In a PSB Home Video series, "The Story of India," historian Dr. Michael Wood discusses the migration of the first humans out of Africa some 70,000 years ago, arriving on the fertile shores of southern India, where they began to flourish and spread throughout most of the world. As Wood says:
"And all non-Africans on the planet can trace their descent from those early migrations into India. The rest of the world was populated from here. Mother India, indeed."
Discussing the roots of human culture, Wood remarks:
"Languages and religions came only later, and they too are always subject to change. But here in the south, they've passed down humanity's oldest religion too. In the great temple of Madurai they still worship the female principle, the Mother Goddess, as Indian people have done, for tens of thousands of years. And alongside her are countless other deities that link humanity with the magical power of the natural world. Over the ages thousands of gods will emerge, always adding to what had been before, so the roots of Indian religion too will grow over a vast period of time, as India's expression of the multiplicity of the universe. Here, the Divine is not Onefold but millions."
It is interesting to note that the South Indian Mother Goddess is styled "Mari," the same name as the Christian Mother of God, Mary.
The contention of much human culture emanating out of India many thousands of years ago - including religious ideation, such as goddess worshipping - is not new to me, as I included it in my first and second published books, The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God. My work drew on some earlier writers as well as the mainstream opinion when I was a child, which was that India was indeed the motherland of significant cultural aspects.
Although Indian antiquity and precedence were evident from linguistic and cultural studies, in DNA we now have conclusive proof of these assertions. Moreover, it is clear that the oldest form of religion is nature worship, which included not only the earthly surroundings such as wind, water, trees, mountains, animals, etc., but also the celestial bodies, such as the sun, moon, stars, constellations, planets and so on, a development we can call "astrotheology." Along with these religious observations came much science, including astronomy and agriculture, vital to the development and spread of human civilization.
Source: "The Story of India," PBS Home Video
Comments (31)
-
|2011-08-24 17:04:04 KB Das - differentThere is a difference. Krishna is not considered a "Son of God". But rather, ALONGSIDE Radha ( Laxmi ) the embodiment of the Absolute.
It is interesting to note that the Goddess' name "Hara" ( "Hare" in invocative form ) is the greater part of the "Hare Krishna" mantra. Unfortunately, most people, who look at all other religions through the haze of the Bible, reckon it means "Hail Krishna" when it means nothing of the sort. The mantra, calling on the ecstatic energy ( hladini shakti ) that is the source of lila, Divine Play, is the end in itself. It is not like a prayer or supplication.
Very interesting about the Queen of Sheba. Must look into it.
-
|2011-06-17 16:22:40 Let truth be known - Stop the propoganda based on bad interpretationIndia did not ever worship more than ONE God. Their concept of One God is the same as in many other religions. The endless "gods" you uneducated people accuse them of worshipping are none other than harmless ATTRIBUTES or QUALITIES of the character of the ONE GOD.
I have studied the ancient and ACTUAL texts and not based my theories on nonsensical interpretations in the minds of vain wannabes.
yes, there are endless Hindus who have falsely worshipped these "gods" as real seperate beings from the ONE GOD. But that does not mean their stupid ideals represent or define the ancient and ACTUAL Hinduism. What if we judged ALL Christianity as idol-worshippers, just because the Catholic sect worships idols?
In any case, all religions on earth are untrustworthy fabricated perspectives of the ONE TRUTH that is above all and any religion ever to be present on earth.
I really hate it when people misrepresent a religion based on their crude, primal, uneducated, unknowing, interpretations.
The ONE GOD of Hinduism is the Almighty Creator, who was before all things, who made all things, who made all life, who is the Father of all life, and who is in the soul of every living thing. He alone is to be worshipped, and to focus on an attribute of His is in no way idol-worship. SHIVA is merely the name given to His aspect of WRATH AND STRENGTH. VISHNU is the name given to His PRESERVING aspect. He makes, maintains, and destroys. They WERE NEVER SEPERATE BEINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean, come on..... doesn't Christianity worship three actually seperate beings???? Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God? THAT IS IDOL-WORSHIP!!!!!!!! It breaks its own doctrine of commands! Hypocrisy!
-
|2011-06-17 17:33:45 Acharya SWow, well, that disgraceful ranting diatribe insulting our intelligence will certainly not win over many people.
We're not Christians here, so your remarks in that regard are irrelevant. Nor am I someone who "misrepresents a religion based on their crude, primal, uneducated, unknowing, interpretations." That's incredibly disrespectful and insulting to both me and Dr. Wood.
What I have depicted here is accurate, so I most certainly did get it right. What you have done, however, is become personally involved in a factual and rational discussion, as if it were somehow an attack on you. As I say, such rabidity will not win over anyone.
There is nothing about Hinduism that we "outside observers" cannot understand. Moreover, this article could not possibly be more respectful of "Mother India," so you attacking me, its author, is really a huge turn off.
Here are the apparent facts: Some 70,000 years ago, human beings from Africa settled in Southern India. They brought with them rudiments of religion and speech, no doubt. In India, the natural profusion around them caused them to perceive the world and nature in a particular manner. They expressed this nature-worship in myriad ways, including by seeing deity in a million objects and qualities around them. They also perceived a unity behind the multiplicity of the cosmos. Hence, their One Godhead is split into an infinite variety of gods.
Indian culture spread all over the world from there. Instead of attacking people who are acknowledging these facts, perhaps you should be happy to see them being aired. Moreover, you should understand that no one owns Indian culture, obviously, if we are all descended from India. Hence, you going around insulting others' intelligence as if only YOU hold the truth about this subject is very ignorant and arrogant.
In any case, who says that monotheism is superior to polytheism or pantheism? That's yet another misinterpretation in itself. Monotheism is highly intolerant and divisive, so there's really no reason to be ranting on about it.
-
|2011-06-19 00:59:06 MARK - You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!You are an idiot!
-
|2012-01-15 01:40:09 Unkei - Get it right?Hi,
I read your post with interest till I got to this bombshell!
What if we judged ALL Christianity as idol-worshippers, just because the Catholic sect worships idols.I used to be Catholic but am no longer. I've returned to one of the original or at least earlier religions, Druidry. Prior to becoming a Roman Catholic, I was raised by my father, a Prebyterian minister, and growing older sampled Methodismm, Lutheranism, Episcopalinism, non-denominationalism, etc.
But when I her or see anyone freely, and unintelligently, using the word cult, or sect, all I can see is a person of some ignorance, using their freedom of speech to cause intentional hurt to another of God's beings. Thanks again for reminding me why organized religion is not for me. Perhaps before prejudging another of the Great Makers diverse children, you might examine your heart to see why you feel so much better than others.
Unkei
-
|2012-02-01 09:40:05 michele - hypocrisy indeed!Funny you should comment on the "uneducated" and "stupid ideals" of others that post comments. At least these supposedly uneducated people know how to spell separate!!!! Talk about hypocrisy!
-
|2011-06-17 16:55:39 paul - warriorWhat nonsense we came out of africa, the vedas cleary states that there are 50,000 speices of humans in the universe, and there are untold number of universes (multiverses)
Vedas were once all over the world, look carefully and you can still see examples
-
|2011-06-17 22:31:05 Acharya SThe "out of Africa nonsense" comes from DNA studies. Unless you are prepared to show how these scientific studies are "nonsense" whereas Vedic texts are not "nonsense," you will not find many converts here.
-
|2011-06-17 17:42:01 Ati - MariIt seems to me that they worship the male principle in India despite the profusion of female deities etc. Perhaps you can reconcile the supposed worship of the Mother with the vast number of aborted female foetuses and prior to that female infanticide plus the inferior status accorded to women. If I am wrong and it is the strongest influence in India then it means that Masculine or Feminine real women are not going to get a good deal. Also, don't make the mistake of forgetting the wild unknowable side of the Mother, she is not all sweetness and light.
-
|2011-06-17 22:25:16 Acharya SYes, you are correct, but this article is not a proselytizing tract trying to convince anyone of the correctness of Hindu beliefs. It is merely a description of one of the world's earliest religious concepts as well as how humanity spread from Africa through India to the rest of the world.
So, I'm not advocating Hinduism as the "correct" religion - I am not a believer - simply discussing historical facts of the origins of religion and culture.
-
|2011-06-17 23:48:59 Edwin - India?Acharya, as humans left Africa in groups at different times after about 120,000 y.a. to 40,000 y.a., why are we to assume that India's is the oldest religion? Surely there was religion in Africa earlier than 70,000 y.a. Many peoples never touched base in India and yet must've had some kind of nature religion. And of course, Hinduism as we know it is less than 10,000 yrs old. I am not attacking you at all. I am just asking.
-
|2011-06-17 23:13:36 Patrick Michael - One missing elementIn all the out of Africa discussions and with science saying we all came from such roots, no one has ever explained the reason we have 3 distinct races in the world. What would explain that in your mind, Acharya?
-
|2011-06-18 00:16:54 Gary Corseri - The Bigger PictureThank you for calling attention to the Michael Wood PBS presentation on "Mother India," which I had the good fortune to see a few years ago, and which I still recall as one of PBS's more thoughtful--and, in some ways, magnificent--shows.
Wood is a careful thinker, a scholarly type, who lines up his ducks of information meticulously before firing off his conclusions. He has the rare gift of being thoughtful, analytical and entertaining. I believe you have the same gift.
There are always commentators--have always been such--who will leap to display the little knowledge they have by attacking those attempting to clarify the bigger picture. They will pluck a thread out of the tapestry and complain that the whole tapestry is misconstrued because--they claim--the color of the thread is wrong, or that it is of the wrong material, etc. One hopes that they eventually come to a higher understanding.
-
|2011-06-18 03:59:12 AtegnatosIn support of Acharya S and Dr. Wood, this article is respectful toward Hinduism. One may disagree with the information or viewpoints, but they have have not been presented in a disrespectful way.
In regard to the comments of Ati Mari, misogyny in present-day Indian culture isn't a refutation of anything to do with ancient India, particularly since Indian culture has been in subject position to fanatic foreign ideologies, starting with centuries of Muslim (at the hands of a string of different invaders from different ethnicities) rule, followed by British Christians, and since independence from Britain, she has usually been dominated by the left-wing, anti-religious Congress Party of India, which mainly treats Hinduism as a tourist-trade cash cow.
As for theology, Hinduism is comprised of many different philosophies and theologies and lineages. Among them are Goddess-worshippers of several types, which in some areas are the dominant religions. Many other traditions, perhaps the overall majority, see the Divine as a Couple (for example, Radha-Krishna, or Shiva-Shakti, or Sita-Rama). Some of this type have esoteric levels that elevate the feminine side of the Divine Couple in question to supremacy, even if the public side does the opposite. So, the Divine Feminine is definitely a strong element in many branches of present-day Hinduism, despite the misogyny that is all too often found.
Finally, I'll recommend an excellent book about the changing role of women in Hindu culture over the ages: "The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization" by D.S. Altekar. It documents, scripturally and historically, that in the classical period, the society was far more egalitarian, with women having rights, opportunities, education, and positions of respect, which over a period of centuries gradually eroded (paralleling similar trends in other parts of the world).
-
|2011-06-18 04:39:39 AnonymousHail Isis the queen of heaven and all forms of the fair sex. I tend to think that humanity all colors and shapes had help in the process of civilizing. So large of a brain. Dna has been modified by such helpers. The Shining ones are key to understanding human reality.Shineforth brave souls. Dennis
-
|2011-06-18 14:27:31 Anonymous - re: Stop the propoganda based on bad interpretatioYour arrogance doesn't isn't surprising, considering you have turned a discussion about the Divine Mother into a misogynistic rant.
[quote= ONE GOD of Hinduism is the Almighty Creator, who was before all things, who made all things, who made all life, who is the Father of all life, and who is in the soul of every living thing. He alone is to be worshipped, and to focus on an attribute of His is in no way idol-worship. SHIVA is merely the name given to His aspect of WRATH AND STRENGTH. VISHNU is the name given to His PRESERVING aspect. He makes, maintains, and destroys.
[/quote]
-
|2011-06-18 18:01:47 david llewellyn foster - human evolution and geneticsThe current issue of New Scientist has a particularly relevant article http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.000-breeding-with-neand erthals-helped-humans-go-global.html
As for Michael Wood, he is one of the best documentary history presenters in the business, all his programmes are thorough, balanced and engaging. The Story of India is no exception, watch the whole series, highly recommended.
-
|2011-06-19 12:55:34 Janusz E. Starkel - out of AfricaI strongly disagree. Just by looking at people of India and Africa, one can see distinguish facial futures that separate those two races. Did the DNA was mutated during the journey from Africa to India ?. Never heard about that. I guess, "political correctness" do not allow some people to admit that we are not "one human race", but rather few different races.
-
|2011-06-21 21:05:20 Acharya SYes, we are all well aware that there are many differences between the various races of humans on planet Earth. In fact, this subject has received enormous attention as an actual scientific field of study, in which there are many different theories, including the one currently accepted by the mainstream, which is the Out-of-Africa thesis. This theory seems to be backed solidly by DNA studies and has nothing to do with "political correctness."
Within that theory is the study of microevolution, which seeks to explain all the variants in the different races, based on environment and other factors. As I say, there's a massive body of literature on these subjects.
-
|2011-08-14 07:23:18 wotanica - Fundamentalism rides againWell now i've seen that to. Acharya wrote the article in favour (positive) with hinduism -- and what does she get? A nutter hindu misses the mark and ruins the whole thing.
If you ask a well educated hindu priest, he will tell you that these books are myths. They were designed to reflect one thing - which is the awareness living inside the body. The bhagavad gita clearly states -- that the gods are your organs. The devas are the instrument of mind. So your attack on this article is literally to shoot yourself in the foot.
The fact that you go bananas over the genetic migration paths, which are now clearly mapped, means you have some work to do inside..
-
|2011-08-24 17:34:51 KB DasI know quite a few Hindu priests, and have spent time in India. I've never heard your argument save from the Rajneesh/Yogananda crowd. If by "well-educated" you refer to Western "education" then what do you expect? Actually one Brahmin Guru, ( very well-educated-Atmavidyabhusanam ) when asked by me if Krishna was real replied "more real than you or me". I would like your proof about the Gita "clearly" stating that the Gods are your organs. I know the Bhagavat Purana lists the senses and their Presiding Deities ( a quite different thing ). What I'm reading hear seems more like New Age philosophy. If what you say is true, please explain the following verse:
aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate
iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanvitah
(Bhagavad-gita, 10.
I am not criticizing your interpretation for yourself, but don't presume to speak for all of Hinduism on the basis of--what? Outside of that, I agree that the ancient dharma of Hinduism does preserve the worship of the divine Female principle, but not exclusively. Yours truly in the Search for Truth, KBd
-
|2011-11-28 17:59:15 StephenSo VERY true. So many "religeons" are the same. all things are equal. However I have one different thought to add to you as well.
The earliest forms of worship are SUN Gods. Hence almost all worshipped deities of earliest recording are depicted with a crest behind their heads.
Even the "Lord" had depictions of HALOs or CRESTs behind his head with a crown of thorns being SUN-RAYS.
It is so easy for humans to mistake what we have learned over centuries.
Consider this. Tell someone something. Ask them again in 3 days what you told them, not to mention the people they told, then retold, you would hear many variations with MINOR facts ATTRIBUTED to this truth.
Take now, religeon. A CENTURIES long debate, and you dont think there has been at least some interferrence in re-telling the story? C'mon all of you guys realize this. The SUN is the only true God!!!
-
|2011-11-29 19:33:41 Acharya SThank you. If you poke around here, you'll see that I specialize in solar mythology, i.e., sun gods. My work, in fact, was significantly used in the film "Zeitgeist," which may be where you're getting your info from.
That being said, solar worship is not the earliest form of religion in many places. The evidence points to much religion coming out of hot, dry and/or desert regions, where the sun was considered more of a pestilence than a savior. The salvation cults associated with the sun developed later in these places, along with agriculture. Prior to that, these areas largely focused on the moon and stars, such as in the Arabian peninsula and Middle East.
Nomadic desert tribes developed more of a lunar-based culture, whereas settled groups were more solar. With the advent of agriculture and the increase occupation of an ice-free Europe came much emphasis on the solar cultus. We can see the changeover of importance in the myths themselves. A fascinating study.
In any event, the development of the parthenogenetic mother goddess in the south of India many millennia ago certainly ranks up there with some of the earliest religious ideation, and it is quite likely this concept can be traced to far more remote times.
-
|2012-03-11 21:23:39 matthew franzen - purpose?Love ur stuff, Stumbled on a trans-personal dream state that surfaces in physical reality, traced it through some old texts including the Bible. De'ja'vue is a memory of a dream (Jung), most people don't remember dreams at this level, but "the waking hours are the catalysts for all our dreams" level, content, and memory (Jung). I found that at the moment of De'ja'vue if a person can remember the original dream they will know what is going to happen before it happens, and can change any negative result from the original dream; injury, sickness, death! (I only have a few journals documenting this phenomena, but it was a very small survey). I suspect that the origin of most religious tradition was/is meant to catalyze this dream state, but then there would be no reason for religon; individals would have direct knowledge, so the knowledge was subverted to empower only a few. This phenomena also has connections to quantum machanics; Having a dream in one "real" place while consciously experiencing another "real" place, and when the person gets to the place they dreamed of "they Know They have been there before" De'ja'vue! Does this make any sense? There is a bit more but the context is philisophical. Please give me your input, Thankyou. matt
-
|2011-12-16 17:19:14 AndrewThis is all pure supposition. "Africans moving to India 70,000 years ago" IS NOT A FACT but mere supposition. God came before Hindu paganism and paganism came from Babylon and after Noah and the flood.
-
|2011-12-16 20:26:36 PaulAndrew, your comment is an example of religious bias and bigotry. Nothing you said was true. It's really embarrassing to see people still believe in such utter nonsense. Religious beliefs are not based on accurate history or credible facts and because of that they should never be allowed to trump credible evidence and facts. Understand?
-
|2011-12-17 19:16:31 swami_beyonananda - Race is an artificial construct of social darwinis"Race" is a scientifically invalid concept. In other words, there is no such thing as 'race". Race is artificial construct of social Darwinism popularized by people like American historian Richard Hofstadter, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus and many others. naturally, being "white" males they put themselves and "whites on top of the evolutionary heap. Biochemically speaking with the advent of DNA technology, we now know there are minimal , insignificant differences between "whites or blacks or browns or other groups of people"
The devastatingly intelligent, devastatingly soulful and devastatingly beautiful Acharya S summarizes it succinctly that "racial" differences are a result of microevolution but biochemically insignificant.
Skin colour, facial differences, eye colour all of these are micro adaptational features in response to a change in environment. Likewise, we have variations in lactose iintolerance, sugar metabolism, susceptibility to heart disease, various types of cancers, etc.
All of the above are "biochemical" differences not "racial" differences. So, there is no such thing as a Caucasian race, negroid race, Mongoloid race, etc.
But, going back to the topic of discussion, while I don't believe in God or religion I am totally enthralled by Acharya's description of the mother Goddess in India.
I am also in awe of her depth, her knowledge of world religions. Of course, Michael Wood's PBS special does cover a lot about India but Acharya does a better job in her books.
-
|2012-01-26 21:01:04 Kendra of Ravenwood - Came here seeking truth...I started reading this set of entries, in a sincere search for positive input in choosing a path for the rest of my life. As a 2nd year student of Anthropology, I find the level of committment and sometimes over the top attitude displayed here rather curious and a little bit comical. I was raised a very strict Christian, and over the course of time have tried out almost as many religions as I have diets. Ultimately, I find that when it comes down to it, the very first religions seem the purest, and the earliest of ideals of man coming out of Africa are leading me back to learn more of the sacred feminine. I dont think race should be made a deliniation when considering this aspect though because as DNA have clearly proven, no matter where we ended up or in which dispensation we lived, we got our start, coming out of Africa and I would truly like to learn more about the oldest of world religions.
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2
It is not surprising, or it should not be, that the first divinity characteristics were those of Motherhood. The more surprising event is that the Men From Ur (Abrahamists) sent the Queen of Sheba packing and acquired 700 wives. Man-kind has been man-unkind to motherhood.
If this had not happened, there would not have been a need for any religious forms of the Book of Life. The genetic book of Motherhood would have been sufficient. But, once "civil behavior" degraded into "righteousness" it became demonic to worship motherhood.
When we take the time to invest in the psychology of primates it becomes very clear that the power motive has corrupted the top predator of the primates, i.e., man-unkind.
The next step into the mental gyrations of evolved humans is to figure out how to restore the Heavenly Graces of Motherhood. The Hellenes attempted to do just that, and the world fell back into masculine tyranny. When that happened a story of the Mother’s Son became the most popular religion on Earth. Whether the Son is named Krishna, Horus, Antinous, of Jesus, the message is the same. Mother behold thy son. Son behold thy mother.
Rush