Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00377)

HP Blavatsky in ISIS UNVEILED on the word "Aryan" and the "Aryans":

While having no intention to enter at present upon a discussion as to 
the nomadic races of the "Rhematic period," we reserve the right to 
question the full propriety of terming that portion of the primitive 
people from whose traditions the "Vedas" sprang into existence, 
Aryans. Some scientists find the existence of these Aryans not only 
unproved by science, but the traditions of Hindustan protesting 
against such an assumption. IU, II, 413, footnote.

It has generally been agreed among Orientalists that the Aryans, 
3,000 years B.C., were still in the steppes east of the Caspian, and 
united. Rawlinson conjectures that they "flowed east" from Armenia as 
a common centre; while two kindred streams began to flow, one 
northward over the Caucasus, and the other westward over Asia Minor 
and Europe. He finds the Aryans, at a period anterior to the 
fifteenth century before our era, "settled in the territory watered 
by the Upper Indus." Thence Vedic Aryans migrated to the Punjab, and 
Zendic Aryans westward, establishing the historical countries. But 
this, like the rest, is a hypothesis, and only given as such. 

Again, Rawlinson, evidently following Max Muller, says: "The early 
history of the Aryans is for many ages an absolute blank." But many 
learned Brahmans, however, have declared that they found trace of the 
existence of the Vedas as early as 2100 B.C.; and Sir William Jones, 
taking for his guide the astronomical data, places the Yagur-Veda 
1580 B.C. This would be still "before Moses." IU, II, 433

We must remember, in this connection, that the peoples of 
Southwestern and Western Asia, including the Medes, were all Aryans. 
It is yet far from being proved who were the original and primitive 
masters of India. That this period is now beyond the reach of 
documentary history, does not preclude the probability of our theory 
that it was the mighty race of builders, whether we call them Eastern 
AEthiopians, or dark-skinned Aryans (the word meaning simply "noble 
warrior," a "brave"). They ruled supreme at one time over the whole 
of ancient India, enumerated later by Manu as the possession of those 
whom our scientists term the Sanscrit-speaking people. 

These Hindus are supposed to have entered the country from the 
northwest; they are conjectured by some to have brought with them the 
Brahmanical religion, and the language of the conquerors was probably 
the Sanscrit. On these three meagre data our philologists have worked 
ever since the Hindustani and its immense Sanscrit literature was 
forcibly brought into notice by Sir William Jones -- all the time 
with the three sons of Noah clinging around their necks. This is 
exact science, free from religious prejudices! Verily, ethnology 
would have been the gainer if this Noachian trio had been washed 
overboard and drowned before the ark reached land! 

The AEthiopians are generally classed in the Semitic group; but we 
have to see how far they have a claim to such a classification. We 
will also consider how much they might have had to do with the 
Egyptian civilization, which, as a writer expresses it, seems 
referable in the same perfection to the earliest dates, and not to 
have had a rise and progress, as was the case with that of other 
peoples. For reasons that we will now adduce, we are prepared to 
maintain that Egypt owes her civilization, commonwealth and arts -- 
especially the art of building, to pre-Vedic India, and that it was a 
colony of the dark-skinned Aryans, or those whom Homer and Herodotus 
term the eastern AEthiopians, i.e., the inhabitants of Southern 
India, who brought to it their ready-made civilization in the ante-
chronological ages, of what Bunsen calls the pre-Menite, but 
nevertheless epochal history. IU, II, 435

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc