You know nothing about Hinduism

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,721
Reaction score
218
Points
63
Location
Scotland
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."
 
I said:
I just thought I'd post a lovely e-mail I received this morning:
[ ]
"If you're Hindu I'm Shiva. Read some history. You obviously know nothing about Hinduism. Fin."
Click to expand...

I "met" such people before on another religious forum. They have their own web-site where they rant in a similar fashion.

On one visit to the South of India I had an unpleasant experience that showed me clearly how much blind hate there is in India between people from different religious backgrounds. On an earlier visit I had already experienced the hate of communists towards anyone who opposes their ideology. Must be the hot climate?
 
Namaste all,


interesting post.

natually... one is free to express disagreement... however... it is usually good form to show a specific example of something being wrong and then a correction..

like i try to do when the terms reincarnation and rebirth on conflated during Buddhist discussion.

to simply say it's "wrong" and then rant and finger wave isn't very constructive.

now... Gian did bring up an interesting point... though only in the most oblique way.

there is a growing Indian intellectual community that is challenging the Aryan invasion theories of the west... they have a very convincing argument, at least from what i've read... so much so... that i've become convinced in most respects that the Aryan invasion didn't happen like it is traditionally depicted. the strongest term that i can use, at this point, would be Aryan migration.

in any event... since the term Hinduism is, itself, a western word... i really don't see the problem... it's not like we're discussing Santana Dharma, per se, rather, the very broad and wide range of beliefs commonly found in the Indian subcontient that are, for discussion purposes, called Hinduism... at least in my opinion.
 
I've heard it said that the British supported the view that Hinduism was an Aryan 'brainchild'. Somehow, this supported their occupying India.

Well if they won't come to comparative-religion, then I'd like to go to them. Anyone know where their forum hideout is?
 
Namaskar,

I don't agree with the denial of the Aryan immigrations into India. Sarkar mentions the influx of Aryans over a period of thousands of years (starting around 5000BC and ending about 1000AD) but also explains that the Vedic religion which the Aryans brought with them, is not the same as present day Hinduism.

The indigenous populations from the times before the Aryan immigrations practised Tantra and it was Tantra (and Yoga) that became the deep undercurrent of Hindu spirituality and not the ritualistic Vedic religion although of course the two mingled to make the complex tapestry of present day Hinduism.

But even if Sarkar's view would have been on Brian's introduction of Hinduism, their reaction would have been equally strong because these people will not hear of any immigration or influences from outside India. This is clearly unrealistic given the enormous time spans. It seems they have an inferiority complex towards the Western World and try to compensate this by creating their own myths.

There are also groups in India (mainly in the South) who use the Aryan immigrations for the opposite type of propaganda. See:

http://www.dalitstan.org/books/bibai/bibai1.html

Two more out of many googles of "Aryan invasion":

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html

http://www.hknet.org.nz/GP-Aryaninvasiondupe.html
 
Why is it that people think it is acceptable to "blast" someone via e-mail like this? And it is not very helpful. He should have redressed the mistakes so you could correct the information.


I'm sorry Brian that you got something like this, but I'm sure you've gotten worse over the years. :)

With metta,
Zenda
 
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. :)
 
I said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
He actually did send a rather more expletively-ridden reply, so I sent a rather more polite and curt last word, and blocked him from e-mailing myself.

I can certainly understand that there is variation, and differing perceptions and meaning - even purpose - in parts of Hinduism. And I can certainly appreciate the need to question history and archaeological findings - I am sometimes rather appalled by the lack of common sense that the media at least presents with regards to certain interpretations of our past and culture.

However, at some point, once we have questioned other sources for truth, ultimately we must question our own truths. Otherwise all that we create are self-fulfilling paradigms that are as damaging as the very ones we seek to question.

A little uncalled for pontification. :)
 
That is a well written article - though issues such as "migration" vs "invasion" probably present a rather artifical semantic divide. Certainly good to see the contentions of history made plain - but let's not forget that the closer you look at any accepted theory of the ancient world, the more obvious becomes its presumptions and mysteries. :)
 
Brian, there was immigration of what is called Aryans, but I disagree on some points:


Harappa civilization did not cease abruptly; instead it slowly transformed into later civilizations. Muir, Kane etc. pointed out that there was no archeologically or literary evidence of large scale migration.

The proper term used in sacred literature is Arya meaning noble and not Aryan. Aryan is a label given by Orientalists derived from Arya but with racial meanings attached to it. There does not seem to have been any actual race in antiquity that called themselves Aryans. What it seemed to mean are people who speak the Vedic language and follow certain rituals. More a civilizational gap than a racial one I would say.

Vedas are the texts of nomadic people and so are different from Upanishads. But the focus is not only on fire, but also on sun and rain. There is obviously a link between Zend Avesta and Vedas, but no one can say with certainty which is older. However please note that the Vedas could actually have predated Indus valley civilization. There is no proof either way.


As for racism in this invasion theory, many scholars were racist. Some even said that Sanskrit was too sophisticated for Indians and Jones must have manufactured it. Others went on to say that Aryans brought civilization to Egypt, Chaldea, China etc. So why is their contention that Aryans are the source of civilization in India more respectable? And it is not a coincidence that Aryans were pictured as white skinned like the Brits.



If you would like to discuss this in detail please look up : http://www.geocities.com/hinduwoman0/aitt
 
Avinash, the fighting between the Aryans and others need not be massive. There were also strategic alliances and marriages. Ramayana can be taken as a paradigm of spread of Vedic based civilisation.



 
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
 
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. :)
 
hinduwoman said:
If you would like to discuss this in detail please look up : http://www.geocities.com/hinduwoman0/aitthttp://www.geocities.com/hinduwoman0/aitthttp://www.geocities.com/hinduwoman0/aitt
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
It's actually a series of 7 temples. I realised my error after I logged out, but had no way to edit the post.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top