You know nothing about Hinduism

[kiwimac]

Interestingly enough the Zoroastrians are quite clear about a link between the Zoroastrian faith and the early Hindu Dharma.

Don't really know enough about it yet to have an opinion one way or the other. Isn't it interesting that religious discussion can so often degenerate into this kind of thing?

Kiwimac

[I, Brian]

That's a very interesting discourse, Hinduwoman - you've made a very good point of untying the inconsistencies of the original idea. You don't seem to have much else developed on your geocities account - would you consider having your essay posted up here on CR on the main site?

Kiwimac, it's hard not to consider some kind of correlation or sharing of information between Zoroastrian and Hindu cultures - but how do the Zoroastrians see the matter? Just in case it's not too obvious what the answer would be.

[Indogenes]

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

If you would like to discuss this in detail please look up : http://www.geocities.com/hinduwoman0/aitt

Hinduwoman,
Greetings from another Hindu woman!

Thanks for sharing the link to your site. I did quickly go through your debate on the AIT and anti-AIT theory at your site, though I would like to re-read it once more. I had read about the Saraswathi-Sindhu civilization theory a few years ago, and knew about the excavataions at Dwaraka and the underwater discovery at the gulf of Khambat (Cambay). But I somehow missed reading the news on the discovery at Poompuhar - sounds truly exciting. My mother had told me about a Tamilian legend/theory that a vast portion of land off Tamil Nadu had been submerged under the sea, which probably explained the missing records of literature from the legendary early Sangam periods. Also, the single temple at Mahabalipuram (south-eastern coast of India) is supposed to be one of a series of eight temples, the rest of which were supposedly submerged under the sea. So maybe the Poompuhar discovery proves more soundly that Tamil is the oldest language in the world??

Sorry for digressing wildly from Hinduism to Tamil! Now back to the subject on this thread!

[Indogenes]

[QUOTE=Indogenes]Also, the single temple at Mahabalipuram (south-eastern coast of India) is supposed to be one of a series of eight temples, the rest of which were supposedly submerged under the sea. [QUOTE]

It's actually a series of 7 temples. I realised my error after I logged out, but had no way to edit the post.

[hinduwoman]

Hello Indogenes



Tamil can be the oldest extant language in the world because the Sanskrit we have now is the Sanskrit codified by Panini and not the original language spoken by the people of the Vedas.

[hinduwoman]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

That's a very interesting discourse, Hinduwoman - you've made a very good point of untying the inconsistencies of the original idea. You don't seem to have much else developed on your geocities account - would you consider having your essay posted up here on CR on the main site?

Sure you can put it up where ever youlike. Thanks for the compliment.

[I, Brian]

Thanks for that - it's now up:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/hinduism/origins/

[tatvamasi]

I am from South India and I love my Tamil.

I do not fall for the false propaganda by the anti-Brahmin parties.

I also don't believe in the Aryan Invasion Theory.

I have one question: "Can anyone show me a substantial proof for the existence of an ethnic race called ARYAN" from VEDIC sources?"

[Hyksos]

Expletives aside, there's a thread of truth in your correspondent's note. Or rather, there could be if he actually made a positive point.

It's now a little bit difficult to know exactly how people of the Indian subcontinent will have internally conceived of themselves religiously, or self-represented themselves phenomenologically. Because the idea of a 'religion' called 'Hinduism' is a quite recent Western construction (as I think someone above hints at already).

Westerners, arriving in and populating other lands, felt a need to internally and verbally represent 'others' to Western Christians. In India, not perceiving the huge variety of beliefs and practices, all came to be placed under one umbrella term. "Hindooism" first appears in print, in a pamphlet of 1808. ["Vindication of the Hindoos" by a Bengal Officer (Colonel Stewart)] Most of the religions were "ismed" like this by the West around that time - Taoism, 'Boudhism' etc. As opposed to there not being a "Christianism" say.

Formerly of course there was no concept among Indian peoples that they all belonged to one 'religion' (outside of Islam). One wonders if there was even a concept of 'religion' as we now have - probably not as it was just life as naturally lived.

Ironically Indian peoples only themselves took to using the word "Hindu" or "Hinduism" as nationalism grew and in order to internally self-represent themselves as 'others' to the white Christian occupiers. If you are not of them, you are 'others', so what do you call yourselves? Well - the word was there waiting - you call yourself Hindu. This began with the Brahmo Samaj and a little with Ramakrishna in the late 1800s, and by the early twentieth century non-Muslim Indians began getting used to the idea of collectively calling themselves Hindu.

But it's a construction of the West, as is, in many cases, the idea of 'world religions', but that's another story. (But it questions whether the religions are equal or parellel as thoughwe can choose between them as between colours, say - rather they are quite distinct and qualitatively so in some cases.) That's why it's so hard to speak of Hinduism to a newcomer but then have to explain that it isn't after all anything like one thing! It never was, it just never was one unified world religion...

Hyksos

[I, Brian]

And welcome to CR, Hyksos.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I just thought I'd post a lovely e-mail I received this morning:



I just read the crap you have on Hinduism on your comparative religion site. I am a Hindu and your information is not only based on Judeo-Christian ignorance and religious bigotry you lot have been peddling for thousands of years but it astounds me that post modernity you are stuck in the same grove of bigotry.

Hindus did not get their religion from Persia - there is nothing in common between Hinduism and Zorastras teachings. Aryan theory is white crap designed to show that the world's oldest religion could not have come from a region they had to destroy and colonise! That you hold on to such crap is indicative of your Christian ignorance and the master race's continued intention to turn everyone into one of them. It is best your kind remain as you are - wisdom is something beyond your kind.

Your attempt at dissemination of information on comparative religions is nothing short of religious provincialism and intellectual flatulence. Leave Hinduism alone - you know nothing about it!!!!

Gian



I know it's something you shouldn't reply to, but I did:

"If you're Hindu I'm Shvia. Read some history. You obviously know nothing about Hinduism. Fin."

Brian, and all et al,

I know virtually nothing about Hindusim, but I do know this. They don't speak like that, not even to the ignorant, the uninformed, the arrogant, and/or the uneducated. I said I know virtually nothing about the religion, but I do know this, those that search are never flatulent, and those searching would never be told not to, not by a true Hindu (i).

You've got the patience of Job, Brian...oops my ignorance is showing.

v/r

Q

[Enkidu]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I just thought I'd post a lovely e-mail I received this morning:



I just read the crap you have on Hinduism on your comparative religion site. I am a Hindu and your information is not only based on Judeo-Christian ignorance and religious bigotry you lot have been peddling for thousands of years but it astounds me that post modernity you are stuck in the same grove of bigotry.

Hindus did not get their religion from Persia - there is nothing in common between Hinduism and Zorastras teachings. Aryan theory is white crap designed to show that the world's oldest religion could not have come from a region they had to destroy and colonise! That you hold on to such crap is indicative of your Christian ignorance and the master race's continued intention to turn everyone into one of them. It is best your kind remain as you are - wisdom is something beyond your kind.

Your attempt at dissemination of information on comparative religions is nothing short of religious provincialism and intellectual flatulence. Leave Hinduism alone - you know nothing about it!!!!

Gian



I know it's something you shouldn't reply to, but I did:

"If you're Hindu I'm Shvia. Read some history. You obviously know nothing about Hinduism. Fin."

That is one rude email you were sent - personally, I'd have used more colourful language in response .

As pointed out on this thread, there is a lot of new thought around Indian history/pre-history, and I guess that the emailer was referring to that.

It does highlight some issues around Indian history / religion / mythology however.

As a brief bit of background, I was born in India but raised in the UK; I feel affinity to the teachings of Hinduism (specifically the doctrine espoused by the Gita) but don't practise it as such (my family is, in any case, Jain). I have read around this area, but my knowledge is broad/shallow and I'm no expert.

My understanding is that Indian History / Pre-history / Mythology has been prone to a lot of bias. From the 'scholarship' that lead to the AIT, to the modern day influences of fundamentalist hindus, muslims, marxists and dalits (I'm not sure if this is the current PC name; if not, please forgive my ignorance), its no wonder that the field hardly seems to deserve the label of serious academia.

What does appear to be true is that there is a growing body of empirical evidence, from archaelogy, population genetics, and linguistics, that could be used to reappraise the theories in vogue. This process could lead to confirmation of the current view, or to an entirely different view of Indian history.

There seem to be several key issues that could use resolution.

i. did Indian civilisation flow West to East (per AIT) or East to West (the David Framley view, I guess).

ii. how old is the Vedic civilisation? AIT dates it to 1500BC, whereas other evidence, e.g. dried up river beds, astronomical evidence suggests a much earlier date - possibly 3500BC or earlier.

iii. is the Harappan / Indus Valley civilisation the same as the Vedic civilisation? This ties in to ii., as an earlier date for Vedic civilisation would mean co-existence of the two in India, and without obvious signs of conflict could well indicate equivalence.

iv. what is the status of other ancient texts, in particular the Puranas. I've read articles suggesting that these should actually carry the same status/weight for Indian history as the historical books of the OT do for Western history (i.e. the Puranas are a historical, not mythological record).


Potentially, the answers to these questions could have huge ramifications. The hardcore Hindu view, that Vedic civilisation is 6000 years old, that migration went East to West and so on would mean that ancient India would need to be considered similarly to Ancient Egypt and the Euphrates/Tigris Valley civilisations. In addition, it would suggest that much of modern western culture is founded in ancient Indian culture.

Alternatively, a variation of the AIT may be correct, and Vedic culture originated elsewhere than India.

The consequences of this knowledge could change (hopefully for the better) politics in modern day India (and Pakistan).

The important thing however, is that we would all understand a bit more about our past and how it created our present.

[Enkidu]

Originally Posted by tatvamasi

I have one question: "Can anyone show me a substantial proof for the existence of an ethnic race called ARYAN" from VEDIC sources?"

From what I've read, Aryan as used in the context of Aryan Invasion Theory is a purely linguistic construct.

That is, there is no such thing as an Aryan race. The name is used to provide a label for a family of languages and associated speakers of those languages.

This makes the label 'AIT' particularly strange, as it actually means the supplanting of native (Indian) languages [in particular, its assumed the Dravidian languages] by Aryan languages such as Sanskrit. In theory, this could occur without an actual invasion of people coming into India as an invading force - and in fact, with the breakdown of evidence supporting an actual invasion of India (principally at Indus Valley sites), this is the fallback view for supporters of AIT.

To understand this a bit more, I guess its a bit like English. When you travel in Europe today, English is commonly used in most countries. You can go to Eastern European countries, and get by without knowing a word of Hungarian or whatever. English has 'invaded' Europe without there having been an actual invasion by English people.

The big problem with this, however, is that you'd expect the primary transmission mechanism to be based on culture - e.g. for English, the reason for its spread to Europe is American culture dominating the media (films, tv and music) and trade (arguably a function of culture).

The AIT would therefore require (in my opinion) the presence of a strong originating culture, which spread the language. However, I'm not aware of Central Europe having such status at the time period proposed.

So its a bit of a puzzle, really - either you spread the language by invasion/assimilation, or you spread it via culture. AIT to India is unlikely to be culturally vectored, and it doesn't appear to have been as a result of invasion either.

[I, Brian]

Some well-thought and interesting comment, Enkidu - and welcome to CR.

[FHL]

Hi There

I use a lot of Hinduism in my comedy acts ? Is that OK ? It is a quite funny subject isn't it ? I mean what were you before came to earth ? An elephant, Donkey, maybe even a Monkey ?

Its endless comedy. Devastating too.