What do you think?
Rate this book
Collector's Library of the Unknown
Atlantis: The Antediluvian World
The great classic of Atlantis, this book more than any other established the existence of this lost continent for the modern world. Attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and stimulating vast debate, it influenced generations of people including countless scientists who went on to do serious work in their fields, and numerous science-fiction writers. It is a measure of the power of the Atlantis myth that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the idea of a submerged Atlantic Ocean continent remains vigorous today, long after Donnelly's work first appeared.
A lawyer and politician before he turned to writing, Ignatius Donnelly (1831‒1901) spent many years amassing evidence for his book on Atlantis. Displaying an immense knowledge of Platonic and Biblical material, comparative archeological discoveries, folk traditions of deluges, and geological data supporting catastrophic volcanic activity, Donnelly staggered his readers with "facts" and overwhelmed them with his many brilliant arguments. Despite the many more recent discoveries that have proved many of his "facts" to be false, his arguments still dazzle and his central myth continues to fascinate. The highly appealing idea of a lost continent with a high civilization, one that was the mother of all other civilizations, is one of the most enduring of all human myths and shows no signs of disappearing.
A seminal work on Atlantis and a classic in the history of culture, this book is the starting point for anyone sincerely interested in the Atlantis myth. Still the most readable and imaginative of the books on Atlantis, it is a work that will long outlive most of the more recent accounts. As a study of the golden past, it is an enormously intriguing and enjoyable book.
A lawyer and politician before he turned to writing, Ignatius Donnelly (1831‒1901) spent many years amassing evidence for his book on Atlantis. Displaying an immense knowledge of Platonic and Biblical material, comparative archeological discoveries, folk traditions of deluges, and geological data supporting catastrophic volcanic activity, Donnelly staggered his readers with "facts" and overwhelmed them with his many brilliant arguments. Despite the many more recent discoveries that have proved many of his "facts" to be false, his arguments still dazzle and his central myth continues to fascinate. The highly appealing idea of a lost continent with a high civilization, one that was the mother of all other civilizations, is one of the most enduring of all human myths and shows no signs of disappearing.
A seminal work on Atlantis and a classic in the history of culture, this book is the starting point for anyone sincerely interested in the Atlantis myth. Still the most readable and imaginative of the books on Atlantis, it is a work that will long outlive most of the more recent accounts. As a study of the golden past, it is an enormously intriguing and enjoyable book.
490 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1882
286 people are currently reading
2,209 people want to read
About the author
Ignatius L. Donnelly
50 books36 followersU.S. Congressman, populist writer and science writer.
His most known theories are on Atlantis, Shakespearean authorship and Catastrophism.
Ignatius Loyola Donnelly ran in multiple elections for governor of Minnesota and was Republican congressman from 1863–1868.
In 1892, Donnelly wrote the preamble of the People's Party's Omaha Platform for the presidential campaign of that year. He was nominated for Vice President of the United States in 1900 by the People's Party.
His most known theories are on Atlantis, Shakespearean authorship and Catastrophism.
Ignatius Loyola Donnelly ran in multiple elections for governor of Minnesota and was Republican congressman from 1863–1868.
In 1892, Donnelly wrote the preamble of the People's Party's Omaha Platform for the presidential campaign of that year. He was nominated for Vice President of the United States in 1900 by the People's Party.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
September 29, 2021
I actually thought this was a fun read. The author presented a lot of information from many resources in order to postulate the existence of Atlantis. Atlantis was assumed to exist in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and was destroyed in the Earth's great flood, the deluge. The only remnants of its existence are the current Azore Islands (pg. 43). The author says these are the mountain tops of Atlantis' highest peaks. Extending from Atlantis there were various mountain ridges that connected Europe, North Africa, and the Americas. The author's focus of the book is to prove Atlantis was real by various connections across cultures.
The author presented a lot of evidence in various ways. There was stuff about coexisting intercontinental plants (bananas, mangos, corn, tobacco, and trees such as oaks and sequoias), animals (deer, elk, bears, wolves). Every culture has a story of the Great Flood, the Deluge. I was overwhelmed at how many peoples have the same story and the man who was the messenger: the Abrahamic faiths (Noah and his wife), Greek (Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha and the later story of another savior named Ogyges), Hindu (Manu), Chaldean (Khasisatra), ancient Mexican (Coxcox and his wife Xochiquetzal), and many other peoples.
This book was filled with many connections such as architectural/structural (pyramids of Egypt and Mexico; earth mounds of the American Mississippi Valley people, cyclopean masonry of the Inca), metallurgy (bronze, iron), astronomy, linguistic, customs and legends, and many others. There was much mythological/religious/historical discussion about the ancient Hebrews, Phoenicians, Baal, Dagon (half man-half fish), Chronos/Saturn, Poseidon/Neptune, Scandinavians, the Tuatha Dé Danann of Irish folklore, and American indigenous groups such the Toltecs, Yucatans, Ojibwe/Chippewa, and Dakota. There is so much here and you're better off reading it!
I found interesting the 'coming from the east' and a 'mountain in the water' story. The story goes to show a place called Aztlan, original home-island of the Central American peoples (pg. 332)
Overall this was extremely interesting. Even though it's all speculation, the book sparked a lot of curiosity on my end with all the historical, cultural, mythological, and archaeological evidence the author attempted to link. I would highly recommend this to someone interested in Atlantis and ancient history. Thanks!
The author presented a lot of evidence in various ways. There was stuff about coexisting intercontinental plants (bananas, mangos, corn, tobacco, and trees such as oaks and sequoias), animals (deer, elk, bears, wolves). Every culture has a story of the Great Flood, the Deluge. I was overwhelmed at how many peoples have the same story and the man who was the messenger: the Abrahamic faiths (Noah and his wife), Greek (Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha and the later story of another savior named Ogyges), Hindu (Manu), Chaldean (Khasisatra), ancient Mexican (Coxcox and his wife Xochiquetzal), and many other peoples.
This book was filled with many connections such as architectural/structural (pyramids of Egypt and Mexico; earth mounds of the American Mississippi Valley people, cyclopean masonry of the Inca), metallurgy (bronze, iron), astronomy, linguistic, customs and legends, and many others. There was much mythological/religious/historical discussion about the ancient Hebrews, Phoenicians, Baal, Dagon (half man-half fish), Chronos/Saturn, Poseidon/Neptune, Scandinavians, the Tuatha Dé Danann of Irish folklore, and American indigenous groups such the Toltecs, Yucatans, Ojibwe/Chippewa, and Dakota. There is so much here and you're better off reading it!
I found interesting the 'coming from the east' and a 'mountain in the water' story. The story goes to show a place called Aztlan, original home-island of the Central American peoples (pg. 332)
The elder Montezuma said to Cortez,"Our fathers dwelt in that happy and prosperous place they called Aztlan which means whiteness....In this place there is a great mountain in the middle of the water pg. 326
Overall this was extremely interesting. Even though it's all speculation, the book sparked a lot of curiosity on my end with all the historical, cultural, mythological, and archaeological evidence the author attempted to link. I would highly recommend this to someone interested in Atlantis and ancient history. Thanks!
December 24, 2012
Even though I disagree almost entirely with everything Donnelly has to say about Atlantis, I enjoyed this. He raises a lot of intriguing questions about the similarities between ancient human societies across the world which still have not been satisfactorily explained by modern science. Most interesting were the similarities in myths, suggesting that either we all make up the same stories, or we have common memories of something else.
February 24, 2015
One of the ongoing debates in the study of prehistory, ancient history and the history of religions has to do with the origin of symbols, life-ways and artifacts. When there are similarities, does this mean transmission from one culture to another, an archetypal substratum common to the species or mere coincidence? Donnelly presupposes and favors the transmission hypothesis and sees such correspondences between early cultures as evidence of a common source which he associates with Plato's Atlantis. Much of his book is a detailing of these correspondences and, frankly, it gets rather boring.
Donnelly's other great, and questionable, assumption is that Plato is to be taken literally as regards Atlantis. Given that stories about mythic lands and origins are so common to cultures throughout the world and throughout history, this is quite an assumption indeed. Think, for instance, of the sixteenth century Spanish tales of hidden civilizations, lost cities and isles. Think, for instance, of the common religious beliefs in other domains to which some go after dead. Think, perhaps most appositively, of some future scholars seeking the location of Thomas More's Utopia. Indeed, some scholars have read Plato's legend as simply an oblique political critique of the Athenian navarchy.
However, if one allows for both of Donnelly's presumptions, then this book is a worthy exercise and impressive accomplishment for its time of composition. It certainly is an important text for anyone seeking to trace the history of the idea of Atlantis--or of other "lost" continents--in the modern world.
Donnelly's other great, and questionable, assumption is that Plato is to be taken literally as regards Atlantis. Given that stories about mythic lands and origins are so common to cultures throughout the world and throughout history, this is quite an assumption indeed. Think, for instance, of the sixteenth century Spanish tales of hidden civilizations, lost cities and isles. Think, for instance, of the common religious beliefs in other domains to which some go after dead. Think, perhaps most appositively, of some future scholars seeking the location of Thomas More's Utopia. Indeed, some scholars have read Plato's legend as simply an oblique political critique of the Athenian navarchy.
However, if one allows for both of Donnelly's presumptions, then this book is a worthy exercise and impressive accomplishment for its time of composition. It certainly is an important text for anyone seeking to trace the history of the idea of Atlantis--or of other "lost" continents--in the modern world.
March 6, 2023
Not just lies and racism, it's tedious too. Notable for some incredible leaps in logic though, eg two cultures have similar myths, so atlantis must be real and have founded both cultures.
December 16, 2020
I disagreed with quite a lot of Donnelly’s arguments, but that’s not really why this book gets quite the average rating. It was an interesting read, with some points that made clear connections between the human race’s early ancestors. Yes, the author is clearly very intrigued by ancient history and anthropology, but I can’t say he knows everything there is to know. I found he did contradict himself on many occasions, and that some of his conclusions weren’t quite complete or satisfactory.
This book was written over a century ago, so a lot of the research we have today hadn’t been completed then, and it does show. For example, there is little to no mention of both Linear A and B, simply because in 1882, very little was known about the two scripts. I didn’t want to fault the book for being written in the past, however, although I found it odd that Donnelly acknowledged the existence of cuneiform, yet didn’t include it in his language comparisons (considering it is such an old script, like Egyptian).
Finally, and this is partly why I couldn’t give this book any more stars. the lingo of this book is uncomfortably racist. You can tell that it was written in the eyes of a white imperialist Victorian era, and there were times when it seemed that Donnelly just wanted to believe that “the civilised white man colonised the world”, and I think that did dent his ability to properly analyse anthropological origins, given that he seemed reluctant to give people of colour praise for any achievement (it all had to come from the white Atlanteans, apparently). Alongside this, he wasn’t fully able to fully appreciate polytheism, and there was a definite lack of understanding in that when he approached attitudes towards deities, even in the Ancient Greek society. This was especially evident in his using the Bible as a middle ground when comparing all religions - Donnelly didn’t seem to acknowledge that the Bible itself seems to have derived from a polytheistic background, which once again hindered his ability to fully analyse the facts.
It’s not the worst book in the world, but you ought to be prepared for the racist Victorian lingo if you do decide to pick it up!
This book was written over a century ago, so a lot of the research we have today hadn’t been completed then, and it does show. For example, there is little to no mention of both Linear A and B, simply because in 1882, very little was known about the two scripts. I didn’t want to fault the book for being written in the past, however, although I found it odd that Donnelly acknowledged the existence of cuneiform, yet didn’t include it in his language comparisons (considering it is such an old script, like Egyptian).
Finally, and this is partly why I couldn’t give this book any more stars. the lingo of this book is uncomfortably racist. You can tell that it was written in the eyes of a white imperialist Victorian era, and there were times when it seemed that Donnelly just wanted to believe that “the civilised white man colonised the world”, and I think that did dent his ability to properly analyse anthropological origins, given that he seemed reluctant to give people of colour praise for any achievement (it all had to come from the white Atlanteans, apparently). Alongside this, he wasn’t fully able to fully appreciate polytheism, and there was a definite lack of understanding in that when he approached attitudes towards deities, even in the Ancient Greek society. This was especially evident in his using the Bible as a middle ground when comparing all religions - Donnelly didn’t seem to acknowledge that the Bible itself seems to have derived from a polytheistic background, which once again hindered his ability to fully analyse the facts.
It’s not the worst book in the world, but you ought to be prepared for the racist Victorian lingo if you do decide to pick it up!
April 13, 2019
Published in the 19th century, this book posits that Atlantis was the seat of the biblical Garden of Eden, that all of the flood myths actually refer to the sinking of Atlantis (which was where Plato said it was: a continent in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean), and that it was the first and most advanced human culture, seeding colonies all over the world. That the common ancestry of Atlantis explains similarities in language and culture between various groups in the Americas and in Africa, Europe, and Asia--groups that until relatively recently should have had no contact with one another.
As research for a work of fiction, the book is very helpful, although redundant as heck. Toward the end I was skimming and skipping quite a bit. I understand that since the author was attempting to establish what he believed as fact, though, for his purposes it wouldn't have seemed like he was beating a dead horse.
As research for a work of fiction, the book is very helpful, although redundant as heck. Toward the end I was skimming and skipping quite a bit. I understand that since the author was attempting to establish what he believed as fact, though, for his purposes it wouldn't have seemed like he was beating a dead horse.
January 7, 2023
We'll written pseudohistorical pseudoscience. Read only if you plan on writing an atlantean science fiction fantasy.
February 24, 2024
Okay the book itself is not a 2- the book by Donnelly is probably a 4 or even a 5 star rating. Its a great early overview about incorporating Atlantis into our historical perspective, which is absolutely essential. It is not sensationalist or overly reliant on speculation, and its great to see how these ideas often associated with the contemporary "new age" scene are really not so new, nor so fringe as they are frequently characterized. Donnelly starts with Plato but only uses that as a springboard into wide array of archeological and anthropological data to marshal his argument that there was persistent contact between continents throughout the Holocene and that prior global civilization seeded various cultures from Peru to Mississippi to Egypt and Ireland. This text is a crucial landmark dealing with this topic.
But now on to the actual AUDIOBOOK edition that is the only version currently available on audible. Good Lord- it is nearly unlistenable. The narrator- this Christopher Romance person, insists on doing an IMMENSE ARRAY of ACCENTS every single time there is any quotation in the text. I have never heard an audiobook as ridiculous as this. Why.. WHY must you imagine a southern drawl or a cartoonish British lilt every time there is a quotation.. every single time.. and they're always slightly different! That part was actually impressive, even though extremely annoying. This guy has a huuge array of accents he can do, and chooses a different one every time. If that wasn't bad enough though, there are myriad whacky word pronunciations throughout the text. I understand flubbing a few and some tricky nouns and such, but I have no idea how a native English speaker who can read an entire book like this doesn't understand how to normally pronounce words like "origin" and "magnificent". How.. does that even happen? Its really unfortunate that this is the only available audiobook version of this text, because it really deserves a better treatment.. perhaps we'll have to produce a superior version ourselves, as this text would be worth reading again.
But now on to the actual AUDIOBOOK edition that is the only version currently available on audible. Good Lord- it is nearly unlistenable. The narrator- this Christopher Romance person, insists on doing an IMMENSE ARRAY of ACCENTS every single time there is any quotation in the text. I have never heard an audiobook as ridiculous as this. Why.. WHY must you imagine a southern drawl or a cartoonish British lilt every time there is a quotation.. every single time.. and they're always slightly different! That part was actually impressive, even though extremely annoying. This guy has a huuge array of accents he can do, and chooses a different one every time. If that wasn't bad enough though, there are myriad whacky word pronunciations throughout the text. I understand flubbing a few and some tricky nouns and such, but I have no idea how a native English speaker who can read an entire book like this doesn't understand how to normally pronounce words like "origin" and "magnificent". How.. does that even happen? Its really unfortunate that this is the only available audiobook version of this text, because it really deserves a better treatment.. perhaps we'll have to produce a superior version ourselves, as this text would be worth reading again.
March 29, 2016
This was a surprisingly quick read. The research is all from the 1800's so I'm unable to say if all the quotes are accurate. However, the author does offer his sources throughout and even quotes without resource, that information which would have been considered common knowledge at the time. I feel that he is able to offer enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that there indeed was a land mass in the Atlantic that predates recorded history. He makes an interesting point specifically with regards to bananas in Afric and the Americas.
"Having demonstrated, as we think successfully, that there is no improbability in the statement of Plato that a large island, almost a continent, existed in the past in the Atlantic Ocean, nay, more, that it is a geological certainty that it did exist; and having further shown that it is not improbable but very possible that it may have sunk beneath the sea in the manner described by Plato, we come now to the next question. Is the memory of this gigantic catastrophe preserved among the traditions of mankind? We think there can be no doubt that an affirmative answer must be given to this question."
It is odd that there is an oral tradition of a great flood going back to the first civilizations to develop writing, and thus history. However, I'm not willing to say that Plato's account of Atlantis (the mythical empire) can be held as fact.
If you have a free afternoon you should sit down and read this for yourself.
"Having demonstrated, as we think successfully, that there is no improbability in the statement of Plato that a large island, almost a continent, existed in the past in the Atlantic Ocean, nay, more, that it is a geological certainty that it did exist; and having further shown that it is not improbable but very possible that it may have sunk beneath the sea in the manner described by Plato, we come now to the next question. Is the memory of this gigantic catastrophe preserved among the traditions of mankind? We think there can be no doubt that an affirmative answer must be given to this question."
It is odd that there is an oral tradition of a great flood going back to the first civilizations to develop writing, and thus history. However, I'm not willing to say that Plato's account of Atlantis (the mythical empire) can be held as fact.
If you have a free afternoon you should sit down and read this for yourself.
July 27, 2011
This book was right up my street and provides a very convincing argument that most of the modern wider world, with its myths, religions and customs stem from a common ancestry in an ante-diluvian world.
March 19, 2022
Most of the book is a desperate effort by Donelly in his quest to establish Atlantis as the biblical origin of humanity, aided by and aiding the missionary efforts to convert India by lies.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
***
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
***
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
***
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
***
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
***
Rest of the review, if not below in comments, is at:-
https://reviews-booksiread-drjg.blogs...
Since goodreads is deleting comments immediately, so it cannot be posted below, as I used to. It might be just this particular book they are doing it to. I haven't checked others.
Perhaps this site is already going out.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
***
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
***
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
***
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
***
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
***
Rest of the review, if not below in comments, is at:-
https://reviews-booksiread-drjg.blogs...
Since goodreads is deleting comments immediately, so it cannot be posted below, as I used to. It might be just this particular book they are doing it to. I haven't checked others.
Perhaps this site is already going out.
March 19, 2022
Most of the book is a desperate effort by Donelly in his quest to establish Atlantis as the biblical origin of humanity, aided by and aiding the missionary efforts to convert India by lies.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
***
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
***
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
***
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
***
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
***
Rest of the review, if not below in comments, is at:-
https://reviews-booksiread-drjg.blogs...
Since goodreads is deleting comments immediately, so it cannot be posted below, as I used to. It might be just this particular book they are doing it to. I haven't checked others.
Perhaps this site is already going out.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
***
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
***
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
***
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
***
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
***
Rest of the review, if not below in comments, is at:-
https://reviews-booksiread-drjg.blogs...
Since goodreads is deleting comments immediately, so it cannot be posted below, as I used to. It might be just this particular book they are doing it to. I haven't checked others.
Perhaps this site is already going out.
March 28, 2022
Most of the book is a desperate effort by Donelly in his quest to establish Atlantis as the biblical origin of humanity, aided by and aiding the missionary efforts to convert India by lies.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
***
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
***
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
***
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
***
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
***
Rest of the review, if not below in comments, is at:-
https://reviews-booksiread-drjg.blogs...
Since goodreads is deleting comments immediately, so it cannot be posted below, as I used to. It might be just this particular book they are doing it to. I haven't checked others.
Perhaps this site is already going out.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
***
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
***
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
***
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
***
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
***
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
***
Rest of the review, if not below in comments, is at:-
https://reviews-booksiread-drjg.blogs...
Since goodreads is deleting comments immediately, so it cannot be posted below, as I used to. It might be just this particular book they are doing it to. I haven't checked others.
Perhaps this site is already going out.
May 14, 2023
ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS BOOKS ABOUT THE ‘LOST CONTINENT’
Author Ignatius Donnelly (1831-1901) wrote in the first chapter of this 1882 book, “This book is an attempt to demonstrate several distinct and novel propositions. These are: 1. That there once existed in the Atlantic Ocean… a large island, which was the remnant of an Atlantic continent, and known to the ancient world as Atlantis. 2. That the description of this island given by Plato is not, as has been long supposed, fable, but veritable history. 3. That Atlantis was the region where man first rose from a state of barbarism to civilization. 4. That it became, in the course of ages, a populous and mighty nation, from whose overflowings the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, the Amazon, the Pacific coast of South America, the Mediterranean, the west coast of Europe and Africa kth Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Caspian were populated by civilized nations. 5. That it was the true Antediluvian world; the Garden of Eden; the Gardens of Hesperides; the Elysian Fields; the Gardens of Alcinous; the Mesomphalos; the Olympus; the Asgard of the traditions of the ancient nations; representing a universal memory of a great land, where early mankind dwelt for ages in peace and happiness. 6. That the gods and goddesses of the ancient Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Hindus, and the Scandinavians were simply the kings, queens, and heroes of Atlantis; and the acts attributed to them in mythology are a confused recollection of real historical events. 7. That the mythology of Egypt and Peru represented the original religion of Atlantis, which was sun-worship 8. That the oldest colony formed by that Atlanteans was probably in Egypt, whose civilization was a reproduction of that of the Atlantic island. 9. That the implements of the ‘Bronze Age’ of Europe were derived from Atlantis. The Atlanteans were also the first manufacturers of iron. 10. That the Phoenician alphabet, parent of all the European alphabets, was derived from an Atlantis alphabet, which was also conveyed for Atlantis to the Mayas of Central America. 11. That Atlantis was the original seat of the Aryan or Into-European family of nations, as well as of the Semitic peoples, and possibly also of the Turanian races. 12. That Atlantis perished in a terrible convulsion of nature, in which the whole island sunk into the ocean, with nearly all of its inhabitants. 13. That a few persons escaped in ships and on rafts, and carried to the nations east and west the tidings of the appalling catastrophe, which has survived to our time in the Flood and Deluge legends of the different nations of the old and new worlds.” (Pg. 1-2)
He asserts, “The fact that the story of Atlantis was for thousands of years regarded as a fable proves nothing. There is an unbelief which grows out of ignorance, as well as a skepticism which is born of intelligence. The people nearest to the past are not always those who are best informed concerning the past.” (Pg. 3)
He records Plato’s account of Atlantis, and observes, “Neither is there any evidence on the face of this history that Plato sought to convey n it a moral or political lesson, in the guise of a fable… It is a straightforward, reasonable history of a people ruled over by their kings, living and progressing as other nations have lived and progressed since their day.” (Pg. 23)
About the likelihood of such an island ‘sinking,’ he notes, “the earth’s surface is a record of successive risings and fallings of the land… All the continents which now exist were, it is well understood, once under water, and the rocks of which they are composed were deposited beneath the water.” (Pg. 31) Later, he adds, “it is proven beyond question, by geological evidence, that vast masses of land once existed in the region where Atlantis is located by Plato, and that therefore such an island must have existed.” (Pg. 45)
He then recounts many of the ‘Deluge/Flood Legends’ various countries (including the biblical account). He adds, “We know that the land from which America and Europe were formed once covered nearly or quite the whole space now occupied by the Atlantic between the continents; and it is reasonable to believe that it went down piecemeal, and that Atlantis was but the stamp of the ancient continent, which at last perished from the same causes and in the same way.” (Pg. 127)
In the chapter, ‘Genesis Contains a History of Atlantis,’ he states, “it can be asserted that there is scarcely a prominent fact in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis that cannot be duplicated from the legends of the American nations, and scarcely a custom known to the Jews that does not find its counterpart among the people of the New World.” (Pg. 198)
“In the chapter, ‘The Oldest Son of Noah,’ he asserts, “all the evidence points to the fact that this original seat of the Phoenician-Hebrew family was in Atlantis. The great god of the so-called Semites was El, the Strong One, from whose name comes the biblical names of Beth-el, the house of God… El-ohim, the gods… and from the same name is derived the Arabian name of god, Al-lah.” (Pg. 425)
He summarizes, “The farther we go back in time toward the era of Atlantis, the more the evidences multiply that we are approaching the presence of a great, wise, civilized race. For instance, we find the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Israelites, from the earliest ages, refusing to eat the flesh of swine.” (Pg. 472)
He concludes, “Science has but commenced its work of reconstructing the past and rehabilitating the ancient peoples, and surely there is no study which appeals more strongly to the imagination than that of the drowned nation, the true antediluvians. They were the founders of nearly all our arts and sciences; they were the parents of our fundamental beliefs; they were the first civilizers, the first navigators, the first merchants, the first colonizers of the earth…. This lost people were our ancestors, their blood flows in our veins; the words we use every day were heard, in their primitive form, in their cities, courts, and temples. Every line of race and thought, of blood and belief, leads back to them.” (Pg. 479)
Not as ‘wild’ as many other books on the topic, this book will be of keen interest those studying Atlantis.
Author Ignatius Donnelly (1831-1901) wrote in the first chapter of this 1882 book, “This book is an attempt to demonstrate several distinct and novel propositions. These are: 1. That there once existed in the Atlantic Ocean… a large island, which was the remnant of an Atlantic continent, and known to the ancient world as Atlantis. 2. That the description of this island given by Plato is not, as has been long supposed, fable, but veritable history. 3. That Atlantis was the region where man first rose from a state of barbarism to civilization. 4. That it became, in the course of ages, a populous and mighty nation, from whose overflowings the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, the Amazon, the Pacific coast of South America, the Mediterranean, the west coast of Europe and Africa kth Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Caspian were populated by civilized nations. 5. That it was the true Antediluvian world; the Garden of Eden; the Gardens of Hesperides; the Elysian Fields; the Gardens of Alcinous; the Mesomphalos; the Olympus; the Asgard of the traditions of the ancient nations; representing a universal memory of a great land, where early mankind dwelt for ages in peace and happiness. 6. That the gods and goddesses of the ancient Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Hindus, and the Scandinavians were simply the kings, queens, and heroes of Atlantis; and the acts attributed to them in mythology are a confused recollection of real historical events. 7. That the mythology of Egypt and Peru represented the original religion of Atlantis, which was sun-worship 8. That the oldest colony formed by that Atlanteans was probably in Egypt, whose civilization was a reproduction of that of the Atlantic island. 9. That the implements of the ‘Bronze Age’ of Europe were derived from Atlantis. The Atlanteans were also the first manufacturers of iron. 10. That the Phoenician alphabet, parent of all the European alphabets, was derived from an Atlantis alphabet, which was also conveyed for Atlantis to the Mayas of Central America. 11. That Atlantis was the original seat of the Aryan or Into-European family of nations, as well as of the Semitic peoples, and possibly also of the Turanian races. 12. That Atlantis perished in a terrible convulsion of nature, in which the whole island sunk into the ocean, with nearly all of its inhabitants. 13. That a few persons escaped in ships and on rafts, and carried to the nations east and west the tidings of the appalling catastrophe, which has survived to our time in the Flood and Deluge legends of the different nations of the old and new worlds.” (Pg. 1-2)
He asserts, “The fact that the story of Atlantis was for thousands of years regarded as a fable proves nothing. There is an unbelief which grows out of ignorance, as well as a skepticism which is born of intelligence. The people nearest to the past are not always those who are best informed concerning the past.” (Pg. 3)
He records Plato’s account of Atlantis, and observes, “Neither is there any evidence on the face of this history that Plato sought to convey n it a moral or political lesson, in the guise of a fable… It is a straightforward, reasonable history of a people ruled over by their kings, living and progressing as other nations have lived and progressed since their day.” (Pg. 23)
About the likelihood of such an island ‘sinking,’ he notes, “the earth’s surface is a record of successive risings and fallings of the land… All the continents which now exist were, it is well understood, once under water, and the rocks of which they are composed were deposited beneath the water.” (Pg. 31) Later, he adds, “it is proven beyond question, by geological evidence, that vast masses of land once existed in the region where Atlantis is located by Plato, and that therefore such an island must have existed.” (Pg. 45)
He then recounts many of the ‘Deluge/Flood Legends’ various countries (including the biblical account). He adds, “We know that the land from which America and Europe were formed once covered nearly or quite the whole space now occupied by the Atlantic between the continents; and it is reasonable to believe that it went down piecemeal, and that Atlantis was but the stamp of the ancient continent, which at last perished from the same causes and in the same way.” (Pg. 127)
In the chapter, ‘Genesis Contains a History of Atlantis,’ he states, “it can be asserted that there is scarcely a prominent fact in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis that cannot be duplicated from the legends of the American nations, and scarcely a custom known to the Jews that does not find its counterpart among the people of the New World.” (Pg. 198)
“In the chapter, ‘The Oldest Son of Noah,’ he asserts, “all the evidence points to the fact that this original seat of the Phoenician-Hebrew family was in Atlantis. The great god of the so-called Semites was El, the Strong One, from whose name comes the biblical names of Beth-el, the house of God… El-ohim, the gods… and from the same name is derived the Arabian name of god, Al-lah.” (Pg. 425)
He summarizes, “The farther we go back in time toward the era of Atlantis, the more the evidences multiply that we are approaching the presence of a great, wise, civilized race. For instance, we find the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Israelites, from the earliest ages, refusing to eat the flesh of swine.” (Pg. 472)
He concludes, “Science has but commenced its work of reconstructing the past and rehabilitating the ancient peoples, and surely there is no study which appeals more strongly to the imagination than that of the drowned nation, the true antediluvians. They were the founders of nearly all our arts and sciences; they were the parents of our fundamental beliefs; they were the first civilizers, the first navigators, the first merchants, the first colonizers of the earth…. This lost people were our ancestors, their blood flows in our veins; the words we use every day were heard, in their primitive form, in their cities, courts, and temples. Every line of race and thought, of blood and belief, leads back to them.” (Pg. 479)
Not as ‘wild’ as many other books on the topic, this book will be of keen interest those studying Atlantis.
March 31, 2022
The great civilisation of Atlantis, the centre of of a vast advanced empire ruling over various pockets of the world, by various characters from Greek and Norse myths (who have been mistaken as gods by the overhyping of their rule and deeds). Egypt was the first great Atlantean colony which was built in similar fashion to Atlantis, but the empire would eventually also include territories as far away as modern Peru and the hinterland of the Mississippi River.
All was going swimmingly until some sort of an unknown catastrophe plunges Atlantis to the depths and takes the vast majority of its inhabitants with it. With the capital sunk, the empire crumbled and the waves of time swept it away, only scraps of mentions surviving from the likes of Plato.
It'd make for a great background to a Captain Nemo adventure, or TinTin or some elaborate part of a scifi.
But, as a read it is far too long for what is a quirky curiosity.
Update
*as I am currently reading the complete fiction of HP Lovecraft, I can see something like this could have influenced him to create his great connected mythos (Ignatius Donnelly is mentioned in one of the stories, and Atlantis is also mentioned several times).
**also the cover is great.
All was going swimmingly until some sort of an unknown catastrophe plunges Atlantis to the depths and takes the vast majority of its inhabitants with it. With the capital sunk, the empire crumbled and the waves of time swept it away, only scraps of mentions surviving from the likes of Plato.
It'd make for a great background to a Captain Nemo adventure, or TinTin or some elaborate part of a scifi.
But, as a read it is far too long for what is a quirky curiosity.
Update
*as I am currently reading the complete fiction of HP Lovecraft, I can see something like this could have influenced him to create his great connected mythos (Ignatius Donnelly is mentioned in one of the stories, and Atlantis is also mentioned several times).
**also the cover is great.
August 26, 2018
I could merely bear this until page 100. Probably more 100 pages than it really deserves. Although the theme does interest me, the writing is dull and is comprised of huge list of similarities between cultures, not even trying to explain them.
I do understand that much of the supposed facts this book is based on are now considered outdated, but even so, it is written in such a pseudo-scientifc manner that is utterly unbearable for anyone with some modern knowledge of geology, mythology and ancient history.
This book is really the ancestor of the modern ancient alien conspirators: if there is any bit of history that is not quite understood, then it certainly means "atlanteans did it".
Waste of time.
I do understand that much of the supposed facts this book is based on are now considered outdated, but even so, it is written in such a pseudo-scientifc manner that is utterly unbearable for anyone with some modern knowledge of geology, mythology and ancient history.
This book is really the ancestor of the modern ancient alien conspirators: if there is any bit of history that is not quite understood, then it certainly means "atlanteans did it".
Waste of time.
February 9, 2013
This book was written in 1882. It has a lot of interesting data. The author's premise is that the Deluge/Flood was actually the sinking of Atlantis. Also that most ancient civilizations derived from Atlantis. There are a lot of facts that support some of his ideas, but some of his ideas are real stretches. All ancient cultures (North and South American, Egyption, European, African, Indian, Asian) have the Deluge/Flood mythology. But who knows, it could have bean an asteroid that caused the Deluge/Flood. Or even the melting ice at the end of the last ice age. Who knows? But, I still like the idea of Atlantis. As Donovon said in his song, "Hail Atlantis!"
June 24, 2017
A "non-fiction" scientific investigation into the existence and history of Atlantis. Written by a Minnesota senator in the 1860s (?), he investigates the geography, language, technology, metalwork of many cultures around the world and compares them to prove the existence of Atlantis. Unfortunately is is written in a dry scientific style devoid of humor, making it tough to slog through. For history buffs only.
My eBook copy did not include any charts or photographs. So, if you're inclined to seek this out, try and get a "real" copy of the book.
My eBook copy did not include any charts or photographs. So, if you're inclined to seek this out, try and get a "real" copy of the book.
June 29, 2014
Somewhat dated based upon the exploration of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but modern science has yet to preclude the possibility of an ancient civilization. Why else would all world cultures have a tradition of the Great Flood if it hadn't occurred somewhere in man's collective memory? This book started our fascination with the antediluvian world.
April 14, 2012
I found this book quite interesting and convincing. I did stop reading about 75% through because Donnelly got repetitive. I'll probably go back and finish the book at some point to see if there are a few nuggets he drops.
Want to read
July 21, 2007i'm quite sure this must be a hell of a book. i've got the soft copy but it's really annoying reading on the screen, i'd love to own the original thou i know it may cost a fortune.
January 11, 2011
I read this book twice the first time several years ago. When I couldn't find my book I ordered it and read it again I found it so interesting I really learned a lot.
January 25, 2012
It blew my mind!
Read
March 28, 2022Atlantis: The Antediluvian World
*****
Most of the book is a desperate effort by Donelly in his quest to establish Atlantis as the biblical origin of humanity, aided by and aiding the missionary efforts to convert India by lies.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
*****
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
*****
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
*****
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
*****
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
*****
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
*****
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
*****
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
*****
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
*****
"How comes it that all the civilizations of the Old World radiate from the shores of the Mediterranean? The Mediterranean is a cul de sac, with Atlantis opposite its mouth. Every civilization on its shores possesses traditions that point to Atlantis. We hear of no civilization coming to the Mediterranean from Asia, Africa, or Europe--from north, south, or west; but north, south, east, and west we find civilization radiating from the Mediterranean to other lands. We see the Aryans descending upon Hindostan from the direction of the Mediterranean; and we find the Chinese borrowing inventions from Hindostan, and claiming descent from a region not far from the Mediterranean."
Again, about India, he assumes Europeans are right and India wrong, which has no basis except in racism. But fact is, any people with such a migration in their history will retain a memory thereof, as obvious even from this work so far ....
*****
Most of the book is a desperate effort by Donelly in his quest to establish Atlantis as the biblical origin of humanity, aided by and aiding the missionary efforts to convert India by lies.
It's not enough for Donelly to establish that Atlantis existed, indeed, or that it was exactly where Plato says it was.
He had to try to force it down the reader as not only the biblical origin of all but Africans, but also paint it more specifically as a globe- grilling empire.
*****
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
*****
" ... the civilization of Egypt at its first appearance was of a higher order than at any subsequent period of its history, thus testifying that it drew its greatness from a fountain higher than itself. It was in its early days that Egypt worshipped one only God; in the later ages this simple and sublime belief was buried under the corruptions of polytheism. ... "
There's the prejudice. Why "corruptions of polytheism"? Most horrors of genocide and massacres were committed by monotheistic when not by atheists, and between the two there's almost no difference - neither cares about perception of Reality, but each assumes authority to pronounce decisive judgement regarding matters that cannot be proved by logic.
*****
" ... We are told that Deva-Nahusha visited his colonies in Farther India. An empire which reached from the Andes to Hindostan, if not to China, must have been magnificent indeed. ... "
The mistake he makes is in appropriating Sanskrit, Aaryans and all glorious literature thereof, denying India. For that's where the lie is exposed. Every bit of it, as far as related to India.
*****
At the very outset, one wonders, as one reads the purpose of the book - as the first chapter is titled, if the author has evidence for any of it, or is it completely based on the theories and suppositions that were then prevalent in Europe, along with a few traditions Europe took for granted such as colonial expansion radiant outward from Europe.
One may suppose that there is merit in an investigation of a legend thought so much of by respected ones of Greece, and much has indeed come to light even during twentieth century from Schlieman's discovery of Troy and its gold, to truth of Indian legends of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
But the author assumes Aryan invasion theory and that's proven fraudulent amply, moreover with the agenda behind the fraud exposed too, a colonial ruse to impose a belief on natives that they were just as much invaders as those known to be invaders during last millennium and half have been, and to impose guilt on innocent victims by propaganda of a fraudulent division of a nation, a land and a culture, for purposes set out explicitly by Macaulay - to break spirit of India so British can benefit by reducing India to slaves.
This assumption by the author, of a theory thst never had any truth in it at any level, makes one alert about the rest of his thesis, and question how much of his theory holds any truth at all, beyond the incontrovertible facts - yes, there us an astounding similarity between cultures, architecture et al, on two shores of southern Atlantic. Since there have been discoveries of other sites, for example one at Goebekliteppe, in a region in present day Turkey, once part of Greece.
Atlantis might have been fact, but was it an island? There have been satellite sightings of a city in Sahara that is now thought as the site of Atlantis.
On the other hand, why conclude that it was a single source? It is perfectly possible there was more than one.
Aryan civilisation and culture of India, by any name, and certainly knowledge possessed by India, predates India merging with Asia. There is evidence that Pacific islands had migrations and trade across the Pacific, and India has records of architect named Maya invited to create the palace at Indraprastha, which invoked deadly envy in others.
So there might have been more than one advanced civilisation, with relationship of trade rather than colonisation.
*****
Then there are theories such as one proposed by Graham Hancock in his amazing Fingerprints of Gods.
And finally, there's India, reality being India has knowledge of having seen an ocean vanish, oceans churn and Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean; the river Sindhu, called Indus by Europe, and one that outsiders from Persia to Europe named the land after, is literally named "ocean" in India, as "Sindhu", in Sanskrit and in every Indian language, translates to ocean; no other river, not even the mighty Gangaa or far wider Brahmaputra, are ever referred to or thought of as anything but rivers. Goddesses, yes, but not ocean.
There's no denying the linguistic part of the bond, as said by Max Müller - "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs" sharing a root language.
But there's also no denying that Hindus retain not a shred of memory of any other home or a journey to India, while Aarya literature in Sanskrit not only goes far back, it goes farther back than before the vanishing of an ocean between India and Asia, and seeing Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.
A culture that retains memories reaching farther back than that would not likely forget an Atlantis that vanished only twenty thousand years ago, or a journey filled with travails from an idyllic homeland, finally reaching India, crossing Sindhu, if indeed the journey were after Sindhu river came to be in place of the ocean - Sindhu in Sanskrit - that had vanished as they watched.
It's either that Aarya were always in India and saw the cataclysmic churning of the oceans, vanishing of an ocean North of Vindhya and rising of Himaalayan ranges out of the ocean, or they came from elsewhere.
Truth must be ascribed to a memory retained so long and so firmly, about India and Himaalayan ranges, than the theory made up by Europe to explain the commonality of cultural heritage of "the Hindoos, the Persians, the Celts, Germans, Romans, Greeks, and Slavs". The latter is explained just as well by asking, did some Aryans migrate from India? Likely, that's the clue.
*****
Early on begins a series of extremely racist comments, as author refers to India, by various persons he quotes, apart from himself.
"India affords us art account of the Deluge which, by its poverty, strikingly contrasts with that of the Bible and the Chaldeans. Its most simple and ancient form is found in the Çatapatha Brâhmana of the Rig-Veda. It has been translated for the first time by Max Müller."
Here author gives a familiar version involving Manu, his name misspelled half the time as Mann, and then mentions another variation involving Satyavrata talked to Hythe ultimate Divine, God Vishnu himself, instead of the first Avataara of Vishnu, Matsyaavataara, referred by ignorant and uncomprehending guys here as Fish-God, before the next stupid and racist comment comes.
" ... Nor is the Puranic version of the Legend of the Deluge to be despised, though it be of recent date, and full of fantastic and often puerile details. In certain aspects it is less Aryanized than that of Brâhmana or than the Mahâbhârata; and, above all, it gives some circumstances omitted in these earlier versions, which must yet have belonged to the original foundation, since they appear in the Babylonian legend; a circumstance preserved, no doubt, by the oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic--with which the Purânas are so deeply imbued. ... "
His ignorance of India, and a lack of understanding of much more is on exhibition when he says "oral tradition--popular, and not Brahmanic".
The idiots are unable to see that, this is beginning of Dashaavataara, whereby evolution is portrayed as a series of Divine Descents (Avataara) or Manifestations, from Matsya (Fish), which here grows from tiny to humongous size, enough to guide and anchor a ship, to the ultimate Divine Avataara Krishna, and then final Avataara, yet to arrive.
But they proceed instead to make more asinine comments.
"The references to "the three worlds" and the "fish-god" in these legends point to Atlantis. The "three worlds" probably refers to the great empire of Atlantis, described by Plato, to wit, the western continent, America, the eastern continent, Europe and Africa, considered as one, and the island of Atlantis. ... "
No, the three worlds - the translation here of "Loka" as world is very inadequate, to say the least: former refers more to planes of existence, ours being the mortal and other two being one above, occupied by Gods, and a Nether.
" ... As we have seen, Poseidon, the founder of the civilization of Atlantis, is identical with Neptune, who is always represented riding a dolphin, bearing a trident, or three-pronged symbol, in his hand, emblematical probably of the triple kingdom. He is thus a sea-god, or fish-god, and he comes to save the representative of his country."
India is definitely NOT referring, to a god of either ocean or of Nether world, when speaking of Matsyaavataara (which is Vishnu appearing in the first form manifested on earth); even though Vishnu is portrayed as one resting on - not in - ocean, he's holding up the universe, he's holding up existence itself, and of course, earth; it's an ultimate form of Divine, supreme God, not a literal physical object, or something Europe can fit into a racist denigration comfortably. The first Avataara described here isn't as small as a dolphin, either, when grown to its full form.
*****
Author gives details of deluge legends from various tribes of natives North of Mexico. He not only keeps using pejorative words for them, but also calling them Indian, knowing fully well they had nothing to do with India, and thereby using a tacit subconscious European presumption that the word defining people of India, Indian, was to be used to describe any people European migrants thought little of, an extension of Macaulay policy, of deliberately using falsehood against India, and deliberately, calling everything good of India bad.
When the author says Indian, he's referring to natives of continent across Atlantic; people of India he visually refers to as "Hindoo", or, at least equally often, as Aryan. Which is more correct than he realised.
*****
Now, however, he gets completely muddled, chiefly due to racism equating India, Hindus and Aarya with caste system, and misconstruing very words from Sanskrit, which is entirely common in West.
"In the same way we find that the ancient Aryan writings divided mankind into four races--the white, red, yellow, and black: the four castes of India were founded upon these distinctions in color; in fact, the word for color in Sanscrit (varna) means caste. The red men, according to the Mahâbhârata, were the Kshatriyas--the warrior caste-who were afterward engaged in a fierce contest with the whites--the Brahmans--and were nearly exterminated, although some of them survived, and from their stock Buddha was born. So that not only the Mohammedan and Christian but the Buddhistic religion seem to be derived from branches of the Hamitic or red stock. The great Manu was also of the red race."
This is so silly it's enough to make one speechless, giving up the hope that anyone thus determined to retain prejudice couldn't possibly be made to hear what are plain facts. For what it's worth, here they are.
First, castes in India were not separate races, never were, and still aren't. Marriages are usually arranged within caste because a daughter has grown up adjusted to a certain profession, vocation, especially that of males of the family, and would find it easier to adjust immediately and take charge when appropriate, if her new home and family aren't drastically different.
When European royals married other royals, or were considered not royal otherwise, that was caste system of not only inheritance but marriage as well, for those born of morganatic marriages were treated badly by others.
Hence Mountbatten partitioning India and leaving in a hurry, so he could make up for the humiliations of his father, in Germany by cousin Willie and later in England due to being German.
But even in ancient legends and epics of India we find people routinely marrying drastically across castes, even more, and not only their children not suffering, but no questions raised about their marriages by anyone. There are at least half a dozen such examples that come readily to mind, from Shantanu to Bheems, from parents of Raavana to parents of Bharata who the country is named Bhaarata after, from Raama and Sita (she was found by a king when he went to till a field as per ritual, and brought up by him as his own daughter), to Krishna and his second wife Satyabhama, daughter of Jaambuwanta who's usually in resemblance close to a bear, and was with Raama in the war against Raavana.
What's more, the caste changed if the work did, so Vaalmieki from being a born fisherman became a wayside looted and killer, but met a holy man and changed, so much so he became a revered holy man, a sage who eventually not only gave refuge to Sita and her sons, bringing them up, but wrote the earliest Raamaayana that survived, teaching the sons about their father.
At the other end of the spectrum, Raavana the son of a Brahmin became a king in his own right, while his mother was a Raakshasie, and he had characteristics inherited from both parents. Why his lower nature dominated is told in an interesting detail, but didn't affect his prospects until he abducted wife of another man - his own chief wife certainly was a princess from a kingdom in Rajasthan, and Jodhpur still has a garden bearing their names.
As for Bharata, or sons of Shantanu by the fisherman's daughter he married, they were kings, inheriting without any question the kingdoms of their respective fathers.
And the explanation Donelly gives about the word "Varna" meaning caste, is again complete nonsense. The word literally means colour, but isn't about skin colour, it's about mind, heart, spirit, ones whole inner being as transformed by one's work.
Brahmins are described as white because that's colour assigned to a life devoted to intellectual work, whereby one isn't allowed to charge for services rendered but must accept whatever is offered, whether one chose to become a Brahmin or was born thus to a family. One is also not allowed to lapse in for example rules regarding hygiene, beginning with freshly bathe every morning and freshly washed, not previously worn and unwashed, clothes worn, before beginning of day or partaking of any food. Its a whole lifestyle apart from learning the various things.
Brahmins aren't white race any more than any other Aryans, were mostly always poor or very poor, and can still be seen to be of a continuum of variety of skin hues, just as any other Indians are, of whatever caste.
Kshatriya are visualised as red, not because it was a skin colour, but because red is the colour that'd come to mind when one thinks of someone brought up bear arms to fight to protect weak, and carry out other prescribed duties of a warrior.
Raama, Krishna, and their clans were quintessential Aarya and Kshatriya, but both Raama and Krishna are described as "shadowed", not quite black but dark blue of a cloud, or shade of a tree amidst brilliant sunlight, darker than medium. Not red.
As for the war Donelly describes, there wasn't one, not between castes. One single Brahmin who's held as sixth Avataara of God Vishnu, Parashuraama, alone went to war, for personal reasons and his terrible wrath. But he was pacified down from his anger when he met Raama after, ironically, Raama had broken the bow Parashuraama had obtained from God Shiva, and given to Sita because she played with it as a child. Pacified after, not because - reason for pacification was rather a recognition of a higher manifestation of God in Raama.
Again, this is something West is unable, due to unwillingness, to see. Caste system has Brahmins do intellectual work, but spiritual life is open to everyone who hasn't bound oneself to another in responsibility; caste is no matter if one lives in renunciation of the world. Moreover, then one's only work is achieving union with Divine, and when so achieved - or whatever stage of achievement arrived at - people do recognise it, but not because there's any imposition thereof by any institution.
Brahmins have rights to priesthood, but becoming God is open to everyone to achieve, and when someone is in fact achieved, he's worshipped as God or whatever level he or she are at, regardless of which caste they began in.
Yellow obviously for traders because it's colour of gold, but the fourth colour isn't black, it's blue, for workers.
And given a free choice along with an understanding of the requirements and duties, one can't imagine anyone choosing not wealth, which is most with the third caste, trade. But not everyone would choose trade if otherwise inclined. An Alexander must choose being Kshatriya (although it's unclear if he did follow all duties of one, but then he wasn't properly taught so), an Einstein a Brahmin and a Raphael an artist. It's not hard to imagine someone loving weaving, if one sees the beauty and variety of fabrics of India. And so on.
*****
"How comes it that all the civilizations of the Old World radiate from the shores of the Mediterranean? The Mediterranean is a cul de sac, with Atlantis opposite its mouth. Every civilization on its shores possesses traditions that point to Atlantis. We hear of no civilization coming to the Mediterranean from Asia, Africa, or Europe--from north, south, or west; but north, south, east, and west we find civilization radiating from the Mediterranean to other lands. We see the Aryans descending upon Hindostan from the direction of the Mediterranean; and we find the Chinese borrowing inventions from Hindostan, and claiming descent from a region not far from the Mediterranean."
Again, about India, he assumes Europeans are right and India wrong, which has no basis except in racism. But fact is, any people with such a migration in their history will retain a memory thereof, as obvious even from this work so far ....
December 19, 2024
This was one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. No, really.
1. You get excerpts from flood stories from every culture in the world (believe me, there are a lot!)
2. You get comparative 'mythology', religion, history and culture.
3. You get a glimpse of how archaeologists / historians thought of these things 100 years ago, when it was all first coming to the surface.
4. You can see the scary turn racism took in the first half of the 20th century. For me, that was interesting. Terrifying, but interesting. Because it's not something I was ever taught, and psychologically, I found myself wondering just how half the planet could have got swept away by ideas that were ultimately founded in a belief that we descended from the stars. You don't see that mentioned in WW2 documentaries on the History Channel, do you? But it's true. I've come across it so many times. And I think it's an important part of our history because it demonstrates the power of belief and stories. And I think that's very relevant to the modern world and the irrational wars and hate people still wage against each other. How will it ever stop if we don't look back on this stuff and see how insane it is.
I should note that I didn't get the impression the author of this book was racist. At one point, he actually states categorically that he believes every 'white' person in the world is partly 'black', as part of his hypothesis that the whole world was once one unified race that later spread in the aftermath of the great deluge. But he quoted a number of other 'great thinkers' from his time who, frankly, scared me. Yet these people seem to have been in the US Congress, etc. We like to think the Germans were alone in Naziism, but it was rife everywhere - including America. I think we shouldn't gloss over that.
At any rate - a really, really interesting book that gave me a lot more to think about than I expected.
1. You get excerpts from flood stories from every culture in the world (believe me, there are a lot!)
2. You get comparative 'mythology', religion, history and culture.
3. You get a glimpse of how archaeologists / historians thought of these things 100 years ago, when it was all first coming to the surface.
4. You can see the scary turn racism took in the first half of the 20th century. For me, that was interesting. Terrifying, but interesting. Because it's not something I was ever taught, and psychologically, I found myself wondering just how half the planet could have got swept away by ideas that were ultimately founded in a belief that we descended from the stars. You don't see that mentioned in WW2 documentaries on the History Channel, do you? But it's true. I've come across it so many times. And I think it's an important part of our history because it demonstrates the power of belief and stories. And I think that's very relevant to the modern world and the irrational wars and hate people still wage against each other. How will it ever stop if we don't look back on this stuff and see how insane it is.
I should note that I didn't get the impression the author of this book was racist. At one point, he actually states categorically that he believes every 'white' person in the world is partly 'black', as part of his hypothesis that the whole world was once one unified race that later spread in the aftermath of the great deluge. But he quoted a number of other 'great thinkers' from his time who, frankly, scared me. Yet these people seem to have been in the US Congress, etc. We like to think the Germans were alone in Naziism, but it was rife everywhere - including America. I think we shouldn't gloss over that.
At any rate - a really, really interesting book that gave me a lot more to think about than I expected.
November 23, 2024
The whole optimism regarding the human past, showing up in today's sentiment, probably has more to do with the futile efforts of our current paradigms as it does with how great the world really was before. The theories regarding Atlantis, as the ones in this book, often spiral out to theories about alien pre-civilization on earth, giants who lived up to 1000 years, etc.
The theory of Atlantis is, to me, just a globalist fever dream, extrapolated to the past. Even if there ever was such a land, which is possible, I seriously doubt it dominated every other sphere in the world and that they didn't know sickness or sorrow; these are essential not only to the human, but to all condition caught in the earth realm. Though this is a common pseudohistorical sentiment even if you have a look at the Hindu ages of human development (yugas); they have a very similar theory about people living up to 1000 in the "before times" and being very tall, as well as fruits being big and air pure etc.
I think there may be many other reasons as to why we can find similar structures in different parts of the world (collective consciousness or sth) and why the old civilizations had more knowledge than we would think (that has more to do with us overestimating our own abilities than the older civilizations being clueless).
Maybe there was an actual flood and they were the victims, I honestly have no idea. No one knows what Plato really meant. Many parts of the book are confusing with their preudo archeology and coal comparisons (?) which I really have no clue about. Overall an interesting read.
The theory of Atlantis is, to me, just a globalist fever dream, extrapolated to the past. Even if there ever was such a land, which is possible, I seriously doubt it dominated every other sphere in the world and that they didn't know sickness or sorrow; these are essential not only to the human, but to all condition caught in the earth realm. Though this is a common pseudohistorical sentiment even if you have a look at the Hindu ages of human development (yugas); they have a very similar theory about people living up to 1000 in the "before times" and being very tall, as well as fruits being big and air pure etc.
I think there may be many other reasons as to why we can find similar structures in different parts of the world (collective consciousness or sth) and why the old civilizations had more knowledge than we would think (that has more to do with us overestimating our own abilities than the older civilizations being clueless).
Maybe there was an actual flood and they were the victims, I honestly have no idea. No one knows what Plato really meant. Many parts of the book are confusing with their preudo archeology and coal comparisons (?) which I really have no clue about. Overall an interesting read.
February 9, 2022
Yeah, my antedilvian baby; it's with you I want to be! Ignatious Donnelly, one of the founders of American populism and all-around hell-raiser, had a side career as a writer of history. In this inquiry, one of the best-selling books f the Nineteenth century, using sources ranging from Mayan script to Egyptian folk tales he attempts to show that the lost continent of Atlantis was real and spawned every other ancient civilization. Or, as one of his epigones sang:
The continent of Atlantis was an island
Which lay before the great flood
In the area we now call the Atlantic Ocean.
So great an area of land,
That from her western shores
Those beautiful sailors journeyed
To the South and the North Americas with ease,
In their ships with painted sails.
To the East Africa was a neighbour,
Across a short strait of sea miles.
The great Egyptian age is
But a remnant of The Atlantian culture.
The antediluvian kings colonised the world
All the Gods who play in the mythological dramas
In all legends from all lands were from far Atlantis.
The continent of Atlantis was an island
Which lay before the great flood
In the area we now call the Atlantic Ocean.
So great an area of land,
That from her western shores
Those beautiful sailors journeyed
To the South and the North Americas with ease,
In their ships with painted sails.
To the East Africa was a neighbour,
Across a short strait of sea miles.
The great Egyptian age is
But a remnant of The Atlantian culture.
The antediluvian kings colonised the world
All the Gods who play in the mythological dramas
In all legends from all lands were from far Atlantis.
November 29, 2023
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Donnelly pulls together sources from all over the world and brings together to form an opinion: that clearly there was something that impacted the world’s cultures. Whether it be Atlantis or something else; something inspired the old nations of the earth to worship the similar gods under different names. And similar superstitions and practices of people separated by oceans. Clearly the ancient world was one. The “New Introduction” by E.F. Bleiler was the worst part about this book. Painstakingly reading through his introduction and commentary throughout the book was most annoying during this read. His introduction is a worthless read. Every reader can form their own opinions
about the book without the commentary of a man to whom even time has forgotten. Aside from that one aspect I am very satisfied with this read; whether Donnelly was correct or not. The evidence is compelling.
about the book without the commentary of a man to whom even time has forgotten. Aside from that one aspect I am very satisfied with this read; whether Donnelly was correct or not. The evidence is compelling.
May 24, 2017
A book of its time. As the author admits most of the science he used to set up his theories were in their infancy. Nearly 100 years later we know more and the theories just dont hold up. The real problem is that who ever transferred the book to digital did not read the book or read the finished product to make sure that the words match up. The h's in words like head, hear, etc where in fact read as b's making them bead, bear, and so forth. I hope that someone would please take time to fix this. I do recommend the book for those who want to see what the thinking was during a time when ancient discovery's were coming fast and furious. Some of the language might offend those who cant remember that this written when some peoples were seen as inferior. The author does try not to fall into this trap but still has a white bias.
March 1, 2021
The things I liked about this book:
It gave some mythology of lots of different civilizations around the world.
It gave a little bit of history to certain civilizations that was known or thought to have known at the time of writing, 1880’s.
It is an attempt at a scientific reasoning to prove Atlantis is real, though it falls very short.
What I didn’t like:
I know this was written over a hundred years ago and science, geological and archeology in particular, wasn’t as advanced as it is now but Donnelly makes some very big leaps and suppositions to get where he wants to go.
Besides Egypt, Donnelly hardly touched on Africa except to say that there is not enough that is similar so that means they’d can’t be from Atlantis.
I barely remember half the book because of the writing style, squeezing stuff in and being repetitive.
It gave some mythology of lots of different civilizations around the world.
It gave a little bit of history to certain civilizations that was known or thought to have known at the time of writing, 1880’s.
It is an attempt at a scientific reasoning to prove Atlantis is real, though it falls very short.
What I didn’t like:
I know this was written over a hundred years ago and science, geological and archeology in particular, wasn’t as advanced as it is now but Donnelly makes some very big leaps and suppositions to get where he wants to go.
Besides Egypt, Donnelly hardly touched on Africa except to say that there is not enough that is similar so that means they’d can’t be from Atlantis.
I barely remember half the book because of the writing style, squeezing stuff in and being repetitive.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews