its continuity through time, rendering the Aryan Invasion idea obsolete.

Quite predictably, leftists in India raised a cry of tampering with history, as if history is a fixed science that cannot be adjusted. The fact is that history books in India still largely teach the British view of India from the colonial era and have not changed much since the independence of the country over fifty years ago. The only exception is history books in Marxist states like Bengal that have been rewritten in a communist slant, which is even more against the traditions of the country than the British view.

History books are always being rewritten and they should be, as new information comes in and our understanding of culture widens. This does not mean that history should carelessly be rewritten to suit an ideology, as in communist Russia or in Nazi Germany, but that we must not turn old accounts of history into an unalterable dogma. History is not a material science like physics that deals with hard facts and even physics textbooks are continually being updated. The West has often tried to give its version of history the finality of science, but political changes since the end of the colonial era have revealed the biases behind its accounts, particularly of Africa and Asia. The western account of history cannot be given the finality of the physical sciences and should be expected to change radically over time.

Colonial Distortions of History East and West

Up to two decades ago, the history of America was taught as the wanton aggression of the Native Americans, the so-called Red Indians, on the gentle white settlers who simply wanted to farm and raise their families in a wide land that had room for many people. This was the predominant view of Christians and of educated Europeans in America. The real history was one of the genocide of native peoples and their cultures in a greed for land and power. The so-called savages honored all treaties. The so-called civilized white man didn’t honor any.

The European history of Africa followed similar prejudices, with the native blacks as uncivilized barbarians that had to be civilized by the white Europeans. That the blacks did have venerable and rich old cultures and were really the target of exploitation and genocide was covered over. The same phenomenon occurred throughout the colonial world, including Asia, where native peoples were subjugated and their cultures denigrated. Like the blacks, some Asians were turned into slaves or serfs, uprooted from their land and taken to foreign countries and commercially exploited. This was also done in the name of civilizational advancement through Christianity and European culture. That is how over a million Indians ended up in the Caribbean in Trinidad and Guyana.

The European treatment of India was the same as that of America and Africa, starting with the Portuguese in the sixteenth century, who brought the cruel ways of the Inquisition to India. The Indian mutiny of 1857 occurred because the British brought in aggressive and intolerant missionaries and had the country in the grip of a cruel economic exploitation. Yet such oppression has been left out of the history of India as told by the Europeans and independent India has not rewritten the record adequately. Similarly, the destruction wrought during the Islamic period, which was worse than the British period in terms of religious and economic exploitation as well as genocide, has been similarly ignored or downplayed so as not to offend minority communities.

Yet can one seriously imagine–given all the colonial distortions of history worldwide which are only slowly being removed today–that no real revision of the history of India needs to be made? Can we believe that somehow by luck, in spite of their prejudices, that colonial and European scholars got the history of India right and wrote it without any distortion or bias in their favor, though they failed everywhere else?

Liberals and leftists in America sympathize with the native cultures of Africa and America and their need not only for correcting historical accounts but also for restoration for historical wrongs. But, strangely, leftists in India still vaunt the colonial view that India was uncivilized before the British and denigrate their own native traditions!

When ancient historical finds are made in China, as with the uncovering of the tomb of the first emperor dating to the third century BCE, there is great national pride even among the communists. But all the massive finds of the Harappan/Sarasvati culture, as well as the retracing of the once great Sarasvati River, bring no pride to the leftist-secular intellectuals of India. They would ignore these, dismiss them as an invention of Hindu communalists, or imagine that they represent an unknown civilization that vanished mysteriously with no real connection to the later traditions of the region! Though the Vedic literature is the largest of the ancient world by all accounts, Indian leftists will have no pride in it and seek to denigrate it as best they can. Though the Mahabharata at over two thousand years old is the world’s oldest and longest national epic, Indian leftists don’t even want it taught in the schools (even when the common people find great pride in watching the Mahabharata on television).

In this regard, we should remember that Marxism and communism in India are largely anti-national movements. Marxists in India sided with China against India during the Indo-Chinese war of 1962 and raised no criticism of China for its attack. They sided with the British during the independence movement. This is a stark contrast to communism in Russia, China and Vietnam in which were part of larger nationalistic movements. This is because Indian Marxists came mainly from a British Marxist background and did not participate in anti-colonial struggles, as did the followers of Mao and Ho-chi-minh. They were largely intellectuals from wealthy families, educated in England, not workers in the field, much less freedom fighters.

Actually the distortion of history has been done intentionally by many modern Indian historians, particularly covering over historical wrongs against Hindus. They believe that by correcting history that the present can be changed. They pretend that the generally cruel Muslim rule in India was benign and secular so that this account will serve to make modern Hindus and Muslims more benign and secular and help them bury the past. But the opposite is true. If a nation does not face its true history, it has no future and its present remains confused. This would be like American historians pretending that Native Americans (Red Indians) were treated well through history and that accounts of their oppression and genocide were false or exaggerated, so as to bring harmony to the two communities today. This would only allow old prejudices to continue.

India has not faced its past in order not to offend minorities in the country, who may not resonate with the older Hindu and Buddhist cultures of the country. It has also been intentionally done in order to prevent the majority community from awakening from its colonial and religious oppression, fearing this would increase communal disharmony, even though distortions caused by this, like the image of Hindus as backward idolaters, continue in the world media today. The result is that the country lacks a genuine national pride and a sense of its continuity to ancient times.

History and National Pride

One of the main purposes of history books, as taught in different countries in the world, is to instill a sense of national pride and honor. Whether it is the United States, Great Britain, Russia, Germany or China, this is certainly the case today and has been so as long as these countries have existed as modern nations. The lives of great leaders, particularly the founders of the country are highlighted, the continuity of the nation’s history is emphasized, and the importance of the nation in the history of the world and the greatness of the national culture are stressed. Students are expected to come away from reading accounts of their history with a sense of national greatness and purpose, not only for the past but also for the future.

However, India is a strange and unique country in which history books are often anti-national in nature. India has largely kept in tact the British approach to Indian history devised in the colonial era. Students of such textbooks come away apologetic or confused about their country and its traditions. Textbooks in Marxist ruled states of India like Bengal and Kerala leave their students with a sense of the greatness of communism and communist countries like China or even Russia which is no longer communist, rather than any real regard for India and its great traditions.

History books in India try to ignore the dominant Hindu ethos of the country and its history before the Islamic period. India’s greatest historical and cultural document, the Mahabharata, is hardly given any attention in the schools. So too, the Vedas, Ramayana, Puranas, Buddhist Jatakas and other prime historical and cultural documents of the country are ignored because of their religious overtones. If they do address India as a nation, it is only India of the independence movement that they acknowledge, as if prior to 1947 India did not really exist. While Nehru is made important, older kings from the Rig Vedic Bharatas to Yudishthira of the Mahabharata period to the Marathas of the eighteenth century are hardly mentioned. There is no real sense of any historical continuity to the culture, much less to the country. While Mahatma Gandhi is emphasized, the greater spiritual traditions of India and its great teachers from the Vedic rishis, Vedantic, Buddhist and Jain sages to modern savants like Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi is not given much attention.

It is true that history should not be a mere instrument of a destructive nationalism and should avoid instilling aggression against other lands and peoples, even when upholding what is valuable in a nation’s history. But this does not require that the national value of historical studies is negated altogether.

The question, therefore, is how the history accounts in India can be made to reflect and instill a genuine nationalism and sense of the country’s history and destiny. India, after all, is one of the great civilizations of the world, with cultural traditions that have much value for humanity. Such historical accounts must reflect the richness and diversity of Indic civilization, but they cannot ignore its unity and continuity either.

The fact is that you cannot build a nation without creating history books that instill a positive nationalism, particularly in the youth. The real danger in India is not the arising of a chauvinistic nationalism like that of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy–which are foreign to the mentality and ethos of the country–but a lack of national spirit and historical consciousness that keeps people alienated from their roots and the country divided.

India needs a real national spirit and for this a national sense of history, pride and purpose is required. A true Indian nationalism will be rooted in an Indian ethos of dharma, spirituality and pluralism, but this does not mean there can be no national or historical pride without encouraging communalism in the country. On the contrary, a greater sense of national identity would be the best thing to counter the disintegrating influence of religious, castist and regional interests that are bringing the country down.

Therefore we must ask: Why can’t Indians connect India’s traditional ancient literature, the Vedas, with its archaeology through Harappa and the many Sarasvati river sites? Why can’t Indians find national pride in their own history both on literary and archaeological levels? Why should history in India be used for national shame, rather than national pride? Why should the history of India place Indic civilization out of India? These are questions that must be answered.

Western and Indic Views of History

The subject of history in the western context is a very different than in the Indian context. In the western view, history is mainly an account of political events and economic progress, a purely outward affair. In the Hindu view, history is a means of teaching detachment, showing how great kings and kingdoms come and go in the course of time. It has an inner value as a spiritual teaching about the nature of human life and the need for liberation from worldly concerns. In the western view, history is progressive from the crude beginnings of agriculture and village life moving forward to the present day urban culture. In the Hindu view, history is cyclical, with various cultures coming and going over time as the soul seeks liberation from the phenomenal world.

The western progressive account of history is quite flawed. For example, the first civilizations of the ancient world that we can document–including Egypt, Sumeria, India and China–did not regard themselves as the first but were aware of many cultures and kingdoms before them, particularly prior to a great flood. The civilizations that we regard as the first saw themselves as very old with many antecedents! Yet we pretend that there was nothing before them! In addition, the civilizations of the Third Millennium BCE, like those of Egypt and Harappan/Sarasvati India, had better urban and architectural achievements than those that followed for many centuries. Even Europe had its Dark Ages after the Roman period in which much knowledge was lost. This idea of history as linear progress is clearly not the case. While humanity has progressed scientifically, this is mainly over the past five hundred years. On the other hand, we see a spiritual decline since ancient times, and over the last century we can note a decline in culture, art, music and philosophy in Europe itself, coinciding or even caused by great advances in science.

As India is the only civilization of antiquity to survive the onslaught of time, it is the special responsibility of Indians to discover not only their history but also that of the entire ancient world. Just as there are unquestioned distortions of ancient India, similar distortions of other ancient cultures also exist. For example, the religion of ancient Egypt, which like that of the Vedas demonstrates much occult and spiritual significance, is similarly dismissed as polytheism, idolatry or henotheism (worshipping different Gods as the supreme God), exactly like the Vedas. Revamping the way history is taught in Indian schools would be a major step in the direction of a more authentic and spiritual sensitive history of the world. It is a scientific and spiritual imperative, not only for India but for all countries.

Modern western examination of the Vedas, and through the Vedas the ancient history of India, has been colored by the search for an original European identity, the so-called Aryans. This has led to Indian history and tradition being subordinated to a proposed Indo-European people and culture placed in Europe or nearby Central Asia. The result of this view is a need to place the Vedic culture of India outside of India and to interpret Vedic texts apart from the Indic tradition as an almost as an article of faith. Even though existing archaeological and genetic evidence is contrary to any Aryan invasion/migration into India, there is a great reluctance to give up this theory, not because of what is found relative to ancient India but to maintain some original Aryan identity in proximity to Europe.

Search for European identity

Starting with the renaissance, Europeans began looking for their pre-Christian roots in Greek and Roman culture. This continued as a major trend in western thought into the nineteenth century when the Greeks became regarded as the very founders of true civilization, with western and world civilization almost equated in the minds of most scholars. The Greeks were hailed as the inventors of science, democracy, logic, medicine, history and all that became the hallmarks of western civilization and its powers and insights.

This adulation of the Greeks opened the door for a greater search for the roots of all European peoples, discriminating them from the Semitic peoples of the Near East and North Africa. This became what we could call the search for the ‘original Europeans’, with the Greeks becoming just one branch of a greater ancient European culture. European scholars sought the roots of the European peoples and civilization as an entity in itself. They rejected the existing Judeo-Christian idea of European civilization as simply a product of Near Eastern civilization and sought some origin for it in Europe or Central Asia.

This search for the original Europeans arose as part of nineteenth century ideas of the superior white or European race, as opposed to weaker and inferior African, American and Asiatic types, whom the Europeans had recently colonized, were ruling and were seeking to convert. The search for the original Europeans became allied to the new European nationalism that arose along with the formation of new nation states in Europe. It became particularly strong in German thought, and even virulent, in its Nazi forms.

The search for the original Europeans needed a foundation on which to structure itself. This was found in a recognition of the connections between European languages, the postulating of an Indo-European family of languages, linking together the main languages of Europe.

Not only were the classical languages of Europe of Greek and Latin related, but so were the Germanic, Slavic and Celtic tongues among many others, the languages of the great majority of modern and ancient Europeans. It was not only languages that were related in vocabulary and grammar, but also cultural and religious ideas as reflected in their myths and practices.

Undefined Aryas and their home

This linguistic-cultural connection led to the idea of a proto-European homeland, some original European people as an ethnic or cultural type whose migration over time resulted in the creation of different European groups, cultures and nations. The idea of the original Europeans as a specific linguistic, cultural and ethnic type arose, the so-called ‘Aryans’, originally formulated as white Europeans speaking a pure European tongue with a unique seed culture that could later blossom as the great civilizations of Europe. Through this idea, Europe discovered an identity of its own that was ancient and based upon language, mythology and ethnicity. This was a very compelling idea for the colonial mind. A mythology of the original Europeans, their homeland and culture was created and elaborated over time.

Reflecting the European nationalism of the times, the different countries of Europe and their scholars argued about the details of the original Europeans, vying for the location of its original homeland, and their contributions to it. The Germans saw them as proto-Germans, the Russians as proto-Russians, others as proto-Celts and so on. These proto-Europeans or Aryans were often defined ethnically as blond, blue-eyed and white. The Nazis regarded them as the master race and sought to maintain the purity of their blood. Others scholars viewed them more culturally or linguistically than as an ethnic group.

However, this search for the original Europeans began with one major problem. The languages of Europe were not only connected with each other but to many other languages of West and South Asia, including the languages of India and Iran, which meant to languages of non-Europeans who had civilizations of their own along with their own history and sophistication.

In fact, the oldest, largest and most sophisticated literature of the ancient Indo-European languages was found in the Vedic literature of India, which the Europeans had only recently encountered. It was the discovery of Sanskrit that had allowed European scholars to connect European languages together in the first place. This Vedic Sanskrit was a quite profound and detailed language poetically and grammatically. Vedic texts also reflected the same deities and mythologies as the European but with greater complexity and variability. Indeed some European scholars had proposed that the Vedic people were the original Aryans and that Sanskrit was the mother of all languages.

The problem was that Indian civilization was very far removed from that of Europe. India has its own civilization that was more spiritual, mystical and little connected to the West and its historical development. And problematically for the nineteenth century European mind, the Indians were dark-skinned, among the very people the Europeans had recently conquered and colonized and regarded as inferior. It was certainly not something easy for the European mind of the time to accept that the proto-Europeans connected to India or were possibly even an offshoot of India and its older civilization.

Euoropeanization of the Vedas and Sanskrit

This led to a process, done perhaps as much unconsciously as consciously, of what I would call ‘the Europeanization of the Vedas’. Its main goal is to uphold the European roots of the Indo-European languages and cultures by making the original Vedic and Iranian peoples as offshoots of the proto-Europeans and migrants from their location in Europe or Central Asia. Instead of seeing India and Europe connections as part of a greater heritage, with India having an important role, India’s contribution was removed and taken outside the region.

This intellectual trend occurred in two ways. First European scholars postulated that the Vedas originated in Europe or Central Asia and were brought into India at a late ancient period (c. 1500 – 1000 BCE) by invading European people, the so-called Aryans, who were fair skinned, if not blond and blue-eyed, aided by their superior technology of horses, chariot and iron and overthrowing the indigenous people of the region. The original Vedic people were regarded as more European than Indian with their influence only later absorbed by the existing population.

From this view it was a natural step to claim that the ancestor of the Vedic language, Sanskrit, was also originally more European than Indian that came to be Indianized only after the Aryans carried it into India and were absorbed with the native peoples. They called this hypothesized ancestor language Proto Indo-European and claimed that Sanskrit was a later branch of it. There has since been an effort to reconstruct this Proto-Indo-European or PIE tongue, primarily on linguistic grounds.

Second, European scholars rejected the traditional Indian scholarship of the Vedas, though it was very ancient and detailed. They reinterpreted the Vedas in light of European languages, mythologies and cultural concerns, removing them almost entirely from their Indian context. This resulted in a new western scholarship of the Vedas in which Sanskrit and Vedas were made subordinate to Indo-European studies. It not only rejected tradition Indian scholarship of the Vedas, or took from it selectively, it also rejected any modern Hindu scholarship of the Vedas and its contemporary teachers like Swami Dayananda of the Arya Samaj or Sri Aurobindo, the great yogi.

The Vedas were Europeanized both in terms of location and scholarship. They were taken out of India in terms of their place of origin and also in terms of the ideas used to understand them. They were carefully Europeanized. European scholars placed the Vedas outside of both India and Indic thought as if they were a product or offshoot of the same proto-Europeans they speculated about. The European identity of the Aryans was preserved, the sophistication of Vedic literature and its impact on India notwithstanding.

Such European scholars approach the Vedas primarily through their training in European culture, with a knowledge of Greek and Latin, comparative European mythology, modern linguistics and other western intellectual tools. They seldom study, and have little respect for, Hindu methods of approaching the Vedas on a spiritual level through ritual, mantra, meditation and yoga. As mentioned already, they ignore both the ancient and modern Hindu literature on the Vedas, or at best give it a very selective and secondary place. As a result, what they see in the Vedas is very different than the Vedic tradition in India, much more European and less Indian. Over time they have come to rely on the translations and interpretations of the Vedas by European scholars as authoritative and have stopped studying Sanskrit or looking at the Vedic texts directly. Their knowledge of the original language, Sanskrit, is often faulty and mainly consists of linguistic deconstructionism, a comparative study of roots and words, not a cohesive literary interpretation of the text and its teachings.

The important thing to note from this is that the European estimation of the Vedas, even to the present day, is just an offshoot of their greater concern for discovering the original Europeans. The Vedas are not looked at in a primary way or in their own terms. Western scholars look at the Vedas in light of European thought and culture, which is their real concern. The Vedas are treated more as intruders in their European world, not as presenting any primary culture of their own. Such scholars have taken the Vedas both out of India and out of any traditional or modern Hindu or Indic scholarship or spirituality, though this is quite extensive. For them the Vedas and the Vedic people are non-Indian and represent a tradition that is not indigenous or even not primary to the country, but is more akin to the ancient European.

Non-Vedic origin of Indian civilization

At the same time, these scholars must postulate some indigenous non-Aryan peoples of India to ascribe India’s civilization to, which clearly goes back long before the Greeks or any other European peoples and their cultures, and has been archaeologically documented as quite extensive and sophisticated already in the urban Harappan era of the third millennium BCE. Should they ascribe India’s ancient civilization to the Vedic people, their whole concept of the original Europeans and their homeland would be suspect.

It is because of this fixation on the search for the original Europeans that western scholars are so adverse to any efforts to bring the Vedic people and culture into India, particularly to equating the Vedic culture with the ancient people of India through the Indus Valley or Harappan culture, which many Indian and some western scholars have suggested makes more sense. The outside India basis for the Vedas has become almost an article of faith of modern European thought so that the roots of European culture and Indo-European languages can remain in Europe or in proximity to it, not in India.

It is their focus on the original Europeans that prevents western scholars from really understanding the Vedas or correcting their view of Vedic history. In this regard, let us look at what has happened to the Aryan theory since it was first postulated relative to finds in India. Note that I am presently this material only briefly as it is already covered in previous books and articles (Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization, Rajaram and Frawley; In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, Feurstein, Kak and Frawley; the Oldest Civilization in South Asia, B.B.Lal, etc.), and will be the subject of some upcoming books and articles as well.

Today the genetic and archaeological evidence does not show any invasion or migration of Aryans or European like people in ancient times that could have brought the Vedic language or culture into India. A closer examination of Vedic texts show that the Vedas reflect the geography of India when the Sarasvati river dominated the west of the country, a river that dried up around 2000 BCE or long before the proposed Aryan invasion of 1500 BCE. Harappan sites are mainly centered on the Sarasvati River that flowed east of the Indus. Common symbols in them include the swastika symbol, Vedic fire altars, Brahma bulls, figures in yoga postures and many other Vedic and Hindu symbols. Meanwhile efforts to prove any evidence of invasion/migration in Vedic texts have also failed, with the texts emphasizing a culture with deep roots in the land of North India, particularly the Sarasvati River.

Yet western scholars still insist on the non-India origin for the Vedas and place them in Central Asia or even Europe. They now bring them in by way of linguistic changes, not through the old idea of large migrations or invasions that have been discredited. They propose a change of language and culture change with the people remaining largely the same, a migration more of language than people. In other words, though the hard data they proposed for the invasion/migration has not been found, they are still holding to their theory as if it did not require any real evidence to prove itself. The reason they cannot let go of this need to keep the Vedas out of India is arguably because of their cultural bias for the original Europeans.

Should the Vedic culture be placed in India or made the basis of the Harappan civilization, the great urban civilization of India that flourished on the Sarasvati river from 3100 – 1900 BCE, then the whole edifice of European scholarship about the original Europeans would have to be totally recast. The roots of ancient European culture would have to move towards India.

As scholars challenge the Europeanization of the Vedas, they are bound to meet with a stiff cultural resistance, even from western scholars who have never studied the Vedas. These scholars will naturally ally with other European scholars, with whom their share a common mindset. Their views require that they control the location and interpretation of Vedic culture, not for an understanding of Indian civilization but for maintaining their ideas of the original Europeans. It is not an issue of Indian history that drives them but of European history.

These ‘European’ scholars, which include a category of Europeanized Indians, are mainly interested in European culture and languages. They look at India and its Sanskritic and Vedic traditions in the distance, according to European interpretations through comparative mythology, linguistics, psychology or political and economic (caste and class) theories. They are suspicious of scholars who actually are rooted in the Vedic and Indic tradition and see things in a different light than they do. They don’t bother to connect the Vedic tradition east and south into India and Asia, though there is much evidence in these directions as well, but continually draw them only into the north and west.

It is this battle between those who claim a non-Indian and an Indian origin for the Vedas that we see today. Yet the Europeanization of the Vedas is at least being questioned now. In fact the whole concept of the Aryans is being questioned as well (as Aryan in Sanskrit is a term of respect, not one of ethnicity).

Once we take the Vedas back into the Indian context, in which alone we can really understand them, we will gain a new and more spiritual view not only of India but also of all humanity. But it will require that scholars have to recognize that ancient European culture may have a connection to India.

This issue is likely to take decades to resolve. It will be a long drawn out struggle that is likely to be resolved only when a new generation takes up the challenge. The reason is, to summarize, is that the issue is fundamental not only to the ancient history of India but to that of Europe and much of the rest of the world. It is a clash not only at the level of historical information but of civilizational views as to what history really means.

History and Ecology

Ecology is beginning to define how we look at the world and how we look at ourselves. Each geographical region in the world constitutes a special ecosystem – an interrelated habitat for plants and animals shaped by climate and terrain. These ecological factors have a strong effect on culture as well.

As part of nature ourselves, society arises out of an ecological basis that we cannot ignore. Most of civilization, both in its advance and decline, reflects how people are able to manage the ecosystems in which they live and their natural resources. Human culture derives largely from its first culture, which is agriculture, our ability to work the land. This depends largely on water, particularly fresh water that is found in rivers, and flat land that can be easily irrigated.

However, so far we have looked at history mainly in a non-ecological way, trying to define it according to political, economic or racial concerns. Our account of ancient history, particularly that of India, has not afforded an adequate regard to ecological factors. It has put too much weight on migration, as if culture came from the outside, rather than on the characteristics and necessities of the ecosystems in which people live and must rely upon for developing their way of life.

The Aryan invasion theory is such a product of the pre-ecological age of historical theory that emphasized the movements of peoples over the natural development of culture within well-defined geographical regions. Nineteenth century thought, the product of a colonial age, found it easy to see culture as something brought in by intruders, rather than as developed by the inhabitants of a region who had to develop unique methods to harness their natural resources as shaped by the ecology around them.

Ancient River Civilizations and India, the Land of the Rivers

It is a well known fact that the main civilizations of the ancient world of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India (Indus Valley), and China were only possible because of the great river systems around which they developed. The rivers made these civilizations possible, not simply human invention or any special ethnic type who migrated there.

If we examine these four great riverine centers of early civilization it is clear that the largest and most ideal river region in the world for developing civilization is India. Egypt grew up around one great river, the Nile that flowed through what was otherwise a dry, rainless desert. Mesopotamia had two rivers but only of moderate size, the Tigris and Euphrates, flowing through a large desert as well. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia were in subtropical regions that provided abundant warmth and sunshine for crops, but otherwise suffered from the limited size of their one or two river banks that were their sole steady. China had one large but unpredictable river, the Yellow River, which frequently overflowed it banks in various floods. It also received abundant rain. But it was centered in a cold northern region, with a limited growing season.

India, on the other hand, had a massive nexus of numerous great rivers from the Indus in the West to the swamplands of the Gangetic delta in the East. It had both a warm subtropical climate and seasonal abundant rains. This river region included relatively dry regions of the northwest to the very wet regions of eastern India affording an abundance of crops both in type and quantity. The Indian river system was much larger in size and arable land, and better in climate than perhaps all the other three river regions put together. No other region of the world could so easily serve to create an agricultural diversity or the cultural richness that would go with it.

Ecologically speaking, north India was the ideal place in the world for the development of a riverine civilization via agriculture. Bounded by the Himalayas in the north, and mountains on the West, East and South, this north Indian river plain is a specific geographical region and ecosystem, whose natural boundaries could easily serve to create and hold together a great civilization. It was also ideal for producing large populations that depend upon agriculture for their sustenance.

This same network of rivers was ideal for communication. Not surprisingly, the Rig Veda, the oldest book of the region, is full of praise for the numerous great rivers of the region, the foremost of which in early ancient times was the Sarasvati, which flowed east of the Yamuna into the Rann of Kachchh, creating an unbroken set of fertile rivers from the Punjab to Bengal. This Vedic Goddess of speech was a river goddess. The Vedic idea of One Truth but many paths (Rigveda I.164) probably reflects this experience of life of many rivers linked to the one sea.

The Need for An Ecological View of India’s History

The main point of this article is that if we really want to understand the development of civilization in ancient India we cannot ignore such ecological and geographical factors. Ancient India was the ideal ecological region for the development of civilization in the ancient world. Therefore, we should look to an indigenous development of civilization in the region. We need not import its people, animals, plants, culture or civilization from the outside, particularly from barren and inhospitable Central Asia, for example, which would not have been suitable to India and which is separated from it geographically by very hard to cross mountain and desert barriers.

We need to take a new ecological look at the Vedas, which so far has not been examined adequately ecologically but has been approached mainly according to linguistic, Marxist or Freudian concerns that easily miss the obvious geography or ecology of the text. If we do this, we will discover that even the oldest Vedic text, the Rig Veda, clearly describes a region of many vast rivers flowing to the sea, the most important of which was the Sarasvati. The climate that it describes of great rains and monsoons, the symbolism of the great God Indra, is also clearly that of India. The flora and fauna mentioned including the Brahma bull, water buffalo and elephant and its sacred trees of the Pipal, Ashvatta and Shamali is also that of India.

The fall of the Indus or Harappan culture, just as was the case for many in the ancient world, was owing to ecological factors, something that nineteenth and early twentieth century migrationist views of history completely missed. It occurred not because of the destruction wrought by the proposed Aryan invaders but by ecological changes brought about by the drying up of the Sarasvati River around 1900 BCE. This didn’t end civilization in the region but caused its relocation mainly to the more certain waters of the Ganga to the east. Such a movement is reflected in the shift from Vedic literature that is centered on the Sarasvati to the Puranic literature that is centered on the Ganges.

The great Indian river system from the Panjab to Bihar is perhaps the greatest breadbasket or agricultural center in the world. Any humans in the region would have been aided by the land, the waters and the climate, affording them a great advantage in the development of language and culture as well. The natural resources provided by the riverine ecosystem of north India could uphold great civilizations over the centuries. From it the peoples and literature of the region had adequate support from nature to sustain their traditions.

Southern River Regions

The type of civilization developed in the rivers of north India could easily connect with the cultures developing on the rivers in the south of the country that shared a common climate and geographical ties. The other main great river region for India is the basins of the Krishna and Godavari rivers in the southeast of India, particularly Andhra Pradesh. This provides another important agricultural center in the ancient world, which has also not been examined properly.
Another important river area is the Narmada and Tapti rivers in Gujarat and Maharashtra. As these were nearby the delta of the Sarasvati, they could have been an extension of it (which is perhaps why the Bhrigu Rishis of this region are so important in Vedic literature).

That the civilization of north India could have had connections with these southern cultures is also ecologically based. For this we must consider the ecological factors that existed when agriculture began to arise in the world around 10,000 BCE. Before the end of the Ice Age north India was much drier and cooler in climate. This means that if there was any pre-Ice Age basis for agriculture in north India it would have more likely come from these more suitable southern river regions which had better rainfall at that time.

Conclusion

We need to look at the civilization of India according to geographical and ecological imperatives that are far more certain than historical speculation conditioned by simplistic ideas of ethnicity, linguistics or migrations. In this regard the study of the Sarasvati river system by the geologists of India and linking it to the Sarasvati in Vedic literature is probably the key.
Civilization is like a plant that owes its existence to the land on which it grows. We cannot ignore this important fact either for our past or for our future. The current government of India plan to link all the great rivers of the country represents such a responsible ecological approach which, including reconstituting the old Sarasvati river channel, links the great future of the country with its great past.

Since the first publication of this book (Myth of the Aryan Invasion) in 1994, there have been many new discoveries in the field that uphold its basic premises from various angles. Therefore, it requires an update for its new edition While the original booklet was based on my longer book Gods, Sages and Kings first published in 1991, the update reflects several points from my new book on ancient India, the Rig Veda and the History of India, that will be published shortly (2001). Like the original, the updated booklet is meant as an overview and introduction for readers who may not wish to examine longer works on the subject. For those looking for more information, please examine such longer works as well, including those by archaeologists like B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta that add much technical data to this approach.

David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)
Makara Sankranti (Jan. 15, 2001)

Aryan Invasion or Migration: An Update and a Look Forward

As readers look at the ongoing debate relative to ancient India (2001), they surprisingly see that the main scholars who used to support the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)-whether leftists in India like Romila Thapar or American academics like Michael Witzel-now claim to no longer accept it. We might think that the myth of the Aryan Invasion has been exposed and is now being removed from history books.

However, the same scholars speak of the Aryans coming into India with their language, their Gods, their horses and their chariots about the same time as the old Invasion scenario (c. 1500 BCE). While some of them insist that the Aryans entered in significant numbers, most porrtray it as a cultural diffusion that involved only small groups of people. If we look carefully, therefore, we see that the invasionist scenario has been replaced with a not too different migration/acculturation theory. Though the main edifice of the Aryan Invasion has been removed-the invading Aryan hordes that destroyed Harappa-the conclusion that the Vedas represent an intrusive culture from Central Asia persists.

Yet instead of acknowledging that the idea of the Aryan destruction of Harappa was a great blunder which casts a shadow over their entire approach to ancient India, such former supports of the theory would simply push it under the rug. They are trying to pretend that it makes no difference. Even if the Aryans did not destroy Harappa, even if there is no evidence of significant populations coming from the northwest into India, even though the archaeological record shows an unbroken continuity of civilization from the pre-Harappan to the post-Harappan periods in the very regions described in Vedic texts-they still hold to their earlier estimation of Vedic culture as an import from Central Asia. Yet, if they were so wrong about the end of Harappa, how can they still be so right that the Vedic culture was later and not connected to Harappa?

What is more incredulous is that, even after recognizing that the idea of an Aryan destruction of Harappa was an error, these scholars have made no effort to remove this faulty scenario from textbooks. They act as if this mistaken interpretation has nothing to do with them and is not their responsibility to correct! The Aryan Invasion theory spawned many distortions and denigrations of India, as earlier portions of this booklet address. The image of the Aryans as the cruel destroyers of Harappa-the Aryans as militant fascists and racists-continues to be used by various groups inside and outside India, for political and religious advantage.

Instead of trying to correct this view that they now regard as wrong, the same scholars complain that those who connect Vedic literature with Harappan civilization are only acting out of political motives or projecting a religious bias. Therefore, whatever evidence for ancient India as a Vedic culture is proposed, they need not take seriously. They use this argument to refuse even to look at the massive Sarasvati river data, as if even geological evidence could be rejected as politically incorrect.

One might ask: What makes the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory such a big issue? After all, it concerns events of over three thousand years ago that really shouldn’t be relevant to anyone today. Does what might have happened in ancient Europe or America thousands of years ago arouse such passions today? What this debate really represents is a ‘clash of cultures’, to use a current phrase. The Aryan Invasion/Migration view represents a largely Eurocentric interpretation of Indic civilization. It holds that Vedic literature doesn’t even represent the country that has so long honored and preserved it and places a big question mark over its validity.

The real struggle behind this debate is between two views of humanity-a largely western-based view that is materialistic in nature, viewing history in terms of economics and politics, and a largely eastern view that follows a spiritual or dharmic approach. The Aryan debate reflects the West’s failure to really face, honor or accept Indic civilization. It is part of a cultural imperialism that is holding on long after the colonial armies have left. So ingrained is this prejudice that those who have it are usually not even aware of it. On the contrary, they fail to recognize any real Indic tradition from ancient times and view any attempts to propose one as dangerous-an atavistic Hindu nationalism that should be opposed by all possible means.

However, what we could call the pro-Vedic camp-those who see a deep spirituality and profound culture in the Vedas underlying the civilization of India-is not made up of poorly educated, backward or biased Hindus but includes great modern Yogis like Aurobindo, Vivekananda and Yogananda. It now has a whole array of researchers, archaeologists, linguists and geologists who have produced extensive scientific data to support it and whose work is expanding rapidly every year, while its opponents only rehash the same old failed interpretations, changing only a few terms in the process.

The greater issues involved in this apparently obscure debate are quite significant. If ancient India was a Vedic culture, then we would have to rewrite not only the history of India but also that of Europe and the Middle East. The whole edifice of western civilization’s interpretation of history would go down ignominiously. The ancient Europeans would be cultural offshoots of India and heir to the type of mystical and yogic vision that India has always held as the basis of its thought and culture. The Indo-European heritage from India to Ireland would be that of the largest and perhaps greatest civilization of the ancient world, Vedic India, in its cultural spread. The change in our view of history would be as radical as Einstein’s ideas that changed our view of physics.

Objections to the Aryan Migration Theory

The scholars of the Aryan Migration Theory-the new incarnation of the invasion view-place the Aryan entry after the end of Harappan culture in the 1900-1000 BCE era. In the absence of any evidence of significant migrations, the Aryan takeover of India has been reduced by most migrationists to a gradual process of acculturalization from Central Asia accomplished by a small group of elites. This absolves its proponents from needing to produce any tangible evidence for it, which they do not have. This Outside India Theory (OIT) for the Vedas, much like the Aryan Invasion Theory that it supplants, ignores major data in several areas.

Much important work has been done on the Sarasvati river over the past few years, through the Geological Society of India and other scientific groups,[1] with dozens of papers and studies outlining the change of courses of this great river over the centuries. The migration theory, just like the invasion theory, ignores the prominence of the Sarasvati river in Vedic texts. It was the drying up of this river that brought the Harappan civilization to an end. However, such scholars even while recognizing that river changes caused the abandonment of Harappan sites, ignore the fact that the same river is central to Vedic texts. They will not equate the great lost river of ancient India with the Vedic Sarasvati, in spite of dozens of Vedic references to its size and its location. They would still date the Aryan entrance into India after the drying up of the sacred river in India that the Vedas honor as their ancestral homeland.

There have also been many new important archaeological findings that show Harappan civilization to be older and larger than previously thought. Rakhigarhi, located on the long dry Drishadvati river of Vedic fame in the Kurukshetra region, though barely excavated, has been found to be much larger than either Harappa or Mohenjodaro and perhaps the oldest city of its type. This confirms the Vedic idea that the Sarasvati-Drishadvati region was the real center and origin of civilization in ancient India. In addition, the sophisticated pre-Harappan site, Kunal in Haryana, again in the Sarasvati region, shows the earlier development of civilization in the region.

Meanwhile, Dholavira, a Harappan site in Kachchh, has been revealed as one of the largest port cities in the ancient world, dating perhaps before 3000 BCE. Dholavira is located in what is now desert, some miles from the sea, and its habitation would only make sense owing its proximity to what would have then been the delta of the Sarasvati river. At Dholavira, interesting marble pillars have been found, marking what is probably a gateway to visitors from across the sea. Note that in the Rig Veda, Varuna, the Vedic God of the sea, is associated with great pillars (RV V.62). Such maritime sites as Dholavira make perfect sense relative to the numerous references to the ocean in the Rig Veda and its pervasive maritime symbolism.

Archaeological findings are confirming the continuity of Harappan civilization into the post-Harappan era, albeit with less urban sites. Harappan arts, crafts and building practices continued long after the Harappan cities were abandoned. This makes it more difficult to draw the line between the Harappan era and the supposed intrusive Vedic culture that came later. The older, vaster and more continuous Harappan culture becomes, the more difficult it becomes to separate it from the Vedic. In this regard, we must remember that only a fraction of Harappan sites that have been found have yet been excavated and the existent boundaries of Harappan culture are continually being expanded by new finds.

Above all, the migration theory, like its invasionist ancestor, ignores the spiritual and philosophical sophistication of Vedic texts, including the poetic and metrical depth of the Vedic language, which requires a great civilization to produce. The deities and rituals portrayed in the Vedas reflect a long period of development and a synthesis of diverse groups and views, such as would be found only in the Indian subcontinent. The Vedas are not primitive texts but the bedrock that could produce the great spiritual traditions of the region which arose through history.

Just as Vedic literature requires a civilization to produce it, so does Harappan civilization require a great literature to reflect it. Such a vast urban culture would have left a literary mark. Certainly, it could not have been completely overwhelmed by the crude literature of a few intruders from Central Asia, particularly when that intrusive tradition was oral, not written, and the Harappans had writing! Since archaeology now shows that there was no real break in ancient Indian civilization but only a post-Harappan relocation, the literature of the region would have persisted as well.

Horse and Chariot

The issue of the horse has become the main line of demarcation for the invasionists/ migrationists. It has become a one-issue argument used to neutralize any other data. They see Vedic/Aryan culture as a movement of horse-riding people into India from Central Asia. They point out the development of a horse culture at an earlier period in Central Asia and the lack of horse remains in ancient India. They equate the Aryans with the horse and chariot and Harappa with a non-horse, non-chariot and hence non-Vedic culture. Such a simplistic equation has many flaws and ignores the many other issues. It overlooks that Vedic culture was essentially a rishi-king culture, not a horse/nomad culture.

First, one should note that horses and chariots spread throughout the ancient world from Egypt and China. It was not accompanied by a radical change of culture, language or population for an entire subcontinent as has been proposed for ancient India. Ancient Egypt and China took on horses and chariots without any break in the continuity of their civilizations. Certainly, ancient India, the largest urban civilization of its time in the world, could have taken on a new horse/chariot culture without having to change everything else as well. Therefore, even if horses or chariots came into India from the outside at some point in time, this is no reason to assume that the language and culture of the region had to change as well.

Second, a study of horse anatomy shows that there were two types of horses in the ancient world that we still find today. There is a south Asian and Arabian type that has seventeen ribs and a West and Central Asian horse that has eighteen ribs. The Rig Vedic horse, as described in the Ashvamedha or horse-sacrifice of the Rig Veda[2] has thirty-four ribs (seventeen times two for the right and left side). This shows that the Rig Vedic horse did not come from Central Asia but was the South Asian breed. The Rig Vedic horse is born of the ocean,[3] which also indicates southern connections. The Yajur Veda ends with an invocation of the Divine horse that has the ocean as its belly (samudra udaram, TS VII.5.25). The Brihadarayaka Upanishad identifies the day and night as the two greatnesses of the horse rooted in the eastern and western oceans (BU I.1.2).

Some scholars have argued that there are not enough horse remains or horse seals to show that the horse was as significant in the Harappan era as it appears to be in Vedic literature. In this regard, we see that the unicorn is a common Harappan image. Should we then imagine that unicorns were common animals of the time? Harappan seals contain many mythical, composite and multiheaded animals. The Rig Veda also has such mythic and composite images like the Vedic bull with four horns, three feet, two heads and seven hands (RV IV.58.3). Clearly, the Harappan seals are not an anatomical record of existent animal species!

Horse bones have now been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites in India, not only in the north and west but also in the south and east, showing that the horse was known to the Harappan people, though it was probably mainly the south Asian horse. At the same time, the horse evidence required to prove the Aryan invasion/migration theory is also lacking. We do not find any significant evidence of horses coming into India around 1500 BCE in the form of horse remains, horse encampments or horse images. If the Aryans came with the horse around 1500 BCE, such remains would be dramatic. There is no archaeological trail of horse bones into India around 1500 BCE. If the horse were indigenous to India, on the other hand, there would not be dramatic horse remains at one level as opposed to another. So far there are no dramatic horse finds at any level. Even in the Bactria and Margian Archaeological Complex, which is supposed to be horse rich and a staging area of successive Indo-Aryan migrations/invasions into India, not a single horse bone has been found yet. This means that other areas supposedly rich in horses do not exhibit significant horse remains either.

Moreover, there are many equus bones found in ancient India, particularly the onager (Equus hemionus), which is native to Kachchh in Gujarat. There is evidence that the onager was used to draw chariots or battle cars in ancient Sumeria and was later replaced by the stronger and faster horse. The same thing probably occurred in India. It is also likely that the Vedic people did not discriminate between the different equus animals as strictly as we do the true horse from other breeds. This means that the Rig Vedic horse (ashva) could have, at least in the beginning, been an onager, which explains its oceanic connections as its native region of Kachchh is along the sea in what would have been the delta of the Sarasvati river.

Other scholars have noted that the Rig Veda knows of a light spoked-wheel chariot that did not appear in the Middle East until around 2000 BCE, suggesting it must be later than this period. They point out the lack of chariot remains in Harappan sites. Countering this view, the spoked-wheel is a common Harappan writing symbol. So there is evidence that the spoked wheel chariot had considerable antiquity in Harappan India.[4]

Genetic Information

Genetics is offering us important new information, both in regard to human and animal populations. India’s climate, flora and fauna are closely related to those of Southeast Asia, much more so than to Central Asia or the Middle East. In particular, Indian cattle (Bos Indicus) are domesticated versions of the wild cattle of Southeast Asia known as the Banteng (Bos Banteng or Bos Javanicus, a close relative of the Indian bison or gaur).

The Indian cow is an indigenous breed going back tens of thousands of years and not an offshoot of the Central and West Asian cow. Cattle husbandry is an independent development in India, not brought in from the west. Cattle genetics is even more detrimental to the migration theories because unlike invaders, migrants would always travel with their cattle and horses. Cattle genetics does not show this. As both the ancient Indian cow and horse reflect native breeds, one can no longer propose that the invading Aryans brought them in. That the invading Aryans left their cows and horses behind and adapted those of the indigenous Indians would be a rather silly proposition.

An examination of human skeletal remains also does not show any discontinuity from 1900-800 BCE, the period of the proposed Aryan entrance into India. In a recent article, Hemphill et al[5] state that there are two discontinuities in the area in so far as the human remains are concerned. One occurred between 6000-4500 BCE and the other occurred between 800-200 BCE. In the intervening period, there is a general biological continuity, notwithstanding a limited interaction with the populations from the west that has always occurred to some degree.

Human populations in India show the persistence of the same main population groups back to the pre-Harappan period and before. There is no evidence of an intrusion of new populations from West Asia that altered the genetics of humans in India at the time of the proposed Aryan intrusion. The skeletal record shows that in most ways the Indian population is quite unique. As a result, one thing can safely be asserted: Indians are ancient inhabitants of India and Southeast Asia (or Greater India) and not recent immigrants. Their literature should also belong to them.

Linguistics

One of the criticisms of those who reject the invasion/migration theory is that those who hold that Vedic culture is indigenous to India have not explained the linguistic situation in India, in which Sanskritic or Indo-European dialects prevail in the north of India and west into Central Asia, Iran and Europe, with Dravidian tongues in the south.

To counter this, I have proposed a model of ‘Sanskritization’, which is a Hindu term referring to a model of ‘cultural elite predominance’, to explain the spread of Indo-European languages. It resembles how English has spread in the modern world, not so much by migration as by a dominant culture. Harappan India with its many urban sites provides such a dominant culture that could have had a far reaching influence on different peoples and their dialects. Vedic literature provides a vehicle for this. In this regard, all the river and place names of North India are Sanskritic as far back as can be traced, confirming it. Even South India has many Sanskrit place names of great antiquity.

The Rig Vedic language was a synthetic language, combining elements of the different languages of the region, upholding an older and sanctified terminology for spiritual and religious purposes. Vedic Sanskrit, called ‘chhandas’ or meter, was probably a poetic language acceptable to the various peoples of the region at least on a religious level. Hence, it could travel far and be accepted by various groups, even those speaking rather different common dialects.

While linguists have argued that an elite Aryan culture from Central Asia could change the languages of India, they have missed the basic facts of culture and demographics. The civilization of ancient India was larger, older and more populous than that of Central Asia. Any primary cultural diffusion would have been from east to west, not west to east. This is what history shows us, with ancient Indo-Europeans like the Persians, Greeks and Celts coming originally from regions to the east of their later homelands.

We must note that linguistic diversity was a characteristic feature of the entire ancient world. No region-whether Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Europe or the Mediterranean-had only one linguistic group. India would not have been different. The persistence of linguistic diversity in India may not be a sign of an Aryan migration but of the existence of several old cultures in the region. Just as there are both Indo-European and Dravidian dialects in India, so there are both Indo-European dialects in Europe and non-Indo-European like the Finno-Hungarian and Basque languages. Mesopotomia has Indo-European (predominantly Iranian) dialects as well as Semetic and other groups like the Caucasian languages or ancient Sumerian. The division of linguistic groups in India is no different than that of other regions. Just as Mesopotamian groups like the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Kassites and Assyrians shared the same basic cultures and deities, though having several different language groups, so was the situation in ancient India.

However, even if a migration or invasion is required to explain the different language groups in India, it must have occurred prior to 3000 BCE, before the beginnings of urban civilization in the region. After that period the region was too populated and the basic culture too well formed to allow for such a massive change of languages without significant migrations or a clear archaeological record to support it. Therefore, even if one is compelled to accept certain linguistic constraints, there is no reason for an invasion/migration of 1500 BCE.

Southern and Northern Vedic Cultures

A close study of Vedic literature reveals that there were two related cultures in ancient India. This is one of the main points of my book, the Rig Veda and the History of India. The first was a northern kingdom centered on the Sarasvati-Drishadvati river region. It was dominated by the Purus and the Ikshvakus and their mainly Angirasa gurus that produced the existent Vedas texts that we have. The second was a southern culture along the coast of the Arabian Sea in the Sarasvati delta, and into the Vindhya Mountains. It was dominated by the Turvashas and Yadus and their mainly Bhrigu gurus and extended into groups yet further south.

These two groups vied for supremacy and influenced each other in various ways as the Vedas and Puranas indicate. That is why in Vedic literature the Turvashas and Yadus, the southern people are the main enemies, though originally kinsmen, of the Vedic Bharatas. Great Vedic kings like Divodasa, Srinjaya and Sudas have the Turvashas and Yadus as their main opponents. The mythical ancient Deva-Asura war of the Vedas and Puranas involves the Angirasas and Bhrigus (Brihaspati and Shukra) or the northern and southern rishi families.

Similarly, in Puranic literature it is the Yadus who cause the most conflicts. The great king Sagara of the Ikshvakus defeated the Yadus. So did Parshurama, the great avatar of lord Vishnu. The Ramayana shows a similar north-south battle, with Ravana as a Brahmin with connections to the Yadus. The northern or Bharata culture ultimately prevailed making India the land of Bharata and its main ancient literary record the Vedas, though militarily the Yadus remained strong throughout history.

The southern culture was probably the older of the two, reflecting the fact that north India was a desert prior to the ending of the last Ice Age. The Vedic people probably came originally from the south, not the northwest, spreading gradually northwards after the end of the Ice Age which turned the desert of North India into a fertile region for agriculture. This southern connection is the basis of the maritime symbolism at the core of Vedic thought, which reflects an ancient heritage. There was much borrowing and intermixture between these two groups who shared a common culture. However, we should not think of the two as some Aryan-Dravidian racial divide but as a division within the same basic peoples. That is why many Bhrigus remain prominent in Vedic and post-Vedic literature.

In addition, there was a third or northwest Vedic culture in Punjab and Afghanistan-that of the Anus and Druhyus who were closely related to the Puru-Bharatas. This was first part of the northern kingdom but gradually developed its own identity. It was partly assimilated by the Bharatas as they became the dominant northern people. Another portion of it extended north and west outside of the Indian subcontinent. Its influence was secondary to that of the northern and southern kingdoms and much of it passed out of the Indic sphere of civilization altogether. Sometimes this northwest group of the Anus and Druhyus allied with the southern group of Turvashas and Yadus against the Bharatas, as in the story of Sudas and the Battle of the Ten Kings.

However, this northwest Vedic culture was the basis of the Indo-European cultures that we find in Europe, Central Asia and the Near East. Much of what western scholars have done to show the origin of the Indo-Europeans in Central Asia is really a discovery of this western branch of the Vedic people, not a discovery of the real origins of Indo-European languages or culture as a whole.

Therefore, we must look to the south and the east to understand Indic civilization and the Vedas themselves. The connections west to the Europeans and Iranians were more an outflow, while the southern connections were more original and enduring. Western scholars, dominated by a European mindset, only trace Indo-European culture from Europe and the Middle East to India as its eastern border. They fail to see that the boundary is only in their minds. We can also trace linguistic, cultural and religious influences east and south from India as far as Indonesia, not only during the classical Hindu-Buddhist period, but also in the Vedic period itself. We must, therefore, look to the Rig Veda in terms of southern and eastern connections, recognizing the influences of the greater subcontinent itself which is part of South Asia.

The Rig Veda as the First Bharata

A more sensitive study of the Rig Veda shows it as a book of great kings and seers (rajas and purohits). The Vedas reflect great kingdoms and a sophisticated ancient culture, with the main Vedic rishis like Vasishta being the purohits or chief priests of great emperors like Sudas, said to have ruled India from sea to sea in Brahmanical literature. The Vedas look back to many generations of kings and seers in their Sarasvati homeland. They are not the kind of primitive or barbaric poetry that the invasion/migration scenario requires. Even their glorification of horses and chariots is that of an urban nobility, such as occurred in the ancient literature of Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia, not of primitive invaders.

The Rig Veda lasted because it was the main literature of the subcontinent and its dominant rishi and royal families. The main kings and rishis of the Rig Veda are those of the Bharata dynasty that ruled on the Sarasvati river, from whom India gained its traditional name as Bharata. Just as the Mahabharata later endured because it was a natural literature, so did the Rig Veda itself. The Vedic as a royal literature of the region explains its power to endure. As nomadic poetry, there is no reason why it could have ever been preserved.

Moving Forwards: Towards a New Spiritual Vision of the Vedas

Our view of history evolves along with civilization. Every generation interprets history anew. The views about ancient India set forth in the colonial era are no more the last word then are the colonial views on any civilization. India is now independent and must rewrite its own history. This does not mean to ignore the findings of modern science and archaeology but it also does not mean to ignore the soul and dharma of the country, its yogic and spiritual vision. It is no longer possible to reinvent the Aryan Invasion as a migration or anything else. There is simply no data for it, and the data against it, like the Sarasvati river work, grows stronger every day.

Yet, a revision of the history of ancient India is only the beginning of a greater examination. The real work that lies ahead is an encounter with Vedic literature on a spiritual level. The Vedas contain, at least in seed form, the great wisdom that we find more clearly articulated to us in the Vedantic, Yogic, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh traditions of the region-perhaps even something more. They hold a mantric power in their teachings that later traditions relied only on a portion of, like the power of the great Vedic mantra OM itself. Even modern Hindu teachers like Swami Dayananda of the Arya Samaj, Sri Aurobindo or Pandurang Shastri Athavale have used the great Vedic mantras to energize new yogic paths today.

So far, we have just touched the great spiritual power of the Vedas that can transform our civilization in the light of consciousness. Modern scholars have served not to help open the doors to that great Vedic vision, but have worked hard to keep them shut, not even suspecting the great treasure that lies behind them. In so doing they have taken the role of the proverbial Vedic Panis, the anti-gods who hide the light of truth and joy and keep it constricted by greed and ignorance.

After we have removed the cobwebs of historical misinterpretation fostered by the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, we can move directly into the real Vedic world. The wonders there will astound us. They will connect us not only to the Divine but also to our inner Self. They will dwarf our estimation of revelation or of science, helping to unfold the secrets of the great conscious universe in which we live and which lives inside of us. The Vedas provide us this deeper vision of humanity. Only if we reintegrate our present culture with that of the ancient seers can we truly go forward to the enlightened world that all sensitive human beings truly wish to create.

May that Vedic vision again come forth for the benefit of all creation.
May the misinterpretations that obscure it disappear like the darkness at the rising of the Sun!

[1] Note the work of S. Kalyanaraman in this respect.

[2] RV I.162.18, catustriæìad vàjino devabandhor vaèkrãr aívasya

[3] RV I.163.1, yad akrandaâ prathamam jàyamàna udyant samudràt uta và purãìàt

[4] B.B. Lal has recently unearthed evidence for spoke wheeled vehicles at Kalibangan, dating well before the supposed arrival of Aryans in India. These photographs are scheduled to be published sometime early next year.

[5] Hemphill, B.E., Lukacks, J.R, Kennedy, K.A.R; Biological Adaptations and Affinities of Bronze Age Harappans; in R. Meadow’s (Ed.)- Harappa Excavation 1986-1990 (pg. 137-182); Prehistory Press; Madison, Wisconsin; 1991

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion was first written in 1994 in order to summarize important new information on the ancient history of India that refutes commonly held views on the subject inherited from the nineteenth century. It was a condensation of longer material from books of mine like Gods, Sages and Kings, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization (with N.S. Rajaram) and In Search of the Cradle of Civilization (with Georg Feuerstein and Subhash Kak). The 2001 update reflected my recent book Rigveda and the History of India that pushed the Vedic horizon further into the South India.

The 2005 edition reflects information from a new book that N.S. Rajaram and I have completed for the Swaminarayan movement and their new Delhi temple Akshardham, the largest to come up in the city in perhaps centuries, and its cultural displays. That book (Hidden Horizons: Unearthing 10,000 Years of Indian Culture) takes the origins of the Vedic age further back in time and in the direction of Southeast Asia.

The amount of information available relative to ancient India is now much more extensive than that considered in old textbooks still used in India’s schools and in most schools in the West. Numerous new archaeological finds, including several larger than Harappa, the geology of the Sarasvati River, the natural history of the region, Southeast Asia as the homeland for most human populations prior to the end of the last Ice Age, new views of genetics, new theories of linguistics, archaeo-astronomy, and a greater sensitivity to Vedic texts and their vast spiritual and cultural implications, are only part of the new fabric to be woven in order to really understand ancient India.

Whether one may agree with the details, it is clear that the ancient history of India needs to be totally recast. The history and cultural heritage of India is largely an indigenous development of the same basic peoples that have inhabited the region for over ten thousand years, as they have adapted to their environment and also discovered its spiritual essence in its great mountains, rivers and oceans. It is time to look at the history and culture of India as a whole, organically, and in an integral manner according to its own internal impetus as the primary factor.

Older views of India based on outside migrations, external cultural influences and foreign borrowings as the primary forces are the products of a failure to understand the real soul and spirit of India. In the twenty first century in which the antiquity of cultures all over the world is being extended back centuries, if not thousands of years, there is no need to keep the history of India frozen around speculative events of 1500 BCE that have so far failed to prove themselves. It is time to open the door on India’s great ancient heritage that takes us back to the very dawn of time. This primary message of the book remains the same.

2005 Update
More on the Southern Connection: The Findings of Natural History

Southeast Asia and the End of the Ice Age Migrations

Probably the most important development in the study of ancient India over the last five or ten years has been new evidence relative to genetics and natural history. This shows the antiquity of Indian populations in India and a strong connection with Southeast Asia going back to the Ice Age period.

Such information supports the southern connection to the Vedic culture based that I have proposed, starting with the maritime symbolism of the Rig Veda highlighted in my first book on the subject Gods, Sages and Kings (1991). It was an important theme in my Rig Veda and the History of India (2001) and in previous editions of this current volume. These connections have also been addressed in books and articles by Subhash Kak, S. Kalyanaraman, N.S. Rajaram and many others. The more specific scientific data on the importance of Southeast Asia as a possible source of most ancient post-Ice Age cultures can be found in the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as in his books like Eden in the East.

The southern basis for the Vedic culture is based upon two important points of natural history. The first is the geology of the Sarasvati River in the post-Ice Age period. The second is the dominance of South India and Southeast Asia as a major site of human habitation during the Ice Age period, and migration from it in the post-Ice Age era – when the region was flooded – as probably the main impetus for the development of cultures to the north and west extending perhaps as far as Europe.

We have already discussed the first major point of natural history relative to ancient India in the earlier sections of the book. The development of agriculture and urban civilization in ancient India was based upon the geology of the Sarasvati River, which arose as a mighty river towards the later period of the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago, and lost its perennial flow, owing to the later climate changes and the melting of the main glaciers in the 2200-1500 BCE era. This Vedic-Sarasvati culture, relative to its geology, lasted from around 10,000-2000 BCE, when the Sarasvati was the dominant river in North India. This perennial great Sarasvati defines the main period of the development of Vedic culture, Vedic kingdoms and the late Vedic era, when the Sarasvati began to decline. This is roughly the period from the older Rigvedic Hymns to the later four Vedas, Brahmanas and early Upanishads, though it is likely that the existent texts which we have were not entirely finalized until the end of this period.

The second and related point, which is now assuming more significance, is that this Vedic civilization was based upon an older proto-Vedic culture in the south of India and Southeast Asia prior to the end of the last Ice Age. Prior to the end of the last Ice Age, when sea levels were much lower, the most favorable part of the globe for human habitation was Southeast Asia, which included the region from South India to Indonesia. Indonesia was not a series of islands but was connected to Malaysia as part of a large subcontinent called Sunda Land. This region had the warmest and wettest climate of the Ice Age period and was the main center of human habitation and probably human culture as well. Regions to the north were not only colder but drier, including north India, with little monsoon developing in the summer and little melting of glacial ice from the winter to support much by way of great rivers.

This idea of Sunda Land has points in common with the idea of Kumari Kanda, of South India connecting to a larger continent to the south at a remote ancient period. It is also reflected in the maritime symbolism which pervades the Rig Veda and in the idea of pre-flood or pre-Manu kings and dynasties like that of Prithi Vainya, who is credited with first introducing agriculture to humanity, as well as in the idea of earlier kalpas or world-ages and earlier Manus that we find in the Puranas.

The end of the Ice Age released the waters to flow through the Sarasvati River and inundate the plains of North India, turning the area into an ideal region for habitation and agriculture. We can easily see this geological event in Vedic stories of the great Indra, slaying the dragon Vritra, who lay at the foot of the mountains holding back the waters, releasing the seven rivers to flow into the sea.

The end of the Ice Age caused a migration of peoples from Southeast Asia to the north and west, fleeing the rising waters that put much of the Indonesian area under sea and separated Sri Lanka from India. North India would have been one of the first and most accessible places of migration for those seeking to flee the end of the Ice Age floods, either by sea or by land routes. We see this in Hindu myths of Manu as a flood figure coming from Kerala in South India, as in the Matsya Purana, as well as in the underlying maritime symbolism and ocean worship in the Rig Veda itself.

Older Patterns: India and Southeast Asia and Human Populations

A third important point of natural history is that this movement of populations out of Southeast Asia at the end of the last Ice Age reflects an even older pattern of movements. According to recent science and genetics, modern man arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and from there spread first into India and Southeast Asia by a coastal migration. According to the geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, settlements in India appear about 90,000 years ago. From India there were later northeastern and northwestern migrations into Eurasia and the Far East. India has long been a focal point of this movement from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe.

A recent paper in the journal Science reporting on the analysis of the DNA of the Orang Asli, the original inhabitants of Malaysia, confirms this view. According to it a single migration out of Africa took the southern route to India, Southeast Asia and Australasia. At this time Europe was too cold for human habitation. About 50,000 years ago, when deserts turned into grasslands, an “Out of India” migration populated the Near East and Europe, another migration went northeast through China and over the now submerged Bering Strait into the Americas. This agrees with the earliest known modern human sites of the Near East (45,000 years ago) and Europe (40,000 years ago). It is likely that the earliest sites on the coastline that were occupied by the first migrants are now under water, since sea level has risen more than sixty metres since the last Ice Age.

So a movement out of India and Southeast Asia has been occurring for tens of thousands of years. But the movement after the end of the last Ice Age was the most crucial for current human populations. Geneticists like C. Cavalli-Sforza and S. Oppenheimer have noted that settlers in the coastal regions of India were the source (‘inocula’) for the population of India. Some of them later migrated northwards and westward to populate Europe. This is the exact reverse of the various migration-invasion theories (like the Aryan invasion) advanced by linguists and anthropologists who sought to derive Indians and their civilization from Central Asia, Eurasia or even Europe. See for example, Eden in the East by Stephen Oppenheimer (2003), London: Constable. This is discussed in more detail in later chapters.

Hindu View of Time and History

The Hindu idea of earlier Manus (humanities) and earlier kalpas or world-ages, such as we find in Puranic literature, may reflect memories of these earlier phases of mankind prior to what our current culture recognizes as history. This Hindu connection to prehistoric phases of the human species may be responsible for the Hindu idea of an eternal tradition of truth (Sanatana Dharma), and its recognition of cyclic movements of human civilization over many tens of thousands of years, such as we find in Puranic Yuga cycles.

From the standpoint of modern science, this ‘Hindu view of time’ better reflects the movement of natural history that is marked by cycles and cataclysms over long time periods. This is in contrast to western historical models that follow a linear and progressive model of history, culture and religion towards some sort of heaven or utopia, based upon a limited time horizon of about five thousand years that stands apart from nature’s cycles and often tries to oppose them. As we move into a more ecological age and gain a greater respect for natural history, we must reformulate our cultural history accordingly, which will take us more in the direction of this Hindu view of time, humanity and the universe.

Languages and Natural History

Ancient languages, like the populations and cultures, mainly arose as efforts to adapt to the natural environment. Languages were not simply affairs of the last five thousand years but have existed for tens of thousands of years, as long as the species, and have also been strongly impacted by natural history.

We can trace the movement of languages along with this movement of peoples, who would not have been mute. Such early ancient peoples would have kept their languages in tact as best they could because they relied on the spoken language as the main repository of their culture. This would require making ancient language groups, including the Indo-European family, much older, arising eight to ten thousand years ago along with flood changes and migrations. It is even possible that currently recognized language groups reflect languages formed and spoken even longer back in the Ice Age Period.

This movement of peoples out of India and Southeast Asia at the end of the Ice Age can provide the impetus for the spread of Indo-European languages north and west into Europe and Central Asia, regions that in the Ice Age era could only hold very small if any populations, having a climate that resembles Tibet (as a cold dry desert). Or perhaps it began even earlier, in some of the warm interludes that did occur during the latter portions of the Ice Age.

The end of the Ice Age afforded the natural events to create widespread migrations from populated to unpopulated regions. The much later proposed migrations, like those speculated for the Aryans into India around 1500 BCE – which still has yet to be proved to have occurred at all – do not have this natural justification. They are proposed migrations from unpopulated to populated and from uncultured to cultured regions that could not count for so much in terms of cultural changes.

Yet even such shifts of people in the late ancient period appear to be related to climate changes and droughts that began around 2200 BCE, which also led to the drying up of the Sarasvati River in India, but this was another movement out of India or a relocation inside of India from the Sarasvati to the Ganga.

Language Families

India is not only the eastern focus of Indo-European languages; it is also the western focus of Indo-Pacific languages. The Indo-Pacific family covers the languages of the Australian aborigines and the Papuans. The Austro-Asiatic cuts across from India to the Pacific (the Munda in India, the Thai, and the Vietnamese), extending to Madagascar.

Indian languages of both the Sanskritic and Dravidian groups have considerable affinities and connections with Pacific languages. These have not been adequately explored owing to the obsession with PIE (Proto-Indo-European) relative to Europe and Central Asia that has kept scholars from taking Indian languages further south and east. Both Sanskritic and Dravidian languages of India have considerable connections with the Munda and Southeast Asian languages that they have been in physical proximity to, which has been throughout the historical period. These Pacific languages similarly have their connections with Dravidian and Sanskritic languages.

Within India, the connections between the structure and vocabulary of the north and the south Indian languages indicate much internal migration of people and diffusion of culture, linking not only India to the Central Asia, but more importantly, India to the Pacific region and to Southeast Asia.

In addition, it is not only the Indo-European languages that connect India with Central Asia. The Dravidian languages also have connections with the Altaic family of languages that includes the Japanese, Korean, and the Turkic. That is why western scholars have proposed similar Dravidian migrations into India in late ancient times – a kind of Dravidian invasion theory much like the Aryan Invasion idea, sometimes dated even after it, making the Dravidians into post-Aryan migrants into the region – to explain the connection of Dravidian languages in India with those in Central Asia. This was the view of Bishop Caldwell who first brought up the idea of a Dravidian family of languages.

These Aryan and Dravidian invasion models would make the dominant language families of India intruders from the northwest at a late period. Such an idea is contrary to the natural history and the fact that India had stable populations and a cultural continuity throughout the ancient period. A much more likely scenario is that both Dravidian and Sanskritic languages developed in India and their influence spread to the northwest along with the movement of peoples in the Post-Ice Age era. This makes India an important central focus for not only populations, but for many of the languages of the world.

The Indo-European languages and the Dravidian are probably offshoots of such an older Indo-Pacific group of languages. Ancient South India at the time of the end of the Ice Age was probably the home of a proto-Vedic culture and of languages that later gave rise to both Dravidian and Sanskritic groups.

Languages like peoples developed regionally, were occasionally displaced by powerful natural events, and spread also by communication. Languages like populations cannot be defined by the lesser migrations of the late ancient period, by which time most population bases were already defined. They should be related to earlier and more powerful events.

Religion and Culture of Southeast Asia

The Vedic religion of India has much in common with other Indo-European religions from Persia to Ireland in terms of practices, rituals and traditions. These include fire worship, ritual chanting, sacred plants and many other factors, such as has been the subject of many studies East and West.

However, similar connections exist between the Vedic and Southeast Asian religious and cultural traditions. While India and Southeast Asia shared Buddhist and Hindu traditions during the historical period, it is now becoming more likely they did so in the prehistoric era as well. We also need to examine the similarities between Vedic rituals, customs and yoga practices and older traditions of Southeast Asia, which, incidentally, also had fire worship and a cult of sacred plants (Soma).

One of the main mistakes of modern scholarship, relying uncritically on its own preconceptions about culture, is to not even bother to look for such connections. The artificial barriers put up by old theories that Indian civilization came from the West have to be eliminated. Southeast Asia has been regarded by western historians as an even more a cultural backwater than India because they regard it as having borrowed from India what India itself borrowed from the West! These ideas also need to be set aside. Southeast Asia may prove more important as a cradle for human populations and culture than the Middle East.

Many of the earliest agricultural sites have been found in Southeast Asia in the late Ice Age period more than ten thousand years ago. It is also likely that other cultural innovations usually credited to the Middle East may have arisen in this region. These were less likely to survive the course of time owing to sea level changes and the effects of a wet tropical climate, as well as probably building more with wood than stone.

The Hindu view that cycles of time are reflected in cycles of consciousness and civilization also deserves serious consideration. We cannot impose our current historical mindset on previous eras, particularly for eras thousands of years ago, and expect to understand them. Their mentality, culture and usage of language would have been according to the influences of their time and environment.

One of the great limitations of modern linguistics is that it tries to reconstruct ancient languages as if the ancients formed words and thought the way we did. In tracing ancient languages and their movement, we should also strive to be more sensitive as to their nature and symbolism. Similarly, when we use modern theories like Marxism, Freudian psychology or even monotheistic religions to understand the early ancient world, we are imposing alien ideas upon them that cannot reveal their true character.

An Integrated Approach

The tendency of modern scholarship of ancient India has been to make the culture, languages and peoples of the region into outsiders, coming fairly late in the ancient historical period. Such new and more scientific evidence shows that the peoples of India can no longer be made into recent immigrants. This makes it very difficult to superimpose their languages or cultures upon them at a late period as well. All these factors are intimately connected to the natural environment and natural history of the region.

In other words, in order to understand ancient India we must look at the natural history, languages, culture and peoples together. We cannot attribute the languages, peoples or culture of India to groups from outside of India, which India absorbed like a vacuum. Languages, peoples and cultures were already there and in abundance, as India has always been a very fertile ground for human development. Nor can we have these cultures like the Harappan mysteriously disappear or become replaced in the late ancient period, particularly when there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing mysterious about Harappan civilization or it’s arise or it’s fall. It is very Indian much like the later classical cultures of the region in arts, crafts, town planning, agriculture, tools or religious symbolism. We cannot divide it off into another stream which left no trace.

It is better to look at India as it truly is, as a natural geographical, cultural, linguistic, and population zone. We must recognize an indigenous development of civilization in India relative to the factors of natural history and shared environment defined by the geography of the Himalayas to the sea that we find even in ancient texts. This connects India geographically more with Southeast Asia, and in terms of time frame, with movements of people and climate changes at the end of the last Ice Age, not in the 1500 BCE era.

What is most remarkable is that India preserves an ancient literature that with its knowledge of the ocean and the Sarasvati River accurately reflects the natural history. Putting all these factors together is like putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Instead of a puzzle with most pieces missing, as has been the recent western view of ancient India, it restores the picture to its whole.

The idea of India as a cultural patchwork is the result of poor or preliminary scholarship that has been unable to reconstruct the whole, like the blind man who cannot see the elephant as a whole. Once we add in the complete picture as revealed both by the natural history and the literature of the region, what we see instead is India as one of the most important centers not only for human spirituality through its great religions, but also of populations, languages and culture back to the period of prehistory. This is new view of India that will replace the current old worn distortions that are held up more by politics and by inertia than by anything else.

In other words, in order to understand ancient India we must look at the natural history, languages, culture and peoples together. We cannot attribute the languages, peoples or culture of India to groups from outside of India, which India absorbed like a vacuum. Languages, peoples and cultures were already there and in abundance, as India has always been a very fertile ground for human development. Nor can we have these cultures like the Harappan mysteriously disappear or become replaced in the late ancient period, particularly when there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing mysterious about Harappan civilization or it’s arise or it’s fall. It is very Indian much like the later classical cultures of the region in arts, crafts, town planning, agriculture, tools or religious symbolism. We cannot divide it off into another stream which left no trace.

It is better to look at India as it truly is, as a natural geographical, cultural, linguistic, and population zone. We must recognize an indigenous development of civilization in India relative to the factors of natural history and shared environment defined by the geography of the Himalayas to the sea that we find even in ancient texts. This connects India geographically more with Southeast Asia, and in terms of time frame, with movements of people and climate changes at the end of the last Ice Age, not in the 1500 BCE era.

What is most remarkable is that India preserves an ancient literature that with its knowledge of the ocean and the Sarasvati River accurately reflects the natural history. Putting all these factors together is like putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Instead of a puzzle with most pieces missing, as has been the recent western view of ancient India, it restores the picture to its whole.

The idea of India as a cultural patchwork is the result of poor or preliminary scholarship that has been unable to reconstruct the whole, like the blind man who cannot see the elephant as a whole. Once we add in the complete picture as revealed both by the natural history and the literature of the region, what we see instead is India as one of the most important centers not only for human spirituality through its great religions, but also of populations, languages and culture back to the period of prehistory. This is new view of India that will replace the current old worn distortions that are held up more by politics and by inertia than by anything else.

In other words, in order to understand ancient India we must look at the natural history, languages, culture and peoples together. We cannot attribute the languages, peoples or culture of India to groups from outside of India, which India absorbed like a vacuum. Languages, peoples and cultures were already there and in abundance, as India has always been a very fertile ground for human development. Nor can we have these cultures like the Harappan mysteriously disappear or become replaced in the late ancient period, particularly when there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing mysterious about Harappan civilization or it’s arise or it’s fall. It is very Indian much like the later classical cultures of the region in arts, crafts, town planning, agriculture, tools or religious symbolism. We cannot divide it off into another stream which left no trace.

It is better to look at India as it truly is, as a natural geographical, cultural, linguistic, and population zone. We must recognize an indigenous development of civilization in India relative to the factors of natural history and shared environment defined by the geography of the Himalayas to the sea that we find even in ancient texts. This connects India geographically more with Southeast Asia, and in terms of time frame, with movements of people and climate changes at the end of the last Ice Age, not in the 1500 BCE era.

What is most remarkable is that India preserves an ancient literature that with its knowledge of the ocean and the Sarasvati River accurately reflects the natural history. Putting all these factors together is like putting together the pieces of a puzzle. Instead of a puzzle with most pieces missing, as has been the recent western view of ancient India, it restores the picture to its whole.

The idea of India as a cultural patchwork is the result of poor or preliminary scholarship that has been unable to reconstruct the whole, like the blind man who cannot see the elephant as a whole. Once we add in the complete picture as revealed both by the natural history and the literature of the region, what we see instead is India as one of the most important centers not only for human spirituality through its great religions, but also of populations, languages and culture back to the period of prehistory. This is new view of India that will replace the current old worn distortions that are held up more by politics and by inertia than by anything else.