Brahmanism and the Origin of Caste System in the Indus Valley

A "dancing girl" statuette found in the Indus Valley. Circa 2500-3000 BC.
                                     

I submitted in my essay “The Ancient Connection between Brahmanism and Abramanism” that Brahmanism and Abramanism had the same origin, and that Brahma was the same mythical personage as Abraham, personifying the SUN. However, the thesis that the original Hindu/Brahmin-based caste system started when the nomadic Brahmin groups invaded India (i.e., Cusha Dwipa within, Indus Valley or Eastern Ethiopia), approximately five thousand years ago, might not be completely accurate. While it’s well-documented that the advent of Brahmanism or Hinduism coincided with the arrival of the nomadic Brahmin groups in India, the origin of the caste system in India remains an enigma.  

Be that as it may, having researched several studies on the origin of caste system in general, since castes exist in societies outside of India, I surmised with caution that the caste-system in India started before the Brahmin invasion, perhaps by the indigenous people themselves (i.e., the proto-inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent). I came into this conclusion when I realized that indigenous people, all over the world, practiced one form of caste system or the other. 

Looking at the caste systems that are practised around the world, I found out that some of these caste systems are religious based; some are occupational based, and others are ethnic based. For example, the Osu caste system practiced by the Igbo community and the Southern Cameroonians is religious based, while the Mande caste system practiced by the Senegambian societies is occupational based. My submission is that if the indigenous people in many societies around the world, outside of India, could conceive the caste system locally, independent of outsiders, then it’s not implausible that the proto-inhabitants of India could have started the caste system before the arrival of the nomadic Brahmins.

All in all, while it seems that the Caste system in India had local or indigenous origins. I’m inclined to say that this locally conceived system was later hijacked and corrupted into the Varna, Hindu-based hierarchical organization that is pervasive in rural India today.

References

J.Bamshad et al. “Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations.”

Vithal Rajan. “Dalits and the Caste System of India.”

Tia Ghose. “Genetic Study Reveals Origin of India’s Caste System.”

The Ancient Connection between Brahmanism And Abramanism.

If Manetho did live as a historical figure and if he accurately depicted the historical struggle between the Hyksos and the Kemites; then, it's safe to conclude that the Hyksos were nomadic Brahmins who moved eastward into Harrapan and Mohanjedaro (South Asia), and Westward into Nubia and Kemet (Africa). My conclusion is premised on both facts and theories.

It's a fact that a group of nomadic Brahmins invaded and destroyed the Harrapan-Mohanjedaro civilization in the East. It's also a fact that a group of nomadic shepherds invaded Kemet, but were unsuccessful in usurping the Kemetic civilization in the West. Lastly, it's a fact that the word Palestine was derived from Pallisthan, Hindu word that means the seat of the Pallis or Shepherds. Palli, in Sanskrit, means Shepherds.

Although my submission above may state facts, but nothing of a historical kind must be believed without some collateral evidence. Let's see if I can find some collateral evidence in confirmation of my conclusion and facts in the following theories:

1. The first hypothesis is the Brahmin hypothesis, which is that a group of nomadic Brahmins, mostly Aryan, left their base in ancient India for Kemet, where they ruled provisionally for nearly two centuries. After which they were forcefully expelled into a neighboring land, now called Palestine.

2. The second hypothesis, which I call the Dravidian hypothesis, does not deny the incursion of the Asiatics into kemet as implied in the Brahmin hypothesis; however, it denies that the invading Asiatics were Nomadic Brahmins. According to the Dravidian hypothesis, the Asiatic invaders of Kemet were a ground of Dravidian priests, mostly Africoid, who escaped the Brahmin onslaught on their land in Asia.

As Godfrey Higgins succinctly put it: in the most early history of mankind all nations endeavor to indulge a contemptible vanity, by tracing their origin to the most remote periods. And of this weakness they have all, in reality, been guilty (Anacalysis Vol. I). Well based in part on archeological records, of all these people, none can trace their origin farther than the Cushites or the Ethiopians.

Almost all the historians of antiquity (Strabo, Herodotus, Diodorus to name a few) attested to the fact that there were two Ethiopias in the Ancient times, one in the East (South Asia) and the other in the West (Africa). Based on this fact, I'm inclined to submit that the Cushite hegemony was the ancient order until the nomadic Brahmins invaded the Eastern Ethiopia, leading to the destruction of Harappan-Mohenjodaro civilization of the East and the development of the caste-based spiritual philosophy of Brahmanism.

I'm further inclined to submit that I agree to the Brahmin hypothesis above. That is, the Hyksos or the Asiatic invaders of Kemet were the same nomadic Brahmins who had earlier invaded and destroyed Kemetic sister's civilization to the East, Harappan-Mohenjodaro. However, unlike in the East, the Brahmin invasion of Kemet dented the Kemetic civilization but did not destroy it.  The Brahmins, having ruled Kemet for nearly two centuries, were forcefully expelled from Kemet into a neighboring barren land, which they named Palestine - the land of the shepherds.  Note that the Hyksos are generally referred as the shepherd kings.

And lastly, I further submit that it was in Palestine that the Brahmins/Hyksos/Shepherd kings developed their new spiritual philosophy called Abramanism, which is a continuation in part of Brahmanism - I've established in my previous writing that Brahma and Abraham are one and the same mythical personage. In other words, Brahmanism and Abramanism are one and the same.

Please do not confuse the Abrahamic triad (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) with Abramanism or ancient "Hebrewism." The former was formulated, in the middle Ages, based on the distorted information lifted from the latter. And be aware that the Egpto-Cushites were disparaged heavily in the scriptures plausibly because of the ancient feud between the Brahmin Nomads and the agrarian Egypto-Cushites of the West.

The story of the Cushites, Brahmins, Israelites, Elamites, Mohenjo-Darians, ancient Phoenicians, Sumerians, Chaldeans, and even ancient Persians is the story of the struggle between the Nomadic Aryan Brahmins and the Agrarian-aboriginal Cushites.

A Brief Inquiry Into The Sacred Relationship Between Solomon and Makeda.

An inquiry into the ancient names of the SUN revealed that the term "Sol-Om-On" is the name of the SUN in three ancient languages. In other words "Sol" "Om" and "On" all stand for the SUN. Sol = Sun in Latin. Om or Aum = Sun in Sanskrit. On or Ra = Sun in ancient Kemetic language. Thus, when combined became SOLOMON. The "Temple of Solomon" is the TEMPLE OF THE SUN; it has nothing to do with the pretended antiquity of Jerusalem.

Artistic portrayal of Makeda (Queen of Sheba)

So if we say "SOLOMON" stands for the SUN; then, it's not implausible that Makeda (I.e. Queen of Sheba or Saba) stands for Saitic Isis, the MOON. I'm beginning to suspect that the mythological relationship between Solomon and Makeda (the Queen of Sheba) is an allegory for the astrological relationship between the sun and the moon - the sun or Osir being the male principle, and the Moon or Isis being the female principle.