Hinduism Was Founded By Saptarshis

OmThe question of who founded Hinduism, the world’s third largest religion with 800 million followers, is one of the biggest mysteries of World History even today. When confronted with this question, answers range as follows:

“Relatively little is known about the origins of Hinduism, as it predates recorded history.”

“Hinduism – as I see it – is a coming together of various doctrines and philosophies. To find out the exact origins of Hinduism is a bit pointless I think. It is like asking – Where did the Ocean Originate”

“Hinduism, the world’s oldest religion, has no beginning–it precedes recorded history. It has no human founder. It is a mystical religion”

Here is the first ever look on the founders of Hinduism.

Just as there has been a huge amount of migration in the last four centuries from all over the world to United States and other North American provinces, there was a time thousands of years ago,  when huge and gigantic rivers like Saraswati were wetting Indian lands, India was the preferred choice of destination for migration.  While a lot of places in the world were covered with ice, the Indian subcontinent, with its mighty rivers and its relatively tropical climate, offered the most ideal place for settlements and habitations. Huge number of tribes used to frequently migrate onto the Indian subcontinent in large numbers. Each incoming community had its own tribal deity and the environment became highly polytheistic with every community of few hundred or thousand individuals having its own God. With thousands of deities present all over the place, the essence of religion itself was completely lost. It was necessary to arrest this polytheism and bring some sanity. That’s when an institution called Saptarshis was formed.

Hinduism was the result of a well-formed organizational institution headed by Seven Sages, called Saptarshis, who aimed at arresting the excessive polytheism resulting from these migrations. Just as we have Pope for Christianity today, Hinduism, from the beginning, had this institution of seven sages who were the patriarchs of the religion. They used certain scriptures called Vedas to arrest polytheism, and took excessive pains to integrate all these different deities under one hood of a universal religion. They very strictly guarded the Vedic body of knowledge, and the copy of the Vedas available with them was considered to be the final copy.

Any changes to the Vedas were needed to be approved by this elite group of sages. If the reasons were justified, they approved the changes and incorporated them into the Vedas. Otherwise, they rejected it and kept the Vedas intact without any contamination. From what appears, they were extremely strict about changes to the Vedas. Even to this day of Hinduism, a word in Veda is normally considered as the final authority to the literal T. And this faith in Vedas was built upon a tradition where the Vedas were very strictly and jealously guarded from any changes whatsoever, unless the change really justified it. Some super human justification was required to have them changed. Any changes, to the extent possible, were always added as appendages rather than their being incorporated into the Vedas. So we have Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads as appendages to the Vedas. As more and more philosophy developed, all of them got incorporated into this body as appendages.

It is this institution of seven sages that expended large amount of effort over thousands of years in unifying a large number of traditions from across civilizations into one single religion of Hinduism that we see today. The Hindu trinity, the Hindu divine hierarchy, the Hindu festivals, and everything else that we see today were formulated by them. It is they who declared Ram and Krishna to be the incarnations of God. It is they who inserted Purusha Sukta, Narayana Sukta, and Sri Sukta  into the Vedas – these hymns, which are so important to the religion today, were once not part of Vedas.

The names of the Saptarshis carried over from one generation to the next. For example, if Kasyap dies, his son would take on the name of Kasyap and get inducted into the Saptarshis. Once in a while, for some reason, like one of the seven rishis dying without having any children, the names of the one or more of the rishis changed, giving us a different set of Saptarshis.

The religion got so excessively dependent on these sages that they started being considered as the representatives of the creator on earth. This slowly led to their deification and they started being mythicized. They were declared as the mind born sons of God. Subsequently, they were equated with the most evolved light beings in the creation and the guardians of divine laws. Further deification of their attributes lead to the addition of more and more myths and halo around them. This sort of excessive mythicization finally led to the relegation of this institution from the purview of the real world into the realm of mythology, to the extent that they started being regarded as mythical personalities.

This institution got destroyed at the time of the three hundred year severe drought of 2200 BC. At that time, most of the Indians, devastated by the drought, left India for foreign shores, especially to European lands.  Because of the severe suffering that people underwent because of the drought, people lost faith in a useless God who did not answer their prayers, leading to the rise of atheistic cults on the subcontinent. The institution of seven sages got destroyed in this religious upheaval and societal turbulence, as a result of which, the origins of Hinduism have once and for all become lost in the dungeons of time, becoming the source of intense mystery to this day.

[Excerpts from Prithviraj Rathod’s book 19,000 Years of World History. The book constructs the lost history of the world from the scriptures and cultural practices of Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and other religions and cultures. It covers the precise way in which Vedas were formulated and used to control Polytheism. Prithvi's Blog:  http://19000years.blogspot.com]

  • Hamsanath437

    is there a shred of evidence to corroborate this? it sounds like a wonderful fairy tale and yet it speaks nothing of what prompts this particular perspective

  • Hamsanath437

    is there a shred of evidence to corroborate this? it sounds like a wonderful fairy tale and yet it speaks nothing of what prompts this particular perspective

    • KG

      Seriously. Perhaps it’s just because we can’t see the footnotes, but a lot of what’s written here appears to be presented as fact, despite the fact that very little about Vedic history can be considered absolutely factual. When it is, my initial response is to just toss it out.

      • Prithviraj

        The problem basically is that mainstream understanding of Vedas has always been wrong. There is no conceptualization of Hindu Trinity in Vedas or the popular Hinduism of today in Vedas. In that sense, Vedas are not Hindu scriptures at all – I am not the first to point this out – there have been several others who pointed this out. However, no one has bothered to research into how the trinity and the popular hinduism grew out from the Vedas. When we probe deeply into this question, and when we try to understand how and why and when those scriptures got associated with the popular hinduism of today, thats when we start getting a large number of answers to the origins of Hinduism.

        • Prithviraj

          When scholars study Vedas, they tend to get preoccupied with all those verses about a large number of gods mentioned in the Vedas – they try to explain who agni is, who vayu is, who aswins are, and what I not. Why should we be interested in all of that – those are not the gods of Hinduism as it stands today? The gods of Hinduism today are the trinity – Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Now we need to answer the question of how these gods got associated with Vedas. The scholars only give a reply – “a couple of minor gods in Vedas somehow grew into major Gods of the trinity today.” When I researched for the book, that is the only answer I got. I wanted to know what is that “somehow?” In the answer to that somehow lies the story of the birth of hinduism.

    • Ohuknow

      Yes please. Sources.

      • Prithviraj

        People of Indian and European descent share their language and roots and are hence called IndoEuropean people – they constitute nearly half of the world’s population. When historical studies were initiated two centuries back, it was felt that India must be the cradle of civilization for these three billion Indoeuropeans, because India, by the very look of it, seemed very ancient. Archaeological sites like Mehrgarh, dated to 10000 years ago, showed the ancientness of Indian culture. However, after linguistic studies pointed out Indians are made up of two types of people namely Indoeuropeans and Dravidians, they were quick to assign the ancientness of the Indian culture to Dravidians. They have now shifted the cradle of IndoEuropean(IE) culture to somewhere around the Mediterranean region, midway between India and Europe, and claim that the IE culture originated from the Mediterranean region around 7000 years ago and dispersed to different parts of the globe, including India. As per this theory, IE culture dispersed to India around 3500 years ago; Also, as per this theory, Dravidian culture predates IE culture of India by thousands of years. All historians, including Indians, agree by default Dravidian culture of India predates IE culture of India.

        The singlemost important finding of this book is that, I have painstakingly scanned an extra-oridnarily large number of Hindu scriptures of tens of thousands of pages, and have come to the startling conclusion that IE scriptures and cultural practices of India existed in India much much before the Dravidian scriptures and cultural practices of India – there is huge amount of incontrovertible evidence available regarding this. This is the first ever study done in this regard – historians have been careless about this and have never verified this. The implications of this finding is that archaeological sites of India like that of Mehrgarh, dated to 10000 years ago, must now be considered as belonging to IE people. It will no longer make sense to say that IE culture originated around the Mediterranean region 7000 years ago, and all IE mainstream historical theories will collapse. India would now automatically become the cradle of civilization for the IE people, for all people of Indian and European descent.

        I have presented extra-ordinarily large amount of evidence to prove what I say – the evidence is such that no one can deny it. You can go through reviews on Amazon and my blog (all of them written by Europeans and Americans, not by Hindus), review by Worldwide Industry standard Reviewer “Foreword Clarion Reviews,” and see if anyone considers it as a religious or ethnic chauvinist thesis. An eminent Christian Historian wrote to me after reading the book’s chapter on Christianity:

        “I have just finished reading about the Son of Man and your description moved me with its simplicity of truth. I was once taught by a learned man when I was very young. He drew three concentric circles and told me the inner-most one was the God without form or time, the only thing that has always existed, even before there was such a thing as existence. He said the other two circles came from this God but that God remained unchanged and complete. The other two circles are how you have described Nara and Narayana. Your work has changed many ideas I have and you should be proud of this. The parts on the Jews was especially brilliant and, because of my knowledge of Hebrew, very revealing. It explained many things… and the parts about “The Son of Man”… brilliant!”

        Thanks

        • Ohuknow

          You do realize that responding the way that you have been makes you seem less credible and not more, right? It’s not absurd for people to want to know exactly how much of what they’re reading about is broadly recognized fact, how much is conjecture, and how much is the result of the author’s independent analysis or personal opinion. If fact, it’s commendable for a reader to think this way.

          Ok, so from one of your good reviews on Amazon:
          “…the author is starting with a specific, defined and limited set of sources, namely religious texts and to some degree manuscripts interpreting these texts. You will not find the usual history book, such as a history of Rome based on the accepted historical sources and physical evidence. Maybe the fact that sets this book apart from most history books is the fact that very little physical sources are involved and the history is recreated solely based on historical texts whose primary use is as religious texts.”

          Ok. That was all I needed to know. Thanks for the run around and the answers to a bunch of questions I never asked.

          • Prithviraj

            I was only replying to the chauvinitst part of it. Regarding the rest, I would not argue about it – You are free to form your opinion based on all reviews. Thanks.

          • Prithviraj

            Sorry if my answers did not seem relevant. It is an extremely long chain of reasoning, and when you asked me an open-ended question of what the sources are, I did not know how to respond. Here is something I managed to put as an answer to your question.

            We start off with showing that IE culture predates Dravidian culture in India, which requires a study of a very large number of scriptures – this alone required decades of research. This then means that archaeological sites like that of Mehrgarh and Gulf of Cambay of India, dated to ten thousand years ago must now be considered to have belonged to IE people. This pushes the dates of Vedas, integral to IE culture, back by several thousands of years. Vedas must be seven or eight thousand years old or much more. We then get into the question of what the world was like ten thousand years ago. Most places were covered with ice – places like US and Canada were covered with ice termed by Geologists as Laurentide ice sheets. There were mainly four river valley civilizations at that point of time – Egypt, India, Mesopotamia, and China (Yellow river). Among the four, the point to be noted is that India constitutes part of IE culture, which dominates the world’s landscape constituting half of the world’s population. We then observe that Indian culture is quite peculiar in its diversity as its people are divided into a large number of castes – thousands of castes. We go into the reasons of why Indian society needed to be divided into castes and study the four caste system. Anthropological study done by me into the Indian four caste system reveals that the system was formulated specifically to deal with the excessive immigration that was taking place onto the subcontinent. Why did so much migration take place to India? It must be because of the large rivers on its plains flowing at that point of time, and the relative tropical climate. Vedas and Hindu scriptures are now studied in this new perspective of excessive immigration. This new study now reveals Vedas were conceptualized specifically to deal with this immigration and the excessive polytheism that arised out of it.

            This is the whole story. It is not a fairy tale – decades of research was involved in it. When the reviewer said that very little physical sources are used in the book, he meant that the book was more into religion, culture, anthropology, and geology; and less into archaeology. The reviewers comments were used here in an out of context way. The minute I say that India might be the cradle of IE civilization, a lot of people tend to assign chauvinism to it and switch away, which happened here also – that’s when I tend to become a little guarded and tend to say – hey look, others have read it – no chauvinism in it – which I did here also.

            Anyway, hope that helps.

  • Andronovo

    It appears to be Prithviraj Rathod’s intent to prove, by use of folk etymology and outright fake etymology, that every significant ancient culture originated from India. There is no shortage of such ethnic chauvinism on teh interwebs.

  • Andronovo

    It appears to be Prithviraj Rathod’s intent to prove, by use of folk etymology and outright fake etymology, that every significant ancient culture originated from India. There is no shortage of such ethnic chauvinism on teh interwebs.

  • Prithviraj

    Yes, there is large amount of evidence once we understand what Hinduism was all about. Everything about Hinduism was formed in order to control the migration. The Vedas that we have today are nothing but war hymns about certain beings called Devas and Asurs – they have no relevance to Hinduism practiced today. Their utility lies in the few hymns that were added to them later by Saptarshis in order to control polytheism. The thousands and thousands of castes that India has today is very closely related to the migrations that have taken place – most migrations led to the birth of new castes. The four caste system of India was developed specifically to deal with migration. I had earlier published an article on how the four caste system was used to control migration. You can read the article at the following link:

    http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/ancient-immigration-control-system-in-indus-valley-1046233.html

  • Prithviraj

    Yes, there is large amount of evidence once we understand what Hinduism was all about. Everything about Hinduism was formed in order to control the migration. The Vedas that we have today are nothing but war hymns about certain beings called Devas and Asurs – they have no relevance to Hinduism practiced today. Their utility lies in the few hymns that were added to them later by Saptarshis in order to control polytheism. The thousands and thousands of castes that India has today is very closely related to the migrations that have taken place – most migrations led to the birth of new castes. The four caste system of India was developed specifically to deal with migration. I had earlier published an article on how the four caste system was used to control migration. You can read the article at the following link:

    http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/ancient-immigration-control-system-in-indus-valley-1046233.html

  • http://worldwithinsight.com/ Kyle Greggory

    Seriously. Perhaps it’s just because we can’t see the footnotes, but a lot of what’s written here appears to be presented as fact, despite the fact that very little about Vedic history can be considered absolutely factual. When it is, my initial response is to just toss it out.

  • Prithviraj

    The problem basically is that mainstream understanding of Vedas has always been wrong. There is no conceptualization of Hindu Trinity in Vedas or the popular Hinduism of today in Vedas. In that sense, Vedas are not Hindu scriptures at all – I am not the first to point this out – there have been several others who pointed this out. However, no one has bothered to research into how the trinity and the popular hinduism grew out from the Vedas. When we probe deeply into this question, and when we try to understand how and why and when those scriptures got associated with the popular hinduism of today, thats when we start getting a large number of answers to the origins of Hinduism.

  • Prithviraj

    When scholars study Vedas, they tend to get preoccupied with all those verses about a large number of gods mentioned in the Vedas – they try to explain who agni is, who vayu is, who aswins are, and what I not. Why should we be interested in all of that – those are not the gods of Hinduism as it stands today? The gods of Hinduism today are the trinity – Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Now we need to answer the question of how these gods got associated with Vedas. The scholars only give a reply – “a couple of minor gods in Vedas somehow grew into major Gods of the trinity today.” When I researched for the book, that is the only answer I got. I wanted to know what is that “somehow?” In the answer to that somehow lies the story of the birth of hinduism.

  • EAGD

    “Hinduism Was Founded By Saptarshis”

    “Damn it, Jim, I KNEW IT!”

  • EAGD

    “Hinduism Was Founded By Saptarshis”

    “Damn it, Jim, I KNEW IT!”

  • 5by5

    There are only three relevant take-aways from Hinduism. The notions of reincarnation, karma, and the practice of meditation. The rest of it is as much bunk as burning bushes, talking snakes, and whales that eat people.

  • 5by5

    There are only three relevant take-aways from Hinduism. The notions of reincarnation, karma, and the practice of meditation. The rest of it is as much bunk as burning bushes, talking snakes, and whales that eat people.

  • 5by5

    There are only three relevant take-aways from Hinduism. The notions of reincarnation, karma, and the practice of meditation. The rest of it is as much bunk as burning bushes, talking snakes, and whales that eat people.

    • Ohuknow

      Unless you engage it as psychodrama, psychotropic medication disguised as ritual.

  • Hamsanath437

    I think what you’re proposing to do, find out the nature of hinduism before its present incarnation, is a good idea. But *how* are you doing it? What are your sources, who are you interviewing, what editions of the Vedas are you using, etc?

  • Hamsanath437

    I think what you’re proposing to do, find out the nature of hinduism before its present incarnation, is a good idea. But *how* are you doing it? What are your sources, who are you interviewing, what editions of the Vedas are you using, etc?

    • Prithviraj

      It is not two, it is three. Hinduism is into its third incarnation. The three incarnations as follows.

      1) There was a time when there was no trinity, there was no Vishnu or Siva. The God of the religion at that time was called Brahman. Devas filled up anciliary positions in the hierarchy.

      2) This was the time when the Saptarshis took over the religion – trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva took shape. This was the period when Vedas were extensively used by Saptarshis to control the religion. A deity could be considered as a Hindu God only and only if he is part of the Vedas. If a new tribe entered into India and if they wanted their God to be considered as Vedic, they had to declare their God as the visual manifestation of one of the gods mentioned in the Vedas. Siva is an example. His worshippers came from outside India. After they came there, they searched the Vedas and found good hymns in the Vedas associated with a god called Rudra. They promptly declared their god as a manifestation of Rudra and that is how Saivism got associated with the hymn Sri Rudram of Vedas. This phase of Hinduism died with the drought of 2200 BC, when Buddhism took over India and when Hinduism was almost wiped out.

      3) This phase, which is the current phase, started with decline of Buddhism and rejuvenation of Hinduism. In this phase, there are no Saptarshis and Vedas do not have any control. A God can be considered as a Hindu God even if he is not Vedic. Take the case of 19th century saint Sai Baba who has a large number of tempes all over India today. He has nothing to do with Vedas, yet he is considered as a Hindu God. The religion followed by Indians today is not Vedic religion – it has nothing to do with Vedas. A few hundred years from, and Hinduism will have absolutely no contact with Vedas, the connection will be severed forever.

  • Prithviraj

    It is not two, it is three. Hinduism is into its third incarnation. The three incarnations as follows.

    1) There was a time when there was no trinity, there was no Vishnu or Siva. The God of the religion at that time was called Brahman. Devas filled up anciliary positions in the hierarchy.

    2) This was the time when the Saptarshis took over the religion – trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva took shape. This was the period when Vedas were extensively used by Saptarshis to control the religion. A deity could be considered as a Hindu God only and only if he is part of the Vedas. If a new tribe entered into India and if they wanted their God to be considered as Vedic, they had to declare their God as the visual manifestation of one of the gods mentioned in the Vedas. Siva is an example. His worshippers came from outside India. After they came there, they searched the Vedas and found good hymns in the Vedas associated with a god called Rudra. They promptly declared their god as a manifestation of Rudra and that is how Saivism got associated with the hymn Sri Rudram of Vedas. This phase of Hinduism died with the drought of 2200 BC, when Buddhism took over India and when Hinduism was almost wiped out.

    3) This phase, which is the current phase, started with decline of Buddhism and rejuvenation of Hinduism. In this phase, there are no Saptarshis and Vedas do not have any control. A God can be considered as a Hindu God even if he is not Vedic. Take the case of 19th century saint Sai Baba who has a large number of tempes all over India today. He has nothing to do with Vedas, yet he is considered as a Hindu God. The religion followed by Indians today is not Vedic religion – it has nothing to do with Vedas. A few hundred years from, and Hinduism will have absolutely no contact with Vedas, the connection will be severed forever.

  • Ohuknow

    Unless you engage it as psychodrama, psychotropic medication disguised as ritual.

  • Ohuknow

    Yes please. Sources.

  • Prithviraj

    People of Indian and European descent share their language and roots and are hence called IndoEuropean people – they constitute nearly half of the world’s population. When historical studies were initiated two centuries back, it was felt that India must be the cradle of civilization for these three billion Indoeuropeans, because India, by the very look of it, seemed very ancient. Archaeological sites like Mehrgarh, dated to 10000 years ago, showed the ancientness of Indian culture. However, after linguistic studies pointed out Indians are made up of two types of people namely Indoeuropeans and Dravidians, they were quick to assign the ancientness of the Indian culture to Dravidians. They have now shifted the cradle of IndoEuropean(IE) culture to somewhere around the Mediterranean region, midway between India and Europe, and claim that the IE culture originated from the Mediterranean region around 7000 years ago and dispersed to different parts of the globe, including India. As per this theory, IE culture dispersed to India around 3500 years ago; Also, as per this theory, Dravidian culture predates IE culture of India by thousands of years. All historians, including Indians, agree by default Dravidian culture of India predates IE culture of India.

    The singlemost important finding of this book is that, I have painstakingly scanned an extra-oridnarily large number of Hindu scriptures of tens of thousands of pages, and have come to the startling conclusion that IE scriptures and cultural practices of India existed in India much much before the Dravidian scriptures and cultural practices of India – there is huge amount of incontrovertible evidence available regarding this. This is the first ever study done in this regard – historians have been careless about this and have never verified this. The implications of this finding is that archaeological sites of India like that of Mehrgarh, dated to 10000 years ago, must now be considered as belonging to IE people. It will no longer make sense to say that IE culture originated around the Mediterranean region 7000 years ago, and all IE mainstream historical theories will collapse. India would now automatically become the cradle of civilization for the IE people, for all people of Indian and European descent.

    I have presented extra-ordinarily large amount of evidence to prove what I say – the evidence is such that no one can deny it. You can go through reviews on Amazon and my blog (all of them written by Europeans and Americans, not by Hindus), review by Worldwide Industry standard Reviewer “Foreword Clarion Reviews,” and see if anyone considers it as a religious or ethnic chauvinist thesis. An eminent Christian Historian wrote to me after reading the book’s chapter on Christianity:

    “I have just finished reading about the Son of Man and your description moved me with its simplicity of truth. I was once taught by a learned man when I was very young. He drew three concentric circles and told me the inner-most one was the God without form or time, the only thing that has always existed, even before there was such a thing as existence. He said the other two circles came from this God but that God remained unchanged and complete. The other two circles are how you have described Nara and Narayana. Your work has changed many ideas I have and you should be proud of this. The parts on the Jews was especially brilliant and, because of my knowledge of Hebrew, very revealing. It explained many things… and the parts about “The Son of Man”… brilliant!”

    Thanks

  • Ohuknow

    You do realize that responding the way that you have been makes you seem less credible and not more, right? It’s not absurd for people to want to know exactly how much of what they’re reading about is broadly recognized fact, how much is conjecture, and how much is the result of the author’s independent analysis or personal opinion. If fact, it’s commendable for a reader to think this way.

    Ok, so from one of your good reviews on Amazon:
    “…the author is starting with a specific, defined and limited set of sources, namely religious texts and to some degree manuscripts interpreting these texts. You will not find the usual history book, such as a history of Rome based on the accepted historical sources and physical evidence. Maybe the fact that sets this book apart from most history books is the fact that very little physical sources are involved and the history is recreated solely based on historical texts whose primary use is as religious texts.”

    Ok. That was all I needed to know. Thanks for the run around and the answers to a bunch of questions I never asked.

  • Prithviraj

    I was only replying to the chauvinitst part of it. Regarding the rest, I would not argue about it – You are free to form your opinion based on all reviews. Thanks.

  • Prithviraj

    Sorry if my answers did not seem relevant. It is an extremely long chain of reasoning, and when you asked me an open-ended question of what the sources are, I did not know how to respond. Here is something I managed to put as an answer to your question.

    We start off with showing that IE culture predates Dravidian culture in India, which requires a study of a very large number of scriptures – this alone required decades of research. This then means that archaeological sites like that of Mehrgarh and Gulf of Cambay of India, dated to ten thousand years ago must now be considered to have belonged to IE people. This pushes the dates of Vedas, integral to IE culture, back by several thousands of years. Vedas must be seven or eight thousand years old or much more. We then get into the question of what the world was like ten thousand years ago. Most places were covered with ice – places like US and Canada were covered with ice termed by Geologists as Laurentide ice sheets. There were mainly four river valley civilizations at that point of time – Egypt, India, Mesopotamia, and China (Yellow river). Among the four, the point to be noted is that India constitutes part of IE culture, which dominates the world’s landscape constituting half of the world’s population. We then observe that Indian culture is quite peculiar in its diversity as its people are divided into a large number of castes – thousands of castes. We go into the reasons of why Indian society needed to be divided into castes and study the four caste system. Anthropological study done by me into the Indian four caste system reveals that the system was formulated specifically to deal with the excessive immigration that was taking place onto the subcontinent. Why did so much migration take place to India? It must be because of the large rivers on its plains flowing at that point of time, and the relative tropical climate. Vedas and Hindu scriptures are now studied in this new perspective of excessive immigration. This new study now reveals Vedas were conceptualized specifically to deal with this immigration and the excessive polytheism that arised out of it.

    This is the whole story. It is not a fairy tale – decades of research was involved in it. When the reviewer said that very little physical sources are used in the book, he meant that the book was more into religion, culture, anthropology, and geology; and less into archaeology. The reviewers comments were used here in an out of context way. The minute I say that India might be the cradle of IE civilization, a lot of people tend to assign chauvinism to it and switch away, which happened here also – that’s when I tend to become a little guarded and tend to say – hey look, others have read it – no chauvinism in it – which I did here also.

    Anyway, hope that helps.

21