"HINDUISM"- WHAT IS IT?
The word "HINDU", in fact, is THE LOST ELDER BROTHER of the CURRENT TERMINOLOGY of "INDIAN"--which substituted it. This is also given by the FOREIGNERS only-- more particularly by the GREEKS. From the GREEKS it travelled further WEST AND GOT POPULARISED amongst the EUROPEANS. AS WEST RULED INDIA for almost 200 yers, THE NAME 'INDIAN or INDIA' GOT STUCK AND 'HINDU' lost its shine. But amongst the ARABS and PERSIANS IT IS STILL KNOWN AS 'HINDUSTAN'--THE LAND OF HINDUS.
Therfore, it must not be seen as a religion--because there are no uniform temporal practices amongst HINDUS, from region to region; caste to caste; class to class; sects to sects; language to language. Its APPARENT DISSIMLIARITIES MAKE IT A GREAT TREATISE ON LIVING A LIFE IN A COLOURFUL MANNER. IT advocates UNITY IN DIVERSITY IN TRUE SENSE. Unfortunately, inspit of all this, it continues to be the FAVOURITE WHIPPING BOY OF PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS AND HALF-READ educationists. But it MOVES ON. AND KEEP GROWING. ITS PROTECTION IS ITS "NO-DEFENCE" BY ITS FOLLOWERS. The rising trend to defend it, would make it WEAK and RIGID. It has survived thousands of years of onslaught and each time it has emerged STRONGER.
riverine posted 5 yrs
ago
E_N_I_G_M_A posted 5
yrs ago
rronnyy posted 5 yrs
ago
rajee
kushwaha posted 5 yrs ago
Sainiput posted 5
yrs ago
Interested in attaining " INTELLECTUAL
SUPER STARDOM"? Very simple! Go full throttle at "HINDUISM", with all
cylinders firing. Go pick up holes in its CASTE SYSTEM. Blast out its
MULTIPLICITY OF GODS and GODDESSES. Ridicule its IDOL-WORSHIPPING. Cry hoarse
that 'YOGA' and 'JYOTISH'(ASTROLOGY) were not SCIENTIFIC. Their introduction
into schools and colleges will lead to 'SAFFORISATION' of students. Shout at the
top of your voice that singing of 'VANDE-MATRAM' (National Song!) or rendering
of ' JANA- GANA- MANA'( National Anthem) by a person amounted to infringement
of religious freedom. Hammer into pulp all ' BRAHAMANICAL' rituals of
PURIFICATION (HAVANS), CHANTING OF 'MANTRAS'(HYMNS) and 'PRACTICE of
UNTOUCHABILITY'.
Provoke followers of
'SO-CALLED-HINDUISM' with derrogatory comments to induce them to resort to
'REACTIVE VIOLENCE'. Once they get hyperactive and irrational to cause damage,
turn back and say, " I-TOLD-YOU-SO?" Or "Didn't I say THAT THEY WERE
EVIL-PERSONIFIED ?" Call it whatever names. If this is not enough, then, attack
'HINDUTAVA'( God Knows What it means or who coined this term!) for its imagined,
implied, perceived and inferred ills. Join the GREAT MORALIST BRIGADE of JNU
intelligentia to raise accusing fingers at 'HINDUS' for poor growth rate. Follow
SELF-STYLED CUSTODIANS of VIRTUES AMONGST THE INDIAN MEDIA to blame all
incidents of communal riots and violence on " HINDU TALIBANS". Well, if you do
this, you are on the high road to MEGA STARDOM. Never know, you might be chosen
as the GREAT INTELLECTUAL OF THE THIRD MILLENIUM---never mind, if there are
still almost 1000 years for it to go.
My quest is to know what the heck
is 'HINDUISM'? Is it really a RELIGION? To all its detracters and also its
followers, it would be an interesting exercise to know that the word 'HINDU' was
not to be found in any of the ancient literature of this so called religion. The
origional text of 'VEDAS', 'EPICS'( RAMAYANA & MAHABHARTA), Holy Book
'GEETA', 'UPNISHADS', 'PURANAS or even 'BRAHMANAS' do not have a mention of the
word 'HINDU' even once. According to famous
INDOLOGIST and a renowned historian, Mr JOHN KEAY, first time this word appeared
in the written form was in 518 BC.(Refer to pp 10 of HISTORY OF INDIA by JOHN
KEAY.) It was on a tablet by King DARIUS-1 of ancient PERSIA ( IRAN). According
to the tablet, the DIKTAT on it had said that King DARIUS-1 ruled upto and
beyond RIVER 'HINDU' (SINDHU/INDUS). John Keay goes on to explain that the word
'HINDU' was, in fact, a corruption of the SANSKRIT word, "SINDHU" . It is
believed that the ancient PERSIANS pronounced 'S' with apostraphe 'H'. Thus
River "SINDHU" became RIver "HINDU".
This has been also authenticated by the renowned Indian ARCHAEOLOGIST, Sh. Rajesh Kochhar, in his book," A VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA". In the book , a number of such examples have been given---such as 'ASURA' in SANSKRIT as 'AHURA' in ancient Persian ( Avaistic Zenda) or DASYU in Sanskrit as 'DAHYU'. Actually Rajesh Kochhar goes on to say that Ancient PERSIANS belonged to the same branch of the ARYANS who came to India.( By the way, PLEASE NOTE ARYANS WAS NOT A RACE AS IT IS THOUGHT TO BE; IT WAS SIMPLY A LINGUAL FRATERNITY!) More on this, some time later in the future. Therefore, the ancient PERSIANS called, anyone living EAST of the RIVER "HINDU" (SINDHU,) as a 'HINDU'. Please note, it was a GEOGRAPHICAL CONNOTATION and it had a FOREIGN ORIGION. According to JOHN KEAY in his another book, 'INTO INDIA' the word HINDU was used for describing the "Geographical & Cultural Identity" of a person as and at par with 'INDIAN' today or as a 'BRITON' or an 'AMERICAN' would mean to us now-a-days. People in the olden days, followed a number of TEMPORAL SECTS with separate identities such as 'SHAIVISM', 'VAISHNAVISM', 'BUDDHISM' Or 'JAINISM'. They were all called HINDUS as late as till 18th CENTURY.
Further, it may be noted, when the ancient PERSIANS interacted with the GREEKS, the word 'HINDU' lost its 'H' and became "INDIE", "INDIC" Or "INDIA". 'Alexander the Great'( SIKANDER-E-AZAM) called it the land of INDIA. From the GREKS the word travelled further WEST and they named this land as INDIA. But the PERSIANS and the ARABS kept on calling it 'HINDUSTAN'( LAND OF HINDUS). It was never a religious identity. It was purely a GEOGRAPHICAL AND CULTURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE. People followed VAISHNAV (VEDIC) and SHAIVITE (NAGA) practices. The VEDIC people called this land as "ARYAVRAT" and SHAIVITES called it as,"BHARATVARSH". ( SHAIVITES WERE THE FOLLOWERS OF LORD SHIVA and belonged to a race called NAGA--who were scattered from AFGHANISTAN in the WEST to ASSAM in the EAST to MAHARASHTRA in the South--their philosophy was LIVE TODAYi.e. EAT(also meat) , DRINK and BE MERRY--as opposed to VAISHNAVS, who were not only 'pure Vegetarians' but also WORRIED OF THE FUTURE.)
Later came the BUDDHISTS AND JAINS who were in reality an off-shoot PRODUCT of the SYNTHESIS OF VAISHNAVISM and SHAIVISM. Synthesis only led to new tEMPORAL PROCEDURES WITOUT CHANGING THE GEOGRAPHICAL or THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND. So, the FOREIGNERS, particularly the ARABS & PERSIANS, continued to referrto them as "HINDUS" only. Slightly digressing here to press home the point. Please note Dr SIR IQBAL MOHAMMED's famoous poem "HINDUSTAN HAMARA'. He was a man of history and he knew his origion. This is why he exhorts our people, "--------MAZHAB NAHIN SIKHATA AAPAS MEIN BAIR RAKHNA, 'HINDI' HAI HUM WATAN HAI HINDUSTAN HAMARA----" ( THE RELIGION DOES NOT TEACH US TO HAVE ANIMOSITY TOWARDS EACH OTHER; WE ARE 'HINDI' AND OUR NATION IS 'HINDUSTAN'). I would like to draw your attention to the word "HINDI" meaning "WE ARE ALL HINDUS!". Unfortunately, religious BIGOTS got the better of him, as they do even today of the most sensible people in various religions in India.
How did the word "HINDU" acquire religious connotation? After the word came into existence around SIXTH CENTURY BC as a GEOGRAPHICAL & CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING EAST OF THE RIVER "SINDHU"( HINDU Or INDUS), it continued to carry same meaning for another 1000 years. Around 530 AD, a HUN Prince, GOPALDITYA, was corronated as king of KASHMIR. He was son of 'MIHIRKULA'---a tyrant HUN king of Kashmir. Gopalditya was a very learned man and a good administrator. One day while going around his capital with his minister, he saw people following weird TEMPORAL practices. Some were worshipping IDOLS. Some were advocating eating of meat and drinking of intoxicants, while some others totally preached against it. He noticed, despite all these differences and opposing views, people lived in harmony and peace. He was impressed with such neighbourly CO-EXISTENCE. He asked his minister on the weird ways of the people. Minister said," THEY ARE 'HINDUS' and they do not follow one temporal practice. THEY TOLERATE OPPOSITE VIEWS AND DISSIDENCE. It is THEIR WAY OF LIVING." "Oh, great! THEN I WILL ALSO BECOME A HINDU.", He had said. This is how then the word 'HINDU' began to acquire RELIGIOUS meaning. It must be said that it was then a CONFLUENCE of various TEMPORAL practices---particularly 'SHAIVISM' and 'VAISNAVISM'---widely and diametrically opposite thoughts. All the same the word continued to carry its old PERSIAN identity of 'CULTURAL NATIONHOOD' --right upto the 18th Century.
This has been also authenticated by the renowned Indian ARCHAEOLOGIST, Sh. Rajesh Kochhar, in his book," A VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA". In the book , a number of such examples have been given---such as 'ASURA' in SANSKRIT as 'AHURA' in ancient Persian ( Avaistic Zenda) or DASYU in Sanskrit as 'DAHYU'. Actually Rajesh Kochhar goes on to say that Ancient PERSIANS belonged to the same branch of the ARYANS who came to India.( By the way, PLEASE NOTE ARYANS WAS NOT A RACE AS IT IS THOUGHT TO BE; IT WAS SIMPLY A LINGUAL FRATERNITY!) More on this, some time later in the future. Therefore, the ancient PERSIANS called, anyone living EAST of the RIVER "HINDU" (SINDHU,) as a 'HINDU'. Please note, it was a GEOGRAPHICAL CONNOTATION and it had a FOREIGN ORIGION. According to JOHN KEAY in his another book, 'INTO INDIA' the word HINDU was used for describing the "Geographical & Cultural Identity" of a person as and at par with 'INDIAN' today or as a 'BRITON' or an 'AMERICAN' would mean to us now-a-days. People in the olden days, followed a number of TEMPORAL SECTS with separate identities such as 'SHAIVISM', 'VAISHNAVISM', 'BUDDHISM' Or 'JAINISM'. They were all called HINDUS as late as till 18th CENTURY.
Further, it may be noted, when the ancient PERSIANS interacted with the GREEKS, the word 'HINDU' lost its 'H' and became "INDIE", "INDIC" Or "INDIA". 'Alexander the Great'( SIKANDER-E-AZAM) called it the land of INDIA. From the GREKS the word travelled further WEST and they named this land as INDIA. But the PERSIANS and the ARABS kept on calling it 'HINDUSTAN'( LAND OF HINDUS). It was never a religious identity. It was purely a GEOGRAPHICAL AND CULTURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE. People followed VAISHNAV (VEDIC) and SHAIVITE (NAGA) practices. The VEDIC people called this land as "ARYAVRAT" and SHAIVITES called it as,"BHARATVARSH". ( SHAIVITES WERE THE FOLLOWERS OF LORD SHIVA and belonged to a race called NAGA--who were scattered from AFGHANISTAN in the WEST to ASSAM in the EAST to MAHARASHTRA in the South--their philosophy was LIVE TODAYi.e. EAT(also meat) , DRINK and BE MERRY--as opposed to VAISHNAVS, who were not only 'pure Vegetarians' but also WORRIED OF THE FUTURE.)
Later came the BUDDHISTS AND JAINS who were in reality an off-shoot PRODUCT of the SYNTHESIS OF VAISHNAVISM and SHAIVISM. Synthesis only led to new tEMPORAL PROCEDURES WITOUT CHANGING THE GEOGRAPHICAL or THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND. So, the FOREIGNERS, particularly the ARABS & PERSIANS, continued to referrto them as "HINDUS" only. Slightly digressing here to press home the point. Please note Dr SIR IQBAL MOHAMMED's famoous poem "HINDUSTAN HAMARA'. He was a man of history and he knew his origion. This is why he exhorts our people, "--------MAZHAB NAHIN SIKHATA AAPAS MEIN BAIR RAKHNA, 'HINDI' HAI HUM WATAN HAI HINDUSTAN HAMARA----" ( THE RELIGION DOES NOT TEACH US TO HAVE ANIMOSITY TOWARDS EACH OTHER; WE ARE 'HINDI' AND OUR NATION IS 'HINDUSTAN'). I would like to draw your attention to the word "HINDI" meaning "WE ARE ALL HINDUS!". Unfortunately, religious BIGOTS got the better of him, as they do even today of the most sensible people in various religions in India.
How did the word "HINDU" acquire religious connotation? After the word came into existence around SIXTH CENTURY BC as a GEOGRAPHICAL & CULTURAL IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING EAST OF THE RIVER "SINDHU"( HINDU Or INDUS), it continued to carry same meaning for another 1000 years. Around 530 AD, a HUN Prince, GOPALDITYA, was corronated as king of KASHMIR. He was son of 'MIHIRKULA'---a tyrant HUN king of Kashmir. Gopalditya was a very learned man and a good administrator. One day while going around his capital with his minister, he saw people following weird TEMPORAL practices. Some were worshipping IDOLS. Some were advocating eating of meat and drinking of intoxicants, while some others totally preached against it. He noticed, despite all these differences and opposing views, people lived in harmony and peace. He was impressed with such neighbourly CO-EXISTENCE. He asked his minister on the weird ways of the people. Minister said," THEY ARE 'HINDUS' and they do not follow one temporal practice. THEY TOLERATE OPPOSITE VIEWS AND DISSIDENCE. It is THEIR WAY OF LIVING." "Oh, great! THEN I WILL ALSO BECOME A HINDU.", He had said. This is how then the word 'HINDU' began to acquire RELIGIOUS meaning. It must be said that it was then a CONFLUENCE of various TEMPORAL practices---particularly 'SHAIVISM' and 'VAISNAVISM'---widely and diametrically opposite thoughts. All the same the word continued to carry its old PERSIAN identity of 'CULTURAL NATIONHOOD' --right upto the 18th Century.
We must know that 'HINDUISM' as a TEMPORAL & SPIRITUAL
philosophy,Known as today, was never FOUNDED BY ANY ONE SAINT/ MESSIAH or a
PROPHET as almost all other known religions and sects have been. IT EVOLVED
ITSELF. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO ONE SECT OR SET OF SECTS. THE MULTIPLICITIES OF
ITS GODS IS A TESTIMONY OF ITS EMPHASIS ON THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM. THIS VERY
FACT MAKES IT FLEXIBLE AND SECULAR. IT CONTINUES TO GROW AND EVOLVE. HINDUISM IS
A CULTURAL ENTITY; it is not a RELIGION. It encompasses in its fold a whole
philosophy of living SPIRITUAL, INTELLECTUAL, MATERIAL, SOCIAL, POLITACAL AND
MILITARY LIFE. It is more than the word "RELIGION"--which simply means FOLLOWING
RITUALS and TEMPORAL PROCEDURES. IT is, in fact, emancipation of the word
"DHARMA"--which includes in itself parameters of Social, Political, Economic and
spiritual conduct of a man. It defines social/familial/ national
responsibilities and duties.
The word "HINDU", in fact, is THE LOST ELDER BROTHER of the CURRENT TERMINOLOGY of "INDIAN"--which substituted it. This is also given by the FOREIGNERS only-- more particularly by the GREEKS. From the GREEKS it travelled further WEST AND GOT POPULARISED amongst the EUROPEANS. AS WEST RULED INDIA for almost 200 yers, THE NAME 'INDIAN or INDIA' GOT STUCK AND 'HINDU' lost its shine. But amongst the ARABS and PERSIANS IT IS STILL KNOWN AS 'HINDUSTAN'--THE LAND OF HINDUS.
Therfore, it must not be seen as a religion--because there are no uniform temporal practices amongst HINDUS, from region to region; caste to caste; class to class; sects to sects; language to language. Its APPARENT DISSIMLIARITIES MAKE IT A GREAT TREATISE ON LIVING A LIFE IN A COLOURFUL MANNER. IT advocates UNITY IN DIVERSITY IN TRUE SENSE. Unfortunately, inspit of all this, it continues to be the FAVOURITE WHIPPING BOY OF PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS AND HALF-READ educationists. But it MOVES ON. AND KEEP GROWING. ITS PROTECTION IS ITS "NO-DEFENCE" BY ITS FOLLOWERS. The rising trend to defend it, would make it WEAK and RIGID. It has survived thousands of years of onslaught and each time it has emerged STRONGER.
riverine posted 5 yrs
ago
the word "hindu", in fact, is the lost
elder brother of the current terminology of "indian"--which substituted
it.
very true!
one point i want to clarify: i thought vaishnavism and shaivism were
different only on certain philosophical points...
lord shiva is always seen meditating while lord vishnu is reclining with
lakshmi massaging him...this seems contradictory to what you have stated,
doesn't it? could you please clarify?
your write-up is deep in analysis and learning.
E_N_I_G_M_A posted 5
yrs ago
a very well-researched, thought provoking and enlightening article
indeed!
i can sincerely say that i wish more bloggers would look into hinduism, its implications and morals included, write with so much clarity and research instead of attempting to propagate hinduism as "the most superior" and/or "holier than thou" attitude.
once again, my genuine appreciation for a truly educational piece.
sincere regards.
i can sincerely say that i wish more bloggers would look into hinduism, its implications and morals included, write with so much clarity and research instead of attempting to propagate hinduism as "the most superior" and/or "holier than thou" attitude.
once again, my genuine appreciation for a truly educational piece.
sincere regards.
rronnyy posted 5 yrs
ago
beautifully written sir, i really
appreciate the pains you took to write such a great blog.
jai hind
ronny
rajee
kushwaha posted 5 yrs ago
dear sainiput,
i respect your sentiments and
comments. please note i am only trying to clear out certain misconceptions about
this most secular and flexible treatise on human conduct and behaviour with
malice towards none. it not only shows the way as how to lead a human life but
also accepts new ways with passage of time. we must understand:-
-it encourages criticism and dissidence.
-it does not claim its philosophy
as 'ultimate and final' .
-it doesnot encourage hatred for your rivals
and enemies.
-its much maligned caste-system was a social
division of work to achieve 'specialisation' in family work---it is same thing
as you see in various professions of today. an engineer's son goes for
engineering. a doctor's son goes for medicines. a politician's son goes for
politics.a 'fauji's son generally. till date, went for 'defence services'
career. in fact these are the modern castes of india. no upper caste boy(
starving of hunger) would mind marrying grand daughter of babu jagjivan ram.
where is the caste system? only in the pages of constitution which keeps it
alive through the bogey of reservation. had the provision of reservation not
been there, the old caste system would have disappeared long time back. but it
has been kept alive by vote bank politicians.
-social divisions in hinduism' were to
promote & improve quality of work through heridatory profession. it is a
different matter that it fell victim to monoply of a class.
-much criticised idol worshipping is
actually a sign of inability of others to be definitive about their gods. idols
are representation of gods of your preference. it is a symbol which gives you
freedom to choose you god. 'others' do not provide this freedom to their
followers. they do not know the shape of their god. it is law of nature that
shapeless things do not exist. if a thing does not exist, why do you
worship?
- in any case, what is there in the mosque
at mecca? what are the statues of virgin mery or lord jesus or the cross doing
in churches? how about the goddess of liberty &freedom? what is it doing in
the most advanced nation--new york--near capital of the world. it is a symbol
isn't it?
-the multiplicity of gods/godesses speaks
volume on the democracy, freedom & liberty of spiritual thought.
i can keep writing but i do not want to
give an impression that i am a religious bigot. i am its biggest critic. i like
its openness and freedom to point out its shortcomings. rest assured there will
not be any fatwas against me. thanks buddy. regards.
rajrr kushwaha
Sainiput posted 5
yrs ago
hinduism is indeed a
great geographical entity.
encompassing the coexistance of
many a cultural sanctity.
the blogger has taken a lot of
pains to find the origin.
and amply explained the point of
view behind the 'hindu' vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment