IS 'HINDUISM' AN EVOLVED EUPHEMISM FOR A PEOPLE OR A RELIGION FOUNDED?
Dec 18 2007 | Views 1500 | Comments (12) | Report Abuse
ISN'T HINDUISM SAME
AS 'INDIANISM'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please note I am only trying to clear out certain misconceptions about this MOST SECULAR and FLEXIBLE TREATISEON 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:-
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.
Please note I am only trying to clear out certain misconceptions about this MOST SECULAR and FLEXIBLE TREATISE
-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
-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 YOUR 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 NEW
YORK
© rajee kushwaha., all rights reserved.
-
Previous Post
WHO CONTROLS INDIAN MEDIA?
Comments
dharamvir posted 3 yrs
ago
Hindus are better known who follow Sanatan Dharma. Dharma doesn't mean a
relgion. If God is one, then it must have bestowed a Dharma to human beings in
the begining of life on earth (billions of years). No human being can be the
founder of Dharma, but God Himself. Only a Dharma must have the prehistoric
Shastras too. No other religion posseses any Shastra. Holy books are not the
superhuman Shastras, but historical gospels. Even Budhism, Jainism, Arya Samaj
or Sikhism are not the Dharma. You may call them Mat, Dal, Samaj or an Ism but
not Dharma. God appears in the form of an Avatara only to save His own Dharma
not the others. In your article you are simply concentrating 'How the word
'Hindu' has been historically evolved, but not on 'What God's Dharma mean?' This
Dharma must remain till the end of universe others will vanish in long span of
time...... For more visit my blog Mangla2God.blogspot.com
Dharam Vir Mangla
Dharam Vir Mangla
navrathen01 posted 3
yrs ago
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I
would leave my first
comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep
visiting this blog very often.
Alessandra
http://www.craigslistpostingonline.info
Reply | Report Abuse
comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep
visiting this blog very often.
Alessandra
http://www.craigslistpostingonline.info
Reply | Report Abuse
amit
shankar posted 4 yrs ago
reading your interesting article i could not help but agree on most points.
since childhood our history books have informed us about the corruption of the
words sindhu/hindu/indus/india. we have read about megasthenes's indica. in fact
during my school days i had always thought that ayodhya was a fictional place
until it started coming in the news for all the wrong reasons. my view has been
that the epics are glamourised versions of either tribal warfare in india or
legends of earliest migrants (like the stories of abraham or moses or even the
illiad). later i read nirad chaudhuri's book hindusim: a religion to live by. i
was also intrigued by the idea that hinduism religion does not have an inherent
name. it has only an adopted name because no ancient hindu scripture mentions
the term "hindu". perhaps there was no need to as there was no alternative.
ancient people bowed before the river, tree, clouds, sun and later the likes of
pashupati of harappan civilization and all got incorporated into sanatan dharma.
the birth of hinduism was not through preaching and hence there was no name to
it.
raptors posted 4 yrs
ago
dea r sir,
i really congratulate you
that you have opened the pandoras box and the discussion shall continue with so many people participate in the discussion.
i still say and accept perhapps that hindu - ism might be taken from indus otherwise misspelt as hindu as you have proposed but i wonder from where these -isms - came from. any god or prophet and priest proposed or in due cource for the sake of identity this -isms- came in to existence. but still hindusim was domenent and undisturbed by n number of invaders. accepted
with regards
raptors
i really congratulate you
that you have opened the pandoras box and the discussion shall continue with so many people participate in the discussion.
i still say and accept perhapps that hindu - ism might be taken from indus otherwise misspelt as hindu as you have proposed but i wonder from where these -isms - came from. any god or prophet and priest proposed or in due cource for the sake of identity this -isms- came in to existence. but still hindusim was domenent and undisturbed by n number of invaders. accepted
with regards
raptors
rajee
kushwaha posted 4 yrs agodear raptors,
thanks for your observation. firstly my knowledge acquired from the books. i am no student of any vedic school or a die-hard follower of rigid hinduism . secondly, i think you must read my full comment, which is:
"-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 your 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?"
the last line is for those who criticise idol worship of hinduism. i know the point you are making about duality. it has been said totally in a different context. i am talking of the multiplicity of the gods against formless visualisation by others.it is the plurality of the thought versus singularity--it is choice versus nochoice--it is freedom versus slavery--it is collective wistom versus dictatorial commandments. read it in this context. regards. rajee.
Reply | | Report Abuse
raptors posted 4 yrs
ago
dear sir,
an excellent know history you said to the unknown. but i may differ your point of view on idol worship.
idol worship is the first stage of worship. a shapped thing do not exist. but i strongly feel that it exists (i am sorry it is not that that you donot know after having studied in a vedic school) but for the sake of argument i want to put forth. light has no shape but exists we cannot see but it makes us to experience its duality some time behaves like matter and some times like energy. the duality is in hinduism( an identity is required to identify) shiva and parvati coexists. and exists independently too. so advaita
with regards
raptors
an excellent know history you said to the unknown. but i may differ your point of view on idol worship.
idol worship is the first stage of worship. a shapped thing do not exist. but i strongly feel that it exists (i am sorry it is not that that you donot know after having studied in a vedic school) but for the sake of argument i want to put forth. light has no shape but exists we cannot see but it makes us to experience its duality some time behaves like matter and some times like energy. the duality is in hinduism( an identity is required to identify) shiva and parvati coexists. and exists independently too. so advaita
with regards
raptors
Reply | |
Report Abuse
rajee
kushwaha posted 5 yrs agosir seva,
i would request you to give me the evidence of hindu being an indigenous phenomenon. you know and i know this word has no mention in any of our sacred books. it is just an intellectual bankruptcy of mind to negate what has been evidenced on the plea that it was not accepted . then say since i do not accept this, my point is proved or qed.---this story of jesus box might be a fake one but it doesnot establish that persian inscription carrying the word "hindu" was also fake. you have to prove it by logic and evidence and not by saying,"mera dil nahi maanta".
give me a viable alternative evidence ,i am prepared to walk with you. it will be my first preference. but don't give me the rubbish from medivial period--i know all that--go back to roots of sanatana dharma or the vedic culture and give me the reference to the word hindu. tell you the truth--there is none. i agree the aryans wrote vedas after coming to this land--but this is no proof of their indigenous existence.
i am even thinking of researching the real source of vedas which might go to nagas or the harappan or the pre-harappan people--who were the forerunners of aryans in this land. i have a lurking feeling that aryans adopted it from nagas or the shaivite people who had separate identity. this iindigenous aryan theory has this fear: should you accept the aryans migrations(not invasion--mind you) you will lose monoply of your rich heritage as claimed.
take care. may god bless you. regards. rajee
Reply | |
Report Abuse
Seva posted 5 yrs ago
"according to the tablet, the diktat on it had
said that king darius-1 ruled upto and beyond river 'hindu'
(sindhu/indus)."
>>> since the ancient persian king (darius-1) had the 's' sound or letter, distinct and recognizable, in his name, a tablet from his time would not confuse the things between sindhu and hindu. in other words, the persians did not create hindu from sindhu. moreover, the tablet may be fake and only a recent addition to support the old misunderstanding 'hindu arising from the name sindhu'.
btw, have you heard about jesus box and the inscription on it? it seems the above persian inscription may be the victim of same kind of forgery.
take a careful look below (inscription on jesus box?):
>>> since the ancient persian king (darius-1) had the 's' sound or letter, distinct and recognizable, in his name, a tablet from his time would not confuse the things between sindhu and hindu. in other words, the persians did not create hindu from sindhu. moreover, the tablet may be fake and only a recent addition to support the old misunderstanding 'hindu arising from the name sindhu'.
btw, have you heard about jesus box and the inscription on it? it seems the above persian inscription may be the victim of same kind of forgery.
take a careful look below (inscription on jesus box?):
the inscription has caused
great excitement among biblical scholars.
Reply | |
Report Abuse
rajee
kushwaha posted 5 yrs ago
dear amused666,
you are entitled to have your views and i appreciate it. this is what hinduism is all about. what indianism represents today--centuries back before the advent of muslims, hinduism represented it. you might like to go through the website on hinduism. the link is:-www.hindu.com
as regards vaisnavism and saivism being separate temporal cults---i hold this view because hinduism as a religious identity emerged out of their confluence. if you do not agree, fine.but let me assure you shiva was certainly not a vedic god. some scholars even dispute visnu being a vedic god--though i am a bit circumspect about this view.
rig veda--the oldest scripture in vedic culture does not talk about the trinity of brahma, vishnu and mahesh. its only god is rudra--the king of wind & rain. some peope claim rudra to be shiva and others as indra. but these are view points without authentic evidence--whereas it is established that shiva was a native of land called bharat varsha. you are welcome to discuss further as an intellectual and a scholar but i am afraid i am not inclined to make it a religious debate of the bigots. regards. rajee.
you are entitled to have your views and i appreciate it. this is what hinduism is all about. what indianism represents today--centuries back before the advent of muslims, hinduism represented it. you might like to go through the website on hinduism. the link is:-www.hindu.com
as regards vaisnavism and saivism being separate temporal cults---i hold this view because hinduism as a religious identity emerged out of their confluence. if you do not agree, fine.but let me assure you shiva was certainly not a vedic god. some scholars even dispute visnu being a vedic god--though i am a bit circumspect about this view.
rig veda--the oldest scripture in vedic culture does not talk about the trinity of brahma, vishnu and mahesh. its only god is rudra--the king of wind & rain. some peope claim rudra to be shiva and others as indra. but these are view points without authentic evidence--whereas it is established that shiva was a native of land called bharat varsha. you are welcome to discuss further as an intellectual and a scholar but i am afraid i am not inclined to make it a religious debate of the bigots. regards. rajee.
Reply | |
Report Abuse
Amused666 posted 5 yrs
agosir,
i donot agree that hinduism is same as indianism. but before i jump into a debate, i wish to clear some mistakes in ur blogs.
i donot agree with ur classification of hinduism into vaishnavism and shaivism. ur blog says vaishnavism is vedic while shaivism is non vedic. both vaishnavism and shaivism are vedic.
No comments:
Post a Comment