You know nothing about Hinduism

[Vajradhara]

Namasker FHL,


welcome to the forum.

generally speaking, we are interested in encouraging constructive and respectful dialog between beings of various faiths. as such, posts that ridicule and denigrate other religious views are not well received.

as regards to your questions... there would be no issue with using aspects of the Sanatana Dharma in your comedy act, that i am aware of.

it is as humorous as anything else is. it rather depends on ones disposition, in my view.

with regard to reincarnation, however, your formulation is incorrect. if you are a human now.. then there is a very great chance that you were a human before. the Sanatana Dharma understanding of reincarnation does include the idea that one can move up or down, relatively speaking, the reincarnation scale.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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.

Very interesting post. Thankyou Enkidu.

Personally I don't even think that a group of languages got a upper hand over other group of languages.

Why can't Sanskrit be compared to, say, Java?

Maybe Sanskrit had spread to each and every corner of India without having to supplant the regional languages or dialects.

In Tamil Nadu, during the Chola period, many Hindu temples were erected and the kings patronized the Brahmins but still Tamil language never lost its importance.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by 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.

No one can say what his/her previous birth was because memory is also destroyed along with the body and mind at death.

No matter whether you are born a monkey or a dog, "you" are always the same.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by tatvamasi

Very interesting post. Thankyou Enkidu.

Personally I don't even think that a group of languages got a upper hand over other group of languages.

Why can't Sanskrit be compared to, say, Java?

Maybe Sanskrit had spread to each and every corner of India without having to supplant the regional languages or dialects.

In Tamil Nadu, during the Chola period, many Hindu temples were erected and the kings patronized the Brahmins but still Tamil language never lost its importance.

Enkidu, and Traphalga (sp)...interesting metaphors. sorry Tat, good point. English is in every corner of the United States and Canada, but does not supplant (as you state), the local dialects within certain areas. It augments their ability to communicate with the world (beyond their own).

However, there was a first written/spoken language, that had a major impact on the rest of us. As a linguist (amateur), I see basic syntax in every language on earth, that is the same. That can't be coincedence? Can it?

(shut up Q, ok)

[mee]

Some historians say that Hinduism had its roots over 3,500 years ago in a wave of migration that brought a pale-skinned, Aryan people down from the northwest into the Indus Valley, now located mainly in Pakistan and India. From there they spread into the Ganges River plains and across India. Some experts say that the religious ideas of the migrants were based on ancient Iranian and Babylonian teachings. One thread common to many cultures and also found in Hinduism is a flood legend

[satay]

Originally Posted by 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.

Namaste FHL,

Yes, I can see the humor in it too albeit it wouldn't be so funny if you were to become a worm or a cockroach yourself in your next life.

satay

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

However, there was a first written/spoken language, that had a major impact on the rest of us. As a linguist (amateur), I see basic syntax in every language on earth, that is the same. That can't be coincedence? Can it?

(shut up Q, ok)

according to Spencer Wells in the Journey of Man, the first language was the "clicking" language of the African Bushmen, from which all male humans on this earth are, ultimately, descendent from.

provided that one accepts DNA evidence and so forth as valid evidence

https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/about.html

should that not be the case, then, who knows?



metta,

~v

[prajapati]

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."

while i dont supprt the aggro nature or the language of the letter, i agree with what he said, save in some areas.


AIT is "based on Judeo-Christian ignorance" - RIGHT

Hindus did not get their religion from Persia - RIGHT

there is nothing in common between Hinduism and Zorastras teachings = WRONG !!!

Aryan theory is *** designed to show that the world's oldest religion could not have come from a region they had to destroy and colonise! - RIGHT. the AIT was designed to belittle hindus and hinduism. only thing wrong there is that hnduism isnt a religion.


That you hold on to such c*** is indicative of your Christian ignorance - WRONG. that the world holds on to such a canard is indicative of their ignorance and/or willingness to hold on to euro centric canards. enlightened ones like stephen oppenheimer, koenraad elst, francois gautier etc etc amongst westerners have debunked it ofcourse.



and the master race's continued intention to turn everyone into one of them. - WRONG. though it was spot on when AIT was made.



Gian <--- that doesnt sound like a hindu name. do you have his/her ip.


If you're Hindu I'm Shvia.= SHIVIA??? is that an allusion to something khemyr?


Read some history. You obviously know nothing about Hinduism. = WRONG. though its apparent that he/she knows little of manners, he does know a few things about the AIT and hindu, and hence in a roundabout way, hinduism.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I usually get e-mails from Bahai's asking why there is no Bah'i section.

As for the roots of Hinduism - my impression is that there was indeed a movement of Aryans into the Indus Valley (Aryans here meaning Iranian plainsmen, rather than Caucasian blue-eyed blondes) - and that a big part of this movement is evidenced by various sources: in archaeological terms by the cessation of the Harappa civilisation, and the ruins of the Indus Valley; culturally, by the Hindu scipture's assertion of Arayan values being foremost (principly, Krishna's rebuke to Arjun in the Bhagavad Gita: "Don't be so un-Arayan!"), and also the fact that went I put the Vedas up on this site I could help but read a lot of it, and there is an overwhelming focus on fire worship. I found this very strange - that the earliest Hindu texts were so different - even brutal - compared to what I would have expected on what is an otherwise highly intellectualised and spiritualised center of culture. I considered a link to Zoroastrianism and their "eternal flame" concept, only to then read a thesis by a Hindu professor describnig the links and parallels between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism! I did actually e-mail him for permission to make a copy of that article here, and he happily agreed, but then I lost my link to it and so never pasted it up. As for "invasion" vs "migration" - it's all a matter of semantics, really, isn't it? My reading of the ancient world suggests that whenever any single cultural group moves into any other inhabited area, then one or the other with usually be evicted. In other words, migrations can be particularly violent, but suggestions that these were events of complete genocide do not seem to be being borne out in the genetic record. Either way, something - almost certainly Aryan - pushed east into India. And at some point, these people established the literary foundations of Hinduism as we know it. Would there be assimilation of information? Certainly there would be - but it would be remarkably surprising if the Aryans took on an alien faith to their own, and wrote about that, rather than added to their own evolving sense of faith. 2c anyway.

As for the roots of Hinduism - my impression is that there was indeed a movement of Aryans into the Indus Valley == YES. sakas or eastern iranians came into india - thats about buddha's time - 2 to 3 thousand years after Rg Ved was written.



(Aryans here meaning Iranian plainsmen, rather than Caucasian blue-eyed blondes) == YES iranian are aryans. its in iran that the chronologically 2nd orrurance of the word "arya" orrurs - the oldest being in india.

and that a big part of this movement is evidenced by various sources: == HAHAHA. its precisely because its evidenced by NO source, that AIT has been trashed.


in archaeological terms by the cessation of the Harappa civilisation, and the ruins of the Indus Valley; == YES. the civilization wound up. but they found not a single trace of any invasion - no damaged/broken bones, no arms, no destroyed or gutted homes,, no indication of a fight that could wipe out the biggest (in area) of the 4 ancient civilizations. and now see here -
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en...aswati&spell=1
it was abondoned and people left the place in one piece. no one died there.




culturally, by the Hindu scipture's assertion of Arayan values being foremost == YES. hindus are aryans. you dont expect them to put mongolian values as foremost do you.



(principly, Krishna's rebuke to Arjun in the Bhagavad Gita: "Don't be so un-Arayan!"),== yes. in case you dont know, the word ARYA (of whgich aryan is a *******isation) means noble. krishna asked arjun to continue to be noble. but this book (mahabharata) was written looooong after Rg Ved.






and also the fact that went I put the Vedas up on this site I could help but read a lot of it, and there is an overwhelming focus on fire worship. == YES. so. not fire worship. but rituals/ "yagnas" in which a fire had to be lit as part of the rites.



I found this very strange - that the earliest Hindu texts were so different - even brutal - === earliest hindu texts were NOT brutal. did you know that the earliest hindu text is the RG VED, before i told you?? i am assuming hee that the "vedas" you read, are the english translations - was it the one done by bishop cladwell that you read or who's??




compared to what I would have expected on what is an otherwise highly intellectualised and spiritualised center of culture. === NOT REALLY. neither are hindus totally "intellectualised and spiritualised" - and nor were their lives devoid of wars. their 2 greatest epics for example centre about wars.





I considered a link to Zoroastrianism and their "eternal flame" concept, === YES. the language of the Avesta (old persian/avestan) has a parallel in sanskrit, but the language of the RG VED has no parallel (i mean here in linguistic terms. english that was spoken during shakespeare's time is different from today's is different from king james bible etc. the language of RG VED is clearly a lot less mature and lot more young than that of avestan. avestan is cognate with later sanskrit, but vedic sanskrit has no parallel in persian. they are like two lines -
----------- sanskrit
|-------- persian)


only to then read a thesis by a Hindu professor describnig the links and parallels between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism!=== SURE. zorastrianism is the sister religion of hinduism. as is persian the sister language of sanskrit.



As for "invasion" vs "migration" - it's all a matter of semantics, really, isn't it? <<<<---- NO. far more is involved. if you know anything about iranian history, they have clearly mentioned that have migrated from the east. for the Nth time, i'll paste from that one site. if you are really interested in iranians then read 4.6.6 from here - http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.co...s/ait/ch46.htm
you will be surprised with some facts (croats are iranians)



My reading of the ancient world suggests that whenever any single cultural group moves into any other inhabited area, then one or the other with usually be evicted. ==== YES. or absorbed. like scythians/sakas were absorbed by hindus.




In other words, migrations can be particularly violent, but suggestions that these were events of complete genocide do not seem to be being borne out in the genetic record. === migration that are violent are INVASIONS. hitler didnt not migrate into belgium for example.





Either way, something - almost certainly Aryan - pushed east into India. === yes iranians are aryans (ie., they speak a aryan language. the name Arya means "noble" - can be any race. only nazis think of it as a race.)




And at some point, these people established the literary foundations of Hinduism as we know it. ==== LMAO. is that why RG VED and other hindu religious literature is a lot more ancient than avestan ?? RG VED btw is "anchored in space and time.". i mean there's little doubt about the time and geographical area of its writting. sort of like the bible. they mentioned in the bible about the star that the magi saw. also about the city of nineveh and the recently unearthed bath in jerusalem. so there's no ambiguity as to when it was written (since we can back calculate and verify when that star was in that position) and also where. same with RG ved. which sort of sends your "established the ... " theory out of the window.





Would there be assimilation of information? Certainly there would be - but it would be remarkably surprising if the Aryans took on an alien faith to their own, and wrote about that, rather than added to their own evolving sense of faith. ====== hinduism isnt an alien faith wrt zorastrianism.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

According to Sarkar, the very earliest Vedas were created by Aryans (not written down though for thousands of years) in the south of what is now Russia around 13.000 BC. After the first Aryans entered India around 5.000 BC it was still a long time before anything was written down. The later Vedas were composed in India and underwent the influence of the indigenous Tantra.

In the beginning the Aryans would not accept anything of the indigenous people and they would depict them as demons and monkeys (the mythical Ramayana reflects this) but eventually they had to accept the superiority of the tantric spirituality and they even accepted the tantric Lord Shiva as a god next to their mythical Vishnu.

The Aryans abused the knowledge of varna (spiritual colour or aura) to create their rigid caste system in order to seperate the indigenous population (shudra varna or labour caste) from their own three varnas. But over time the races did of course slowly intermingle. The pride associated with Aryanism persisted although black people can now be found in the highest varna (vipra varna or brahmin priest caste).

Although the Aryans migrated into India for thousands of years, in the beginning their migration was met with great resistence so could be called an armed invasion. The indigenous people were defeated by the Aryans because of the greater fighting spirit of the latter but much of the indigenous culture was eventually absorbed by the Aryans. The sacred language became Sanskrit and not the Vedic language of the invaders (although Vedic is closely related to Sanskrit). So just like with the Viking invasion into Normandy, the victors took on much of the superior culture of the people they defeated.

FAKE (for the lack of a better four letter word).

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Vapour

You ask Hindu/Indian what Hinduism is, they all tell you different things.

Vast quantity and diversity of Hindu heritage in practice, tradition, literature and history make it impossible to pin it down what hinduism is.

Anyone, who claim to know what hinduism is probably pushing certain agenda. This email guy is obviously pushing hindu nationalism, a recent fab.

well if its so difficult to point out what hinduism is, how can you be so sure that he is pushing hindu nationalism and not shamian nationalism ??

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Indogenes

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!

your mom is spot on about "portion of tamil nadu (actually tamils have many "nadus" - lands of tamils) being sumberged". google "kumari kundum" and "lemuria".
hinduwoman is also spot on in her site. ty for sharing.

your own conclusion is wrong though. the temples of tamil nadu are the oldest in india. there is no mention of temples in Rg VED. temples become more recent as you go northwards into india.
i dont see how the oldest temples occuring in tamil nadu proves the oldest language is tamil though. surely its possible to have languages without having temples.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by 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?"

who told you tamils dont have brahmins amongst them???

whats ramanujam, chandrashekar, p.chidambram, c.v.raman then if not tamil brahmins ???

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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

west to east - swaraswati valley to ganges valley.
and its not david frawley's view alone.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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.

AIT's dating was based from the reference frame of the 6 day creation concept that says the world was formed at 9 in the morning, wednesday, about 6000 years ago !

astronomy "anchors" RG VED to about 3500b.c yes.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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.

nope. swaraswati valley civilization predates the Rg ved by 1000 years or more.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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).

true. both the claims of ot and purans have been proved right repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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.

yes. swaraswati valley is one of four oldest civilizations - the other 3 being yellow river in china, semeria and egypt. harappa seals have been found in sumer. egyptian fire alters follow specifications found in RG VED.

[QUOTE=Enkidu]
In addition, it would suggest that much of modern western culture is founded in ancient Indian culture.
[/Enkidu]
in a round about way, yes. try if you can to find out why the black forest in germany is called so.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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

dies hard invasionists are doing that.
VED came from outside india. doesnt matter where. moon, mars or mongolia but has to be outside india.
attempts to prove that it came from washington have also been made.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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

trust me it wont have any bearing on pakistan.
india.... maybe.

Originally Posted by Enkidu

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

yes its high time we did

[Andre']

It seems as if that guy's e-mail is rooted in Hindutva ideology. The RSS, BJP, and VHP are trying to put out there that all other people in the world, literally everyone in the world, has converted to other faiths from being Hindu. Basically saying that all come from, as they say, "the soil", "or our land." The Hindu Nationalists are trying to asserevate that everything is based in Hindu thought and philosophy and are not willing to hear of anything different. Hindu Nationalism is growing rampantly and id spreading worldwide with the distribution of Explaining Hindu Dharma:A Guide for Teachers. This is a complilation of Hindu philosophy marrying itself with particle physics, implying that modern particle physics is due to Hinduism. This distribution is from the VHP and are fallaciously amalgamating the two. I'm in firm belief that HIndu was the first philosophic thought, pre-dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I can't believe the assertions Hindutva are making in this Guide and in their theory. Hindu Nationalists are infuriated with western globalization, which I really can understand to a point, but they are back-lashing with this terrible fallacious material and it's spreading like wild fire. I believe that this e-mail Brian received is from the root feelings of a Hindu nationalist, although I could be wrong.This is really actually a very broad subject with so much history and I love discussing it.