To do with my own post 104:
In case anyone is wondering what I mean with 'Hindu' Indians (including Tamils) 'before the Vedas', guess I'll have to explain, although I am sure I wrote about this long ago in some other thread at IF.
To put it in a simple way: Well, what do we call all the Indians before Buddhism? Followers of Sanatana Dharma. Similarly, what were Indians before Jaina literature or the Vedas? The same. Or, if one were to take a western phrase, we were 'animists' - all of India was 'polytheistic, animistic, semi/fully idolatrous heathens'. So we remained after the Vedas, too, of course <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (since it was no change of religion in the first place) as were Indians after Buddhism for the most part.
Before Madhya Pradesh, Kashmir or Orissa or Bengal and elsewhere in the North got the Vedas from the NW, they too were ... followers of Sanatana Dharma / 'animists'. As were the peoples of the Southern regions. As were the pre-Vedic NW Indians themselves (also 'polytheistic animists'). Moreso since we can ignore the AIT fantasy. The Vedas were founded on the existing cosmogony of India's Sanatana Dharma. They don't set out a new religion, they expanded the knowledge on it: explaining this newly received knowledge <i>within</i> the eternal Dharma of India.
Besides, as per old tradition, the pan-Indian Gods have been known and revered in Tamil Nadu for longer than the Vedas have been known of. And I am certain this is true for all North Indian places as well.
Since the AIT fell through for me, I can easily turn back to traditional Indian (and Tamil) understanding of our past. No more need for the recent christocolonial inventions about this - not for me.
In case anyone is wondering what I mean with 'Hindu' Indians (including Tamils) 'before the Vedas', guess I'll have to explain, although I am sure I wrote about this long ago in some other thread at IF.
To put it in a simple way: Well, what do we call all the Indians before Buddhism? Followers of Sanatana Dharma. Similarly, what were Indians before Jaina literature or the Vedas? The same. Or, if one were to take a western phrase, we were 'animists' - all of India was 'polytheistic, animistic, semi/fully idolatrous heathens'. So we remained after the Vedas, too, of course <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (since it was no change of religion in the first place) as were Indians after Buddhism for the most part.Before Madhya Pradesh, Kashmir or Orissa or Bengal and elsewhere in the North got the Vedas from the NW, they too were ... followers of Sanatana Dharma / 'animists'. As were the peoples of the Southern regions. As were the pre-Vedic NW Indians themselves (also 'polytheistic animists'). Moreso since we can ignore the AIT fantasy. The Vedas were founded on the existing cosmogony of India's Sanatana Dharma. They don't set out a new religion, they expanded the knowledge on it: explaining this newly received knowledge <i>within</i> the eternal Dharma of India.
Besides, as per old tradition, the pan-Indian Gods have been known and revered in Tamil Nadu for longer than the Vedas have been known of. And I am certain this is true for all North Indian places as well.
Since the AIT fell through for me, I can easily turn back to traditional Indian (and Tamil) understanding of our past. No more need for the recent christocolonial inventions about this - not for me.