> Briefly, Ramakrishna was said to be an incarnation
> of Rama and also Krishna.
> Rama's historical
> context is approx. 5000 BC and Krishna's is
> approx. 3000 BC.
I think we have some insurmountable philosophical differences regarding the veracity and/or historicity of such things so I will leave it at that.
> So the timeframes coincide with
> Sumeria and early Egypt.
That would be the Ubaid, not the Sumerians. The Sumerians did not arrive in Mesopotamia until c.3,800BC, the Ubaid c. 5500BC. The Sumerians referred and depicted themselves as the "black-headed people" and came from the south through the Persian Gulf. They referred to their previous homeland as "Dilmun" which most scholars believe was Bahrain or thereabouts though likely there was a sizable area of the Persian Gulf that was once land that is now submerged that may hold more clues. While these may coincide somewhat with interpretations of Hindu scripture written thousands of years after the fact, there is nothing in these cultures directly relatable to Hindu religious beliefs, motifs, or heroes. You don't even find them in the Indus Valley culture let alone Sumerian or Egyptian.
> It is quite likely that the Sumerians and also the
> Ancient Egyptians, amongst others, were also
> Aryans, and had their ethnicity diluted over time.
I think this is actually unlikely. "Aryan" denotes a root language not erroneously an "ethnicity" and regardless neither Sumerian or Egyptian language is Indo-European derived though there are some phonologically similarly shared characteristics with the latter. Sumerian, however, is a language isolate. Regardless, the Ubaid culture where palace facade architecture originates is from Anatolia. They migrated to Mesopotamia c. 5500BC and were absorbed by the Sumerians, not Indo-European, c. 3,800BC. The Indo-European influx into India occurred c. 2,000BC, ironically even several hundreds of years at least after the beginnings of the Indus Valley civilization. The oldest Indo-European speaking branch dates back to c. 4,200BC in Anatolia long after the Ubad had migrated to Mesopotamia. The influence of whoever these Indo-Europeans might have been in India came 3,500yrs after the arrival of the Ubaid in Mesopotamia, nearly 2,000yrs after the arrival of the Sumerians, and over 1,000yrs after the formation of the Dynastic state. Not to mention they were preceded by the Indus Valley civilization by at least 700yrs if not much more.
> Although modern Hindus, who have embraced the old
> religion, cremate their dead, this is a more
> recent custom. The preservation of the body was
> extremely important to later Dynastic Egyptians,
> but may not have been the case in pre Dynastic
> times - hence the lack of bodies in tombs.
Not sure how this is relevant, but it became suddenly and extremely important to them beginning in the late Naqada period c. 3500-3200BC with the first elaborate tombs exhibiting palace facade architecture and Mesopotamian style artifacts which also contained non-indigenous bodies and funerary practices similar to the Mesopotamians. Before this this they were buried in pit graves no different than the Bardari before them.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 25-Jul-15 16:02 by Thanos5150.