The earliest 卍 and 卐 in the world were used in the Samarra Culture Ceramics in 6200-5800 BCE discovered at Samarra, Iraq; Tell Baghouz, Syria. The Mezine Stacked Meanders does not technically form a proper 卍 or 卐 symbol and so it is disregarded. The earliest 卍 and 卐 in India were used in the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization Seals and Ceramics in 2800-2000 BCE discovered at the Indus River Basin but we know nothing of their language as none were preserved so they left nothing as to what they thought 卍 and 卐 meant to them. I’m not against speculations if they’re theoretically plausible, and the most plausible understanding to me concerning the spread of the symbol is that 卍 and 卐 was spread through chariot cultures around the “Middle East” and outwards into Europe and Asia but ancient Samarran pottery had 卍 and 卐 prior to chariot technology so the chariot cultures weren’t the first to make 卍 and 卐. The Harappan culture had the 卍 and 卐 and had a toy chariot clay figure so even the older Pre-Buddhist “Indian” 卍 and 卐 probably came from the West around where the earliest historically attested 卍 and 卐 first came to exist so far as we currently know from what survived in the archaeological strata of human civilization. See: https://aryan-anthropology.blogspot.com/p/worlds-oldest-swastikas.html for more context.
The most likely origin of the Post-Buddhist Indian 卍 and 卐 comes from the various conquests by Alexander the Great, transplanting Archaic and Classical Greek art and symbols into a generally Magadhan, Samanic (Samaṇa) society. Although one may protest as in that Aryan Anthropology blogsite argues that Harappan culture already had it, there is just a huge discontinuity of the archaeological record at least by a thousand years. It is less likely for the Harappan culture’s symbols to had influenced much anything ambiguously “Vedic”, but Alexander Cunningham had argued for the Indus Script to being the predecessor for Brahmi Prakrit. The oldest proof of Vedism existing is in Mittani Cuneiform Tablets outside of India, but nothing about the Swastika ever mentioned in any of them. It’s not proof of Sanskrit Grammar pre-existing Brahmi Grammar however. That is why I say it is less likely, not completely impossible and still within the realm of plausibility however. Here are some Ancient/Archaic Greek Pottery clearly shows 卍 and 卐 as seen in here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Swastikas_in_ancient_Greek_pottery, and there has been many West to East conquests even before Asoka. Nonnus’s Dionysiaca is probably written from 5th century CE so it isn’t considered even though it may have recorded some oral narratives of older Greek conquests predating Alexander the Great. The various fragments of Megasthenes is probably as good of a source as any in a non-Indian, Greek perspective of this obscure era. The Greek and Roman historians are generally reliable more so than the myths even though all history is revisionism regardless through myth or through historical record, the archaeological record is more in line with the history than the myths despite some healthy skepticism against historians of any era. Regardless, I know not one explanation by the Ancient Greeks to what the Greek 卍 and 卐 meant to them, and although there are Greek Meanders that do use 卍 and 卐, it doesn’t explain the non-meander form of 卍 and 卐 used in Ancient Greek pottery. It has been called the double zeta and the tetragammadion, but it’s a visual description and not an explanation.
The 卍 and 卐 has no actual definition nor pronunciation in its earliest use found in the archaeological Māgadhe strata as seen in the South Gate of Stupa no. 1 at Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh as first recorded in the following book in English: https://archive.org/details/bhilsatopesorbu00cunngoog/page/n456/mode/1up. The Great Sanchi Stupa was commissioned by Asoka in the 3rd century BCE and was completed in the 1st century BCE. There is no Magadhan inscription that explicitly explained what the Post-Buddhist Indian 卍 and 卐 meant in Asokan Prakrit that I’m aware of. Concerning the wider Indian etymology of 卍 and 卐, it’s at best a lucky sign of auspiciousness, see the following article for a more in-depth linguistic analysis and conclusions that I generally agree with: https://jayarava.blogspot.com/2011/05/svastika.html. A general summary: any definition of 卍 and 卐 is not archaeologically attested and is more of an afterthought.
The Puranas are too young to speak of these matters, earliest sections may have been composed since 3rd century CE. Neither the Sri Lankan Nikayas (written down at least since 1st through 5th century CE) nor the Chinese Buddhist Agamas (3rd through 4th century CE) nor Valmiki’s Ramayana (1st through 3rd century CE) are needed, and the Rig Veda does mentions Gotama, Buddha, and other anachronistic oddities that the Proto-Indo-European Revisionist Cult always tend to ignore. The Buddhist Jatakas has its own Rama (to be fair however, it’s really not the “same story”) so there’s lots of useless and heated debates between the Vedantists and Buddhists to which one came first, as we’ve seen various other retroactive revisionism by the earliest Buddhist council as noted by Johannes Bronkhorst and many, many others. I don’t know how much of the Asokan Pillar Edicts and Rock Edicts are forgeries but Christopher I. Beckwith had shown some examples of inconsistencies like say, the Lumbini Pillar Inscription rendering Sakamuni as Sakyamuni, as if it was backwards engineered from Sanskrit into Asokan Prakrit with some grammatical mistakes. Generally the Asokan Pillar Edicts had a Western contemporary name drop of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Pharaoh of Ptolemaic Egypt, Son of the Macedonian Greek general who’ve served Alexander the Great. Without it, everything else in that accursed subcontinent that have spawned the first ideologically rigorous South Asian religion cannot be known in a chronologically consistent world history, and I’ve sure had tried to wrap my mind around the most plausible Indian chronology but it really begins and ends with the Asokan Pillar Edicts. Though we presume the Nikayas are earlier than the Agamas due to the Asokan Pillar Edicts, both aren’t older than the Asokan era artifacts.
Considering all of the above, I generally conclude that all the extant historical and religious sources simply does not grasp the earliest definition of what 卍 and 卐 meant to them in the earliest use in their culture regardless of Greek or Indian. The implications therefore is that all attempts to define it are Post-Buddhist, Post-Hoc like Sotthi/Svasti, Suti/Sruti, Sotthiya or Sotthika/Svastika is in general Post-Buddhist Indian culture, while the Swastika-Sauvastika distinction was a socially non-existent distinction that didn’t really exist until Academicians tried to make it into a distinct symbol that has different connotations depending on which way it was facing, and everyone else parroted that lie and injecting new meaning to where there initially was of one meaning with no opposite, inverted reinterpretation of a false duality.
There are other cultures with their own 卍 and 卐 and with their own definitions said of it, but many of their artifacts are from a time they didn’t have a written language and so couldn’t pass on what 卍 and 卐 meant, while the ones who did have a written language have had in some ways read and/or adopted Greek or Indian scripts, as German Runes is to the Phoenician Alphabet, and as Post-Buddhist Chinese culture is to Buddhist Hybrid Chinese of translated Pali Prakrit and/or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit terms. North and South American “First Nations Peoples” had their own 卍 and 卐 and their own definitions but it is mostly a distinct paradigm. Subsaharan African cultures had their own 卍 and 卐 but out of geometric creativity in their artwork and no deliberate use of 卍 and 卐 with the same sort of religious significance imbued to it in the manner that other cultures do. The Volkish movement interpretations are all anachronistic reinterpretations based upon Astronomical/Astrological symbolism that existed in Mesoamerican, Chinese, Neo-Babylonian calendrical systems and constellations retroactively applied to the Norse Pagan religion and so too the Germanic Pagan religion. The PIE reconstructed revisionistic interpretations are archaeologically speaking: completely irrelevant. Same can be said for Perennialist interpretations.
Next article: https://anankelogos.wordpress.com/metaphysics/
Pythagorical 