Western Indologists

[acharya]

Was Hinduism Invented?
Britons, Indians and the Colonial Construction of Religion
(Oxford University Press, 2005)
A Review by Aruni Mukherjee
November 13, 2005

William Wilberforce once spoke of the “dark and bloody superstitions” that embody the creed which came to be termed Hinduism. Prior to that, the mind boggling diversity in sub-continental religious practices existed without a common definition to bind them together, and this “crystallization of the concept” is what Pennington traces in his book. Between 1789 and 1832, the Orientalist fascination for the “cloud of fables”- according to William Jones- embodied in Vedic literature was replaced by the East India Company backed intelligentsia who were preoccupied with utilitarian criticisms of the “sinister principles” of the same, depicted nowhere more vividly than in the works of James Mill and Thomas Macaulay.

Pennington argues that the modern avatar of the somewhat homogenized ancient religion that can be loosely termed Hinduism is a direct reaction to such seething and degrading criticism from the colonial academics, some of it indeed valid (such as vilifying the satī tradition). He argues that the elites within Hindu society entered a “dialectical space” with colonialism, thereby producing a defensive self-determined version of their faith. While celebrating colonial promotion of certain scriptures, they vehemently opposed stereotyping, as can be seen in the outcry among the Bengali educated middle classes over the label of the effeminate ‘babu’. This similar dialectic process was behind the rise of Hindu nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as behind the progress made by the Hindutva movement of the late 1990s.

Nevertheless, Pennington refuses to present the colonial state with the credit of transforming “fragmented, disparate, localized, particularistic, and ever-changing mini traditions” into a world religion. Whereas “Indophoebia” and the “racist science” of the 19th century did indeed contribute substantially towards the development of a defensive definition of Hinduism, crediting the state with the invention of Hinduism as we know it is ignoring the “mess of encounters” that can better explain this development.

Whereas Edward Said accused the West of essentializing the East, the opposite argument is also true. Pennington makes a distinction between various classes of Hinduism’s “other”, and argues that class, nationality, outlook and background of the actors on the ground made the encounters between, say, a missionary and a peasant much different from that between a colonial academic and a local historian.

What follows from the importance of the nature of the “other” is the fundamental significance of religious values in this discourse, discarded by many schools of historians preferring to focus solely on socio-economic trends. Pennington associates himself with Partha Chatterjee who wrote in the first volume of the Subaltern Studies about the various ways in which the downtrodden communities often express themselves in the form of their religion. This is also seen in the works of David Hardiman on ādivāsis in western India, as well as that of Saurabh Dube on the Satnamis of central India.

Pennington uses a relatively small number of first hand sources, but adheres closely to them. The archives of the Church Missionary Society reveal the attitudes of missionaries towards evangelizing the natives, an attitude advocated by many including Charles Grant and Wilberforce. On the other hand, the transformation in colonial attitudes can be seen in the archives of the Asiatick Researches, which gradually gets taken over by colonial influences, sidelining the Orientalists. He also dwells on the religious newspaper Samācār Chandrikā published by Bhabānicaran Bandyopādhyāya which took on the task to refute much of the essentialism dished out by colonial literature. However, all of this does strengthen the author’s point about the importance of religion, explicit or implicit, in colonial policy-making.

Two questions beg to be answered by Pennington. First, he says nothing about the crude distinction made by the colonial state between ‘martial’ and ‘non-martial’ races in the sub-continent, and the various categories of castes it defined. Such essentialization went a long way towards complicating the already juxtaposed threads of Hinduism, and much of that legacy exists to this day. Moreover, whereas the colonial state may not have explicitly defined Hinduism, its criticisms of the same nevertheless led to Hindu nationalism adopting a very homogenous and essentially narrow view of Hinduism. As Amartya Sen has argued in his recent work The Argumentative Indian, Hinduism is simply too diverse to speak of in one single breath. Therefore, the prevalent definition of Hinduism (as in the stereotype used in the public domain today) may well have been invented during the high noon of colonialism.

Second, Pennington argues that there is increasingly a “need of structuring the relationship of religion and the nation state”. This contemporary universal ‘need’ can be readily questioned if one looks at secular Europe and India. Debates about race relations in Britain and France, and that of minority reservations in India are more to do with social exclusion and opportunities rather than any concerns about delineating the contours of state and religion. A more relevant discussion is the Middle East, where Islam and the nation state remain problematically juxtaposed.

However, Pennington is in need of recognizing the ‘essence’ of Hindu philosophical writings during times much before his book covers, but which can indeed be a useful apparatus to determine the role of the state vis-à-vis religion. The image of the Brahmin holding the śveta-chattra (White Umbrella) over the King was never involved in the analytical modus operandi of the colonial state while defining Hinduism.

On the larger question of whether contemporary Hinduism was invented, Pennington seems to adopt a persuasive argument. Whether there exists an alternative and distinct definition is a question which he leaves unexplored.

The author is based at the University of Warwick, England.

http://www.boloji.com/bookreviews/058.htm

[acharya]

<img src='http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0195166558.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[acharya]

The Death of Traditional Hinduism
http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/neohinduism.htm


from Dr. Frank Morales
A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover.

British Attack on Hinduism
The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India's history.

Innovative Cultural Genocide
What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide.

What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly more subtle program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literary kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people's best interests.

Anglicized Hindu Intellectuals
During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to "Westernize" and "modernize" traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as "neo-Hinduism".

What is Neo-Hinduism?
Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.

The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:

a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.
b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality.
c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship.
d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.

The Death of Traditional Hinduism
The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.

The Dilemma
The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…
1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and
2) With Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world, i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it.

A Confused Existence
Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world.

[acharya]

http://web.religion.ufl.edu/gradprog/asiareading.pdf

This is the html version of the file http://web.religion.ufl.edu/gradprog/asiareading.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4A82z...&client=firefox

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: invented hinduism
Page 1
Themes & Readings in Hinduism
Background
-A Sacred Thread. Willaims, Raymond Brady. 1992.
-Blackwell Companion to Hinduism. Flood, Gavin. 2005.
-Hinduism Reconsidered. Kulke, Hermann & Sontheimer, Gunther-Dietz. 1989.
-King, Richard. Orientalism and Religion. 1999.
- Lorenzen, David N. “Who Invented Hinduism?” Society for Comparative Study
of Society and History, 1999.
-Narayanan, Vasudha. “Hinduism”. World Religions: Eastern Traditions. 2002.
-Prashad, Vijay. The Karma of Brown Folk. 2000.
-Religion in Modern India, 4
th
Edition. Baird, Roger. 2001.
-Staal, J.F. “Sanskrit and Sanskritization”. Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 22, No.
3, (May, 1963) , 261-275.
-The Hindu World. Mittal, Sushil & Thursby, Gene. 2004.
-In addition consult www.wikipedia.org & The Encyclopedia of Religion on all topics
Recommended
-Madan, T. N. Non-Renunciation. 1987.
History
-Bryant, Edwin. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: the Indo-Aryan
Migration Debate. 2001.
-Sharma, Arvind. Hinduism and its Sense of History. 2003.
-Also consult RISA discussion over Indo-Aryan Debate
Deities
-Devi: Goddesses of India. Hawley, J & Wulff, D. 1996.
Recommended
-Erndl, KM. Victory to the Mother: The Hindu Goddess of Northwest India in
Myth, Ritual, and Symbol. 1993.
-Jansen, Eva Judy. The Book of Hindu Imagery: The Gods and their Symbols.
1993.
Text (The Vedas, Upanisads, Dharmashastras, Puranas, Epics, Philosophy, Kama
Sutra, Arthashastra)
-Isayeva, Natalia. Shankara and Indian Philosophy. 1992.
-Kane, M.P.V. History of Dharmasastra. 1953.
-Many Ramayanas. Richman, Paula. 1991.
-McEvilley, Thomas. The Shape of Ancient Thought. 2002.
-Modern Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita. Edited by Minor, Robert. 1986.
-Questioning Ramayanas. Richman, Paula. 2000.
-Sharma, Arvind. The Hindu Gita: Ancient and Classical Interpretations of the
Bhagavadgita.
1
Page 2
Primary Sources (Listings Not Exhaustive)
-Mallanaga, Vatsyayana. Kamasutra. Translated by Doniger, Wendy & Kakar,
Sudhir.
-The Bhagavad-gita. Miller, Barbara Stoler.
-The Rg Veda. Translated by Doniger, Wendy.
-Upanishads. Translated by Olivelle, Patrick.
Devotion/Bhakti
-Eck, Diana L. Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India. 1996.
-Prentiss, Karen. The Embodiment of Bhakti. 2000.
Recommended
-Hopkins, Stevens. Singing the Body of God: The Hymns of Vedantadesika in
Their South Indian Tradition. 2002.
-Narayanan, Vasudha. The Way and the Goal: Expressions of Devotion in the
Early Sri Vaishnava Tradition. 1987.
Ritual/Sanskaara & Pilgrimage
-Gold, Ann. Fruitful Journeys: the Way of Rajasthani Pilgims, 1988.
-Huyler, SP. Meeting God: Elements of Hindu Devotion . 1999.
-Stephanides, Stephan with Singh, Karna. Translating Kali’s Feast – The
Goddess in Indo-Caribbean Ritual and Fiction. 2000.
Yoga (and Tantra)
-Vivekananda, Swami. RajaYoga, Jnana Yoga, Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga.
-Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi.
Recommended
-Alter, Joseph S. Yoga in Modern India: The Body Between Science and
Philosophy. 2004
-Dasgupta, Surendranath. Yoga as Philosophy and Religion. 1987.
-De Michelis, Elizabeth. A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western
Esotericism. 2005.
-Strauss, Sarah. Positioning Yoga. 2005.
The Roots of Tantra. Brown, Robert L & Harper Katherin Anne. 2002.
-Yoga: the Indian Tradition. Carpenter, David & Whicher, Ian. 2003.
Material Culture (Temples, Archeology, Clothing and Body Markings, Arts –
Performing, Visual, Hindu Aesthetics)
-Champakalakshmi, R. The Hindu Temple . 2001.
-Pinney, C. “An Authentic Indian Kitsch:The Aesthetics, Discriminations and
Hybridity of Popular Hindu Art. Social Analysis, 1995. Madurai. 1998.
-Meyers, Helen. Music of Hindu Trinidad. 1998.
-Rukmini Devi Arundal Avanthri, Meduri. 2005
-Waghorne, Joan. "The Diaspora of the Gods: Hindu Temples in the New World
System", 1640-1800 Journal of Asian Studies 58 (Aug. 1999).
2
Page 3
-Waghorne, J. Diaspora of the Gods: Modern Hindu Temples in an Urban Middle-Class
World. 2004.
-Vatsyayan, Kapila. Bharata: The Natyasastra. 2003.
Recommended
-Craven, Roy. Indian Art: A Concise History. 1997.
-Dempsey, Corinne G. The Goddess Lives In Upstate New York: Breaking
Convention And Making Home At A North American Hindu Temple.
2006.
-Elgood, H. Hinduism and the Religious Arts. 1999.
-Michell, George. The Hindu Temple: An Introduction to its Meaning and Forms.
1988.
-Venkataramna, Leela. Indian Classical Dance: Tradition in Transition. 2004.
Women
-Leslie, Julie. Roles and rituals for Hindu women. 1992
Recommended
-Basu, M. Hindu Women and Marriage Law: From Sacrament to Contract. 2001.
-Gold, Ann Grodzins & Raheja, Gloria Goodwin. Listen to the Heron’s Words.
1994.
-Jordan, Kay. From Sacred Servant to Profane Prostitute. 2003.
-Joshi, OP. “Continuity and Change in Hindu Women’s Dress”. Dress and
Gender: Making and Meaning. 1992
-Oldenburg, VT. Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime.
2002.
-Orr, Leslie. Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God: Temple Women in
Medieval Tamil Nadu. 2000.
-Pearson, Anne Mackenzie. Because it Gives Me Peace of Mind: Ritual Fasts in
the Religious Lives of Hindu Women. 1996.
Communities and Identities
-Burke, Rochford. Hare Krishna in America. 1985.
-Jackson, Carl T. Vedanta for the West. 1994.
-Kurien, Prema. "Becoming American by Becoming Hindu: Indian Americans Take
their Place at the Multicultural Table", Gatherings in Diaspora: Religious
Communities and the New Immigration. 1998.
-Kurien, Prema A. Kaleidoscopic Identity – International Migration and the
Reconstruction of Community Identities in India. 2002.
-The Hare Krishna Movement. Edited by Bryant, Edwin & Ekstrand, Maria. 2004.
-Willaims, Raymond Brady. An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. 2001.
-Yamamoto, Isamu. Hinduism, TM and Hare Krishna. 1998.
Gurus
-Gurus In America. Forsthoefel, T & Humes, C. 2005
3
Page 4
-Pechilis, K. The Graceful Guru: Hindu female gurus in India and the United States
2004.
Hindu-Muslim/Christian/Sikh/(Buddhist?) Relations
-Bharati, Agehananda. Hindu Views and the Hindu-Muslim Interface. 1981.
-Khan, Aisha. Callaloo Nation. 2004.
-Van der Veer, Peter. Religious Nationalim: Hindus and Muslims in India. 1994.
Hinduism and Politics
-Bhatt, Chetan. Hindu Nationalism. 2001.
-Mukta, P. “The Public Face of Hindu nationalism”. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2000.
-Rajagopal, Arvind. Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of
the Public in India. 2001.
General Works on Hinduism outside India
-Bean, Susan S. Yankee India. 2001.
-Diem, AG & Lewis JR. “Imagining India: The Influence of Hinduism on the
New Age Movement”. Perspectives on the New Age.
-Vertovec, S. Hindu Diaspora: Comparative Patterns . 2000.
4

[acharya]

Are the Brahmins Leaders of Hindu Religion?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1...hmins.html



We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians.

Since the term 'Hindu religion' denotes all the religions of India together, it cannot refer to any particular religion. And since the term 'Hindu religion' consists of many religions which have different doctrines and are contrary to each other, there will be leaders for each religion and there cannot be a common leader for all the religions since they are controversial to each other.

For instance, how can there be a common leader for both Buddhism and Saivism, which are contrary to each other. Hence the belief that there is a common leader for Hindu religion is superstitious and displays ignorance. Hence, the statement that 'The Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion' exhibits ignorance and deceptive.

Who had deceived?

History reveals that the Europeans coined the term Hindu religion and saw nothing wrong in doing so. However, they made the world to believe that the Brahmins are leaders of Hindu religion. Hence, international scholars often write that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion.

Who was deceived?

All the scholars who say and write that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion are seen to be the deceived ones.

Who are the ignorant?

Because of the propaganda of the Europeans and the statements of the scholars who ignorantly accepted the ideology of the Europeans that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion without analyzing the facts, the Indians who accepted and believed the statement mentioned above are seemed to be the blind believers.

If we ask any of the Indians 'Who are the leaders of Hindu religion?', they would immediately reply that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion. If we ask them to explain and give reasons for their statement, they would laugh and immediately pose a question to us asking whether we were not aware of this simple thing.

Why did the Europeans make the statement that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion, and why have they propagated this ideology to the world, and then deceived the Indians to believe in this superstition?

The Europeans who came to India in 1498 A.D. for the purpose of establishing trade became the rulers of India. History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins were the supporters and assistants for the Europeans to capture the political power of India and enslave the Indians. It is a political strategy to befriend the traitors within a country in order to get its secrets and capture its political power.

If the history of India is analyzed, it is revealed that the Aryan Brahmins have acted as the traitors through the ages. they also betrayed India to the Europeans. The term Aryans denote the group of people who came to India in different periods without any religion, and they are classified as follows:

1) Aryan Purohits
2) Aryan Kshatriyas
3) Aryan Vaishyas

They captured the religious, political and the economical power of the Indians. They christened the people who accepted their supremacy as 'Sudras' and the leaders and the philosophers of India who opposed them as 'Panchamas' or Untouchables. Thus they have degraded the Dravidians and devised 'Varnashrama Dharma' (also known as Manu Dharma or caste system) on the basis of colour and these have already been elaborated in detail.

Here certain questions may arise such as, 'Who are the Aryan Purohit Brahmins?', and, 'From where did they come ?'.

Amongst the foreign invaders, the Persians were the first invaders of India. Cyrus, who ruled Persia from 558 B.C. to 530 B.C. tried to capture the political power of India but was defeated. After Cyrus, Darius who ruled Persia from 522 B.C. to 486 B.C. established his political power in Northern Punjab of India in 518 B.C.

Historians mention that the invasion of the Persians over North Western India had led to the trade relationship between India and Persia and it had also encouraged other foreigners to launch invasion over India.

"As Persians had establirhed their authority over India and India had become a part of their empire, people were free to travel in any part of India or Persia. The Indian traders started trading with the Persians on a large scale...
...Persian invaders exposed the political weakness of India to all the world. It encouraged the Greeks and the Bactrians to launch invasions over Indian territory.1

The foreigners who were already in the northwestern frontier of India established matrimonial relationship with the Persians after their invasion and it had led to the emergence of various new castes, say the historians.

They have been acting as traitors since then and have betrayed India to the foreigners.

"Various new castes came into being as many foreigners settled on the northwestern frontier of India after the invasion of Persia. They established matrimonial relations and gave birth to several sub-castes. Moreover, they always acted treacherously and joined hands with the invaders who wanted to conquer India from time to time".2

Ambi, who ruled Taxila in India, was the responsible for the invasion of Alexander over India, and the historians say that Ambi was the descendant of the traitors.

"Greeks were the second invaders after the Persians. who had invaded the Indian territory......"3

"The ruler of Taxila fired his ambition and provided Alexander an opportunity to invade India by sending an invitation to him"4

"Ambi has been described as a traitor in the history of ancient India, who for his own selfish ends sent an invitation to Alexander with the evil design of maneuvering the fall of Porus".5

Hence, we can infer from the quotations mentioned above that the foreigners who mixed with the Persians, have been betraying India to the foreigners, and Ambi the descendent of this traitors, betrayed India to Alexander. Sungas and the Kanvas are the descendants of this treacherous group, and they are proud of their white colour their cunning behavior and their act of betrayal.

Pushyamitra, who established the Sunga dynasty, had perfidiously killed Brihathratha, the last king of the Mauryan dynasty, who had trusted and appointed Pushyamitra as the Commander-in-Chief of his army. Thus by treachery he captured the political power and established his dominion over North India.

Similarly the first king of the Kanva dynasty, treacherously killed the last king of the Sunga dynasty who also had appointed him as a minister and he captured the political power.

History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins are the descendants of the Sungas and Kanvas. Since betrayal is their traditional task, it is not new to their nature to betray India to the Europeans, who came for the purpose of establishing trade. Hence, it was the duty of the Europeans to honour the Brahmins and so they made the world believe that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hinduism. Thus they have attributed special qualities to the Brahmins and have deceived the International scholars and the Indians.

There are many similarities between the Aryan Brahmins and the Europeans, and they are as follows:

1. The Brahmins were proud of their white colour and devised caste discrimination on the basis of colour. Similarly the Europeans were proud of their white colour and followed colour discrimination.
2. The Brahmins came from outside into India and were involved in activities with the motive of enslaving the Indians. Similarly the Europeans also came from outside and were acting like the Brahmins in enslaving the Indians.
3. The Aryans prided in their superiority over the Dravidians, though the divine thoughts and the philosophies originated from the Dravidians and not from the Aryans. Similarly the Europeans thought of themselves as superior to the Indians, even though the Indians had unique qualities.
4. The concept of the Dravidians is, 'Every country is my country and all are my kith and kin' and they wanted to be affectionate and friendly with everyone. But the Aryans are proud and consider that they are a higher caste by birth and look upon others as inferior to them. The Europeans also had this same feeling and wherever they went they enslaved the people and established their dominion
5. The Aryan Brahmins pretended that they were spiritualists (soulists) and claimed that the Vedas which were compiled by a Dravidian, Veda Vyasa, belongs to them and enslaved the people in the guise of religion. Similarly the Europeans claimed that the Bible which was developed from the Dravidian form of worship, belonged to them and showed themselves like spiritualists (soulists) as the leaders of Christianity, while they were involved in activities which enslaved others.
6. The Brahmins captured the temple of the Dravidians and prohibited the Dravidians to enter the Sanctum Sanctorum of their own temple. Likewise the Europeans, utilizing the Bible which was developed from the Dravidian race, segregated the Dravidian race in the Christian temples of the Dravidian religion, which were considered as the temples of the white and this is a historical fact.

The facts mentioned above reveal that the Brahmins who were in the spirit of enslaving the Indians and the Europeans who had the same spirit, united together and acted against Indians. It is no wonder that they claimed that they were from the same stock and it is highlighted as follows:

"This work summarizes India's intellectual history, which in its various aspects has been the subject of my studies for slightly more than half a century (1875 to 1926). It sets forth in nine chapters the mental development of the most easterly branch of Aryan civilization since it entered India by land till it came in contact by sea with the most westerly branch of the same civilization after a separation of at least 3,000 years. The four centuries that have since elapsed (1498 to 1926) are here touched upon only as showing the most recent distribution of the Indian vernaculars and the rise of their literature, as well as the process by which the development of the purely indigenous period gradually became known to the new-comers from the west...
These two civilizations, starting from a common source, have after a separation of at least 3,000 years again become united during the last four centuries, representing together a quarter of the total of the earth's inhabitants. During these four centuries the new-comers from the west have gained acquaintance with and recovered the history of India's past mental development. Al this, as set forth in the following pages, will, I trust, contribute something to clearer mutual understanding by two civilizations which in their origin were one and the same".6

Hence, we can also call the Europeans as European Aryans. What was the reason for the Europeans to think that they and the Brahmins were of one race, that is the Aryan race?

If we analyze history, it reveals that the term 'Aryan' includes the group of people who came into India in different periods without any religion viz. Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushans and Huns. It is a historical error if we consider and denote them as one race. They are the combination of different races with the motive of enslaving the Indians which is their common feature.

It is also a historical error to believe that Sanskrit is a bridge to unite these races and it is the common language of the languages mentioned above. The Persian language is different from Greek. The language of the Sakas is different from the language of the Kushans. The language of the Huns is different from the other languages mentioned above. They neither spoke Sanskrit nor formed Sanskrit. Sanskrit means, 'Perfectly refined and formed', and it was not a language of the common people and neither was it a mother tongue of any one. The mother tongue or a natural language is a child and it has life. Whereas, a doll is 'made' and has no life. Sanskrit as a language is a doll which was formed and not a mother tongue of anyone. Then why was it formed? And who formed it?

In a country divided by many languages, a common language unites the people. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the scholars who had a motive to spread Early Indian Christianity to other scholars.

At that time, some of the languages which existed in India were Arthamakathi, the language of Jains, Pali, the language of the Buddhists, Tamil the first Dravidian language, Persian and Greek languages, etc. In order to communicate the gospel to the scholars who spoke the different languages mentioned above, Sanskrit was formed as a religious code language or a common link language by the Early Indian Christian scholars.

It has already been mentioned that one of the offshoots of Early Indian Christianity was Mahayana Buddhism which developed from Hinayana Buddhism. While the literature of Hinayana Buddhism were in Pali the literature of Mahayana Buddhism were not written in Pali but in Sanskrit. Historical evidences show that the Mahayana Buddhist's literature and the literature of the Six-fold religion of the family of Siva were written in Sanskrit.

All the Sanskrit scholars Veda Vyasa, Valmiki, Kalidasa... who have written valuable books in Sanskrit viz. were the Dravidians. It was by the Dravidians that the nomadic worship songs were written in Sanskrit and were compiled and classified as the Vedas.

Sanskrit is considered to be the language of the scholars or eminent people since the books written in Sanskrit are in a high standard. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the Dravidian scholars as common link language (religious code language) and was not the language of the foreigners.

However, we can find the influence of the Persian and Greek languages in Sanskrit. Scholars know the development and the difference between the Sanskrit language which was in the early centuries of the Christian era in which the Mahayana Buddhist literature were written, and the Sanskrit which evolved in the Gupta period and Pallava period (between 4th c.A.D. to 6th or 7th c.A.D.) in which the literature of the Six-fold religion of the family of Siva were written. The latter is known as classical Sanskrit.

Owing to the invasion of the Huns after the Gupta period, the kingdoms in the Northern part of India declined Similarly the languages in northern India disintegrated and new languages emerged. Since they disintegrated fell from the heights of the 'perfectly refined Sanskrit', they are denoted by historians as 'Prakrit', which means that they are not in a refined form.

Before the formation of Sanskrit, the languages that were prevalent in India, were united and refined, and Sanskrit was formed as a religious code language. The languages that were prevalent before Sanskrit were also known as 'Prakrit'.

After the development of Sanskrit the languages that emerged were also known as Prakrit. So, it is to be observed that the Prakrit languages which were before the formation of Sanskrit are different from the languages which emerged after the development of Sanskrit, and there is a long interval of time between them.

Historians create a great deal of confusion while discussing the Prakrit languages that were prevalent before the formation of Sanskrit, and those that emerged after the development of Sanskrit. The confusion developed since they were not able to understand the history of Early Indian Christianity, and, they believed the wrong ideologies that were formed and spread by the European Aryans that the Six-fold religion of the Early Indian Christianity is the religion of the Brahmins. Hence, the scholars write that the period of Vedas belong to 1000 B.C., or 2000 B.C., or 5000 B.C..... and this is the first language of the world and it was spoken by the Aryans. Further many erroneously write that the Indian Aryans and the European Aryans were separated from the common Aryan race, and after 3000 years they were united again in India, and the Brahmins are the leaders of the Indian Aryans and Hinduism. Thus wrong ideologies were deliberately spread by the so called European Aryans world wide.

This wrong ideology the Aryans are suferior by birth was spread by the Europeans. This resulted in the Germans to think that they were the most superior amongst the Aryans, and this led to the massacre of millions of Jews by Hitler. Hitler who had the same racial fanaticism was the root cause for the great destruction of innocent lives in many countries during the second world war.

Correlation in language alone cannot denote a racial correlation, says R.S. Sarma,

"Towards the end of the eighteenth century when William Jones discovered that Sanskrit was similar to Greek, Latin and other European languages, it was postulated that the Aryans lived in a area either in central Asia or eastern Europe. They were supposed to have descended from same racial stock. This concept prevailed in the nineteenth century and was used as a powerful political weapon in Nazi Germany during the anti-Jewish campaign launched by Hitler. After 1933 it was declared that the German people constituted a pure Aryan race. In the Nazi view, they occupied the highest place among the Aryans and hence were entitled to hegemony over the world. But scholars who have studied the Aryan problem deeply have come to the conclusion that those speaking the same language need not necessarily belong to the same racial or ethnic stock".7

McDonnell's statement about William Jones, quoted by R.S. Sarma is as follows:

"Sir W. Jones was, moreover, the first scholar who definitely asserted the genealogical connection of Sanskrit with Greek and Latin, and its probable affinity with Persian, German and Celtic".8

Jones has done research in the correlation between Sanskrit and the European languages. Now the question is why he has not done research to correlate between Sanskrit and the Indian languages. If he has deciphered an answer for this question, then he might have given the explanation for the term 'Aryans'. He might also have been relieved from the wrong conception that Sanskrit is of the Aryan race.

It has already been pointed out that the Aryans are not a separate race but a combination of many races who came to India in different periods of time and had separate languages and Sanskrit is not their language but it was a religious code language that was formed by the Indian Dravidians.
It is quite natural that the Dravidian scholars who formed Sanskrit would include certain words from the existing languages of the time. Hence, it is obvious that the Europeans found correlation between the Sanskrit, and the Persian, the Greek and the Latin languages, which were the foreign languages that were prevalent in India at that time as mentioned earlier.

There is no such race as the 'Aryan race' in India. In order to identify the non-Dravidian, non-Indian foreigners, this term is used, but this term was purposely utilized by the Europeans in order to create a fictitious relationship with the local foreigners. Even though it is a mythical race, in the world historical perspective this term is very important in the history of India, since it denotes the foreigners who came to India, in various periods, without any religion.

Since 'Sanskrit' was formed by the Dravidian Early Indian Christians, it is not found in the pre-Christian era as mentioned earlier. It is thought that the Vedas were written in Sanskrit in the pre-Christian era. However, if Sanskrit was prevalent in the pre-Christian era, king Ashoka would have used Sanskrit in his inscriptions to tell the verdict of cessation of sacrifice since sacrifice was very basic for the Vedic worship. It is to be noted that his inscriptions are in Pali, Aramaic, Greek.... but not in Sanskrit. It has already been mentioned that the ancestors of Sungas and Kanvas mixed with the Persians and the mention of the struggles in the Vedas that had taken place between the two groups, happened in Afghanistan and not in India, says David Frawley.

"Asko Parpolo claims that the struggles mentioned in the Vedas were not in India at all, but in Afghanistan between two different groups of Indo-Iranian peoples".9

Megasthenes mentions about the Arianois who were living near India,

"Megasthenes speaks of `ARIANOIS' as one of the three peoples inhabiting the countries adjacent to India".10

The Arianois, mentioned by Megasthenes were a mixture of Persians. Connection between them and the Persians are pointed out by Khurana.

"........the names of the Sunga rulers (Pushyamitra. Agnimitra, Vasumitra) ended in 'Mitra' i.e.., the sun. As the Persians (Iranians) were the worshippers of the sun, and the Sunga rulers also worshipped sun, it seems that the rulers of the Sunga dynasty were the Persians".11

Khurana denied this later, though historical evidences were not given for his denial.

The Iranians are known as Aryans by the historians.

'That the Aryans were closely related to the Iranians is proved by many resemblance in language and worship, which have been found in the Avesta-the scriptures of the Iranians, and the Rigveda-the most important collection of the hymns of the Aryans".12

The following statement of R.S. Sharma should be noted here.

"The cult of SOMA called HAOMA in the Avestan language, was typical of both the Vedic and the Iranian people".13

The points mentioned above reveal that the Brahmins are traditionally a mixture of the Persians and they have mostly the features of Persians. But, the Asvamedha yajna, which is mentioned in the Vedas does not occur amongst the Persians and it was the Sungas, who started Asvamedha yajna. Hence, the songs about Asvamedha Yajna, in the Vedas belong to the period of Sunga and afterwards.

"Louis Renow holds that the ASVAMEDHA or horse sacrifice was an Indo-European ritual. Clearly, there is no evidence of horse sacrifice in pre-Vedic India".14

"The Indo-Europeans also adopted the use of the horse, but perhaps none of them performed the horse sacrifice which was known as 'ASVAMEDHA' in India". 15

In Vedic times, the king or the chief performed the ASVAMEDHA to assert his suzerainty.16

It is a general notion that the Vedic rituals and tradition can be found more in northern India. However, it is practised only in South India in which the nomadic worship songs were compiled and classified by the Dravidians, says David Frawley.

"The best Vedic Sanskrit, rituals and traditions can be found only in South India."17

The so called European Aryans exalted the Vedas as well as the Brahmins and had propagated that the Aryans are a separate race and also claimed that they also belonged to the Aryan race. Thus, they elevated the Brahmins as the leaders of Hinduism and spread this ideology to the world in order to capture and preserve their political power over India.

The following quotation shows that some of the Europeans go to any extent to elevate their supremacy. They did not care for the historical and archaeological evidences which reveal the greatness of the Dravidians, but in order to exalt their race as superior, they went to such an extent that they elevate the Vedas without concern for any historical or archaeological evidences.

"Broken walls and shreds of pottery, stone knives and aces, after all are voiceless things: they cannot convey to us the actual words of the men. They furnish proof to us that long age communities of men were born and lived and toiled; and with their help we may form some picture of what those men were. The speech of ancient races, however, is first heard by us in the songs of the Aryans; and so it is still true that the more intimate history of India begins with them. The ancient Sumerians and Babylonians made records and chronicles and preserved them on stamped bricks, or in great libraries of baked clay tablets; but the early Aryans were no historians in this sense. They have left us only the hymns which they sang to their gods and the incantations which their priests used at the great sacrifices; yet by studying these hymns and chants in the oldest collection, the Rigveda, we can learn much about the Aryan tribes. We can discover in some degree who they were, whence they came, whither they went, what was their tribal and national constitution, how they lived, and what they thought and did. These ancient Aryans did not write at all. They handed down their sacred lore by oral instruction from preceptor to pupil.

Almost our only authority for this period is the Rigveda, but it will help the student if we describe here, in as few words as possible, all the four Vedas, which form the first and oldest branch of Aryan literature."18

Here are some of the questions that have to be analyzed.

1) Whether the so called European Aryans have spread this ideology without understanding history, or, have they purposely spread this as a political strategy in order to reward the Brahmins since they betrayed India to them?

2) The Europeans had spread the notion that the period of the Vedas is before 1000 B.C. or earlier. However, they never gave any historical, archaeological or epigraphic evidences for the above statement. Why have they exalted the Vedas without any evidences?

3) On what basis have the so called European Aryans spread the ideology that the Aryans and their civilization are superior to the Dravidians and their civilization?

4) Amongst the world religions, the noble divine thoughts and the non-violent religions were the offshoots of the Dravidians.

For example, non-violence and vegetarianism are the basic principles of Jains, Buddhists and the Six-fold religion which are of the Dravidians. However, after the Aryans invasion of India, they destroyed the non-violent religions and enslaved the Dravidians. They corrupted the Six-fold religion through immorality and pornographic sculptures. They have also been influencing the Dravidian youth through sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. The secret circulars of the R.S.S and Brahmin Samaj which are appended in this book are evidences to this fact. Then even though this is a historical fact, then on what basis have the so called European Aryans spread that the Indian Aryans are superior to the Dravidians?

Both the Indian Aryans and the European Aryans have no religion. The Aryans have enslaved the Six-fold religion and the Europeans have enslaved Christianity.

If we ask the European Aryans whether they give more significance to the religion or race, we can infer from their activities that they are giving more importance to the race than to the principles of their religion.

Manusmrthi, which degrades and enslaves the Dravidian race and exalts the Aryans by giving a law based on colour, was greatly appreciated by the Europeans since it elevated the Aryan race extremely, and William Jones, who translated this Manusmrthi from Sanskrit in to English was also highly appreciated and the Europeans boosted him to a high status by erecting a statue of William Jones with Manusmrthi in his hand in St. Paul's Cathedral in London and it reveals how much importance was given to the racial supremacy than to the religion. Is it Christianity or racism? The following quotation explains this clearly.

"In the tradition of Western scholarship, 'these is no work that has had such great fame and has for centuries been considered to be so authoritative as the Manavadharmasastra. Manu was among the first Sanskrit works to be translated into any European language. The earliest translation of the text, published in Calcutta in 1794, was that of Sir William jones, one of the founding fathers of modern Indology; the statue of Jones in St Paul's Cathedral in London holds a volume of Manu in its hand. Jones's English translation was then translated into German and published by J. Chr. Huttner in Weimar in 1797. The rapid appearance of subsequent translations in French, German, Portuguese, and Russian (see the bibliography), and the inclusion of the text in the monumental Sacred Books of the East series edited by F.Max Muller, are testimonials to the historical and religious importance that European Orientalists conferred on the work".19

When sister Nirmala Devi was given a chance to occupy Mother Theresa's post, all the magazines and news papers run by the Brahmins have given much importance to this event, and focused this matter greatly since sister Nirmala Devi is a Nepali Brahmin, an Aryan. Is importance given to race or religion?

The concept of papacy began in the European Church after the 4th c. A.D, and according to their tradition, St. Peter, a non-European of a non-European religion since Christianity was developed after Jesus Christ, a non-European, was the first Pope. However, the position of Pope has been held only by Europeans about 1600 years even though they claimed to be modelled after St. Peter who was a Jew. Why don't we see the non-Europeans groomed as Popes? Is it religion or race?

In 1996 when there was a great confusion in Indian politics and Mr. Atal Bihary Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party was given a chance to be the Prime Minister of India and requested to prove his majority, Mother Theresa visited Mr. Vajpayee, an Aryan, and congratulated him since he was the Prime Minister at that time and it was focused on the Television extensively. However, when he could not prove his majority and Mr. Deve Gowda became the Prime Minister, we were not informed by any media about Mother Theresa's activities regarding this matter.

In the book titled 'Sacred books of the East', the author Maxmuller explained the Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Manusmrthi etc., but he did not mention any one of the Tamil literature of the East viz. Tevaram, Thiruvasagam, Nalaira Divya Prabhandham etc., which are the foundational religious books for Saivism and Vaishnavisim, that emerged and developed from the East. Why did he neglect the sacred books of the East which are in Tamil and are of the Dravidians.?

The Aryans have an international Organization known as 'International Aryan league' and they work tirelessly together irrespective of religion, nation, language etc. Since their prime motive is to establish their supremacy and enslave others in their thinking and social life, they are united together and put their efforts strongly and sharply.

References:

1. K.L. Kurna, Political & Cultural History of India, P. 110
2. Ibid, P.110
3. Ibid, P.112
4. Ibid, P. 113
5. Ibid.
6. A.A. Macdonell, Op.Cit., Pp.V-VII
7. R.S. Sharma, Looking for the Aryans, Oriental Longman Ltd., Madras-2,F.P.1995, P-1
8. A.A. McDonnell, Op. Cit., P.240
9. David Frawley, The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, 1994, Pp.23-24
10. R.S. Sharma, Op. Cit., P.4
11. K.L.Khurana, Op. Cit., Pp.174,175
12. E.W. Thompson, History of India, Christian Literature Society, Madras, 13th Ed., 1940, P.15
13. R.S. Sharma, Op. Cit., P.51
14. Ibid, P.45
15. Ibid, P.44
16. Ibid.
17. David Frawley, Op.Cit., P.44
18. E.W. Thompson, Op. Cit., P.14-15,17
19. Introduction, The Laws of Manu, Op.Cit., Pp.XViii-XiX

|Home Page|

|108 Questions to Sankara Mutt| \An International Conference\| Bhakti Marga - from South or North?| |Brahmins - Leaders of Hindu Religion?| |Christ - Bodhisattva - Brahman| \Cycle of Birth\\Dravida Samayam Prayer\| God & Satan| \|How to protect our Hindu Religion?| \Hinduism is not a Religion\|Hindu Religion-Iconography| |Hindu Religion-Myths| |Hindu Religion-Theology| \Humane Love and Spirituality\|Indus Valley - Aryan or Dravidian?| |Mythical Aryan Race| |Origin of Hindu Religion| |Racism through Advaita Philosophy| \ \Religion Under Threat| |Religious Fanaticism| |Soul & Spirit|\Why Caste and Religious Clashes?\

Dr. M. Deivanayagam
Dr. D. Devakala

The Revival Movement of Dravidian Religion

dravida@eth.net

1

[acharya]

Creation of Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma by the English
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/...0/crt_heng.html


by Mukesh Naidu

Sanatanism Did Not Exist Before the English

Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism did not exist before the English entered India. This has been amply stated by Deivanayagam & Devakala,

" We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians. "
-- [ Deva ]

Thus, `Hinduism' and `Sanatana Dharma' are European inventions describing a motley of separate religions like Sudroid Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Vedism, Shaktism, the Saura cults and Tantrism.
English Invention of Hinduism

John Z. Holwell is considered by the modern Hindutvadins to be one of the founding fathers of Hinduism. Even he did not use the word Hindoo, but used the term `Gentoo' instead :

" The story begins in 1767 when John Zephaniah Holwell's pioneering work was published under the lengthy title Interesting Historical Events, relating to the Provinces of Bengal and the Empire of Indostan.... As also the Mythology and Cosmogony, Fasts and Festivals of the Gentoos, followers of the Shastah, and a Dissertation on the Metempsychosis, commonly, though erroneously, called the Pythagorean doctrine. "
-- [ Giri.Ch.3 ]

Holwell described Hindus as " who from the earliest times have been an ornament to the creation if so much can with propriety be said of any known people on the earth" [ Kej pp.18-19 ]. He thus played a great role in inflating the pride of Brahmins and helped fuel Hindu Fascism.

Sir William Jones was another of the major players in the invention of Hinduism. His famous statement on Sanskrit helped " restore Hindu self-confidence to a great extent" -

" The Sanskrit language ..., whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity both in the roots of verbs and in the form of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps no longer exists "

-- William Jones, `Third Annual Discourse'
(Asiatic Researches, 1788), quoted in [ Kopf p.38 ].

Sir Jones' translation of the the Vedas and Manu-smrti into English led to the spread of the Hindu poison of racism into Europe, which ultimately caused the rise of Nazism in the 20th century. Translations of the Arthasastra led to the emergence of Modern Totalitarianism. Jones invented a non-existent Golden Vedic Age, which was the source of later Hindutva fascism : In the words of a modern Hindu Fascist scholar, " The Jones-Colebrooke portrayal of the Vedic age was the first reconstructed golden age of the Indian renaissance. Its importance for the rehabilitation of Hindus in their own esteem cannot possibly be exaggerated. " [ Giri.Ch.3 ] The fact that archaeology has conclusively proven the Vedic age to have been a dark age is conveniently dismissed.

Modern Hindutva shcolars praise Lord Hastings in his role in encouraging Hindu fundamentalism, and the other Englishmen who laid the foundations of their doctrines :

" [T]ribute must be paid to Warren Hastings who admired the Hindu inheritance and made its resurrection possible; James Princep, who deciphered the Brahmi script and thus facilitated the discovery of Emperor Ashoka, the most remarkable ruler in ancient India we know of so far; and Lord Curzon who ensured the preservation of India's great sculptural and architectural inheritance. "
-- [ Giri.Ch.3 ]

The Hindu College (now known as the Presidency College) was founded in 1817, again under British rule [ Giri.Ch.3 ] in order to spread Hindu-Aryan racism and fanaticism. Most of the money used to construct it came from British coffers !

Modern Hindutva sholars trace the invention of Hinduism not to the Arya Samaj but to the English and hence eulogize the English for their creation of that religion :

" Since the contribution of British Orientalists in the second half of the eighteenth century to the growth of self-awareness and pride in their past cultural achievements among educated Hindus is well known, it is rather surprising that the rise of Hindu nationalism should be traced back at best to the Arya Samaj in the late nineteenth century and, indeed, to the establishment of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925 and 1926. Obviously, the record needs to be set straight and this perspective corrected. "
-- [ Giri.Ch.3 ]

English Creation of Bengali Renaissance

The Bengali Renaissance was also the creation of the English. There was in fact no Bengali language in ancient India, the name of the speech being Gaudiya. It is only the Muslims who used the word `Bangalla' (derived from Arabic `banga', to pray) for the region and Bengali for the local dialect of Urdu. Yet the English invented a new language, a combination of Sanskrit and Gaudiya, and propagated this Bengali hybrid :

" The renaissance in Bengali language and literature can, for example, be directly traced to the publication of Nathaniel Halhed's Grammar of the Bengali Language. "
-- [ Giri.Ch.3 ]

Vivekananda's Support of Fascist Hinduism

Vivekananda played a tremendous role in the spread of the English concept of Hinduism. The founder of the Hindu terrorist organization, the RSS, M.S.Golwalkar, was a disciple of the Vivekananda mission. Vivekananada openly advocated Hindu militarism :

" Swami Vivekanand represents the next phase in the development of the religion of patriotism. Three points are notable in this regard - his identification of Mother India with the supreme God; his attempt to reintroduce the Kshatriya element in the Hindu psyche; and his conviction that India was destined to be teacher of the human race in the spiritual realm. "
-- [ Giri.Ch.3 ]

While cultivating an image of non-violence abroad, he advocated fascism in India :

" You will understand Gita better with your biceps... What I want is muscles of iron and nerves of steel, inside which dwells a mind of the same material of which the thunderbolt is made. Strength, manhood, Kshatra-virya and Brahmateja."

-- Vivekananda in [ Vivek.III, p.300-1 ];
cited in [ Poddar, p.117 ].

Arya Samaj : Fountainhead of Fascism

The Arya Samaj is one of the most fanatic and narrow-minded religions ever to have arisen, Deriving most of its doctrines of hatred and bigotry from the fasist Vedas, this movement played a vital role in the revival of Vedic apartheid and the dissemination of hatred amongst `Hindus' against Muslims and Sudrans. The sole purpose was to blind the mind of the ordinary Hindu so much that they would overlook their own differences.

" The rise of Hindu nationalism can be traced to the Arya Samaj in the late nineteenth century. Like many leaders of ethnic and religious solidarity movements, Arya Samaj's founder Swami Dayanda believed that Hinduism was being tainted by western influences. Though he accepted western social and scientific theory, he felt that Hinduism reached its peak during the Verdic Golden era. "
-- [ Perry ]

The rhetoric of the modern RSS and other fundamentalist organisations is exactly that of the Arya Samaj -

" [T]he Arya Samaj proposed ideas about Hinduism that would later be used as the rhetoric of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashitrya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the group which would change the movement from an ethnic-based to a religious-based identity movement during most of the twentieth century."
-- [ Perry ]

Ironically, this movement opposed usage of the word `Hindu' : " Originally and ethnic-based identity movement, the group did not consider themselves Hindus, but rather called themselves Aryas. " [ Perry ]

The most important innovation of the Arya Samaj was the invention of a non-existent Vedic Golden Age, which archaeologists have shown was in fact one of the darkest ever known. Yet, with typical Brahminic obstinacy they continued to insist that " The people of the Verdic age were the chosen people before falling into a "decadent state characterized by the basest superstitions and idolatry" ( Jaffrelot cited in [ Perry ] ).

Another doctrine of the Arya Samaj was that the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya had to be destroyed to make way for a temple. On December 6, 1992, this doctrine finally bore fruit, when " a group of Hindu nationalists stormed the mosque killing Muslims worshipping within and destroying the structure. Participants included members of the VHP and RSS which recognize the birthplace of Ram as the most holy place in India" [ Perry ]. This act was followed by the pre-planned and well organised mass murder of 3000 innocent Muslims all over India.
Congress Secret Support for Hindutva

The next stage came with the rise of the Brahminist Congress. Behind its Pseudo-Secular mask, this party secretly promoted its policy of Brahminism. Thus, all major players of the Congress were Brahmins. Nehru, Shastri, Rajiv Gandhi and Indira Gandhi are only some of the Brahmins who have seized the reins of power in India.

" The significant rise of the Hindu nationalist movement was due not only to the popularity of the Hinduttva and religious rhetoric. India's oldest political party, Congress, also played a major role in the movement's resurgence."
-- [ Perry ]

The Hindu Mahasabha, one of the most fanatic Brahminist organisations, was an off-shoot of the Congress Party :

" The Hindu Mahasabha began as an extremist wing of the Congress Party, and popularized the idea of an atavistic return to the Verdic Golden Age of the Hindu Lord Ram. It is from Mahasabha that the teachings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar emerge. Savarkar can be seen as the father of the Hindu nationalist movement and his writing Hinduttva (Hinduness) has served as the authoritative text for following movements. "
-- [ Perry ]

" Although [ the ] Mahasabha faded after expulsion from Congress in 1937, their ideas of Hinduttva and national unity were carried into prominence by the RSS and later movements" ( Jaffrelot, p.33 cited in [ Perry ])

Of course, since it became widely known that the Brahmani Indira Gandhi secretly butchered 200,000 Sikhs, the Brahmin liars have spread the concocted falsehoods that Indira Gandhi was a Muslim ! All this to merely fool the public ! Equally false lies have been fabricated about Pandit Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi; both are supposed to have been secret Muslims ! It takes the truly diseased brain of a Hindu-Aryan, fully incapacitated by millenia of brainwashing, to accept such Brahmin nonsense.

0
Brahmin Creation of Sangh Parivar With English Help

All of the founders of Hindutva have been, and are, Brahmins. Thus Hindutva is, like Secularism, Vegetarianism, Devadasism, Female Infanticide, Jainism and Hijrahism, merely another Brahminist conspiracy designed to eat away at the foundations of the non-Brahmin peoples. Hegdewar (founder of the RSS) Golwalkar (second leader of the RSS), Sarvarkar (leader of the Hindu Mahasabha and sometimes called the Father of Hindutva), and Vajpayee (BJP Prime Minister) are all accursed Brahmins, most of them from Maharashtra. The BJP was itself founded by another bigoted Brahmin, Syama Prasad Mookerjee !

" The BJP began in 1980 as a fusion of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) and the Janata party after the Janata led coalition fell apart in 1979. The BJP considers Syama Prasad Mookerjee its founder, although he actually only founded the BJS and died in 1953."

So wretched Brahmins are behind all these terrorist organisations, from beginning to end ! Pragna Patel writes "The RSS claims to a be a cultural organization working mainly with boys and young men (and more recently women), but whose leaders in the past, have aspired to emulate German nationalism under Hitler, built on anti-Semitic and racist ideology. Its central objective is to forge a militant Hindu identity, by communalising the arenas of sports, culture and other extra-parliamentary spaces." [ Perry ] So, after hiding behind the front of Pseudo-secularism of the Congress Party for 50 years, the Brahmins have now shed the mantle to become the die-hard fascists that they really are ! In this, they have been aided immeasurably by that invention of the English : Hinduism.

References

[ Kej ] = `The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India's Past' , O.P.Kejariwal, New Delhi, 1988.

[ Kopf ] = `British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization 1773-1835' , David Kopf, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1969.

[ Perry ] = `The Rise of Hindu Nationalism in India', by A.Perry, Haverford Paper.

[ Podder ] = `Renaissance in Bengal' , Arabinda Poddar, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, 1977, p.117.

[ Giri ] = `The Hindu Phenomenon', by Girilal Jain, Voice of India Publications.

[ Deva ] = `Are the Brahmins Leaders of Hindu Religion?' Dr. M. Deivanayagam Dr. D. Devakala, Madras 1998.

[ Vivek ] = `Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand' , Vol.III, pp.300-01: `The Future of India', by Swami Vivekananda.

Notes to Electronic Edition
Some of the references cited above were published at the URLs given:

* [ Deva ] : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1...hmins.html
* [ Giri] : http://hindubooks.org/HinduPhe/index.htm
* [ Perry ] : http://students.haverford.edu/aperry/

Dalitstan Journal,
Volume 2, Issue 6, Dec. 2000

[ Current Index ] [ Main Hindutva Index ]
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/...0/crt_heng.html

[acharya]

test

[acharya]

Was Hinduism invented?
A journal entry by vesteinn posted on Wednesday, November 16 @ 17:38:49 EST
Journals

William Wilberforce, a British parliamentarian who died in 1833, once spoke of the "dark and bloody superstitions" that embody the creed that came to be termed Hinduism. Prior to that, the mind-boggling diversity in sub-continental religious practices existed without a common definition to bind them together....

Pennington argues that the modern avatar of the somewhat homogenized ancient religion that can be loosely termed Hinduism is a direct reaction to such seething and degrading criticism from the colonial academics, some of it indeed valid (such as vilifying the sati tradition - the traditional Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre).

He argues that the elites within Hindu society entered a "dialectical space" with colonialism, thereby producing a defensive self-determined version of their faith. While celebrating colonial promotion of certain scriptures, they vehemently opposed stereotyping, as can be seen in the outcry among the Bengali educated middle classes over the label of the effeminate babu. This similar dialectic process was behind the rise of Hindu nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as behind the progress made by the Hindutva movement of the late 1990s.

Nevertheless, Pennington refuses to present the colonial state with the credit of transforming "fragmented, disparate, localized, particularistic and ever-changing mini traditions" into a world religion. Whereas "Indophoebia" and the "racist science" of the 19th century did indeed contribute substantially toward the development of a defensive definition of Hinduism, crediting the state with the invention of Hinduism as we know it is ignoring the "mess of encounters" that can better explain this development.


http://christdot.org/modules.php?name=News...rticle&sid=7213

[acharya]

http://www.dalitstan.org/books/gandasa/gandasa4.html

[acharya]

HINDUISM HERE
Religion W4215-Spring 2005
Barnard College & Columbia University

COURSE SYLLABUS 2005

John S. Hawley
Milbank 219a
jsh3@columbia.edu
212/854-5292
Office hours: Tuesdays 4-6 and by appointment



Course Description:

This course will explore historical, theological, social, and ritual dimensions of “lived Hinduism” in the greater New York area. Common readings deal with diasporic Hinduism in several locations and with the religious plurality of contemporary New York. Individual field projects will focus on several worshipping communities, a parade, and two yoga centers.



Course Rationale:

It is often argued that in the last half century, Hindus living outside of India have exerted an influence on conceptualizations of Hinduism that is far more creative and influential than their sheer numbers would predict. This course enables students to investigate that phenomenon while simultaneously getting a sense of how disparate—yet interconnected—are the environments where such rethinking and “repracticing” take place in the greater New York area. Simultaneously, it provides a framework in which students can work individually and in small groups to investigate and document the life of several such sites by means of interviews, participant observation, life histories, and archival research. In the latter part of the course, students generate corporate reading assignments appropriate to their individual projects, and present those projects to the class as a whole. The course prepares the way for a conference (in fall, 2005) in which Hindus associated with various sites selected for field study discuss with students the results of their research; and in a class project in which these results are tailored for a website.


http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/religion/h...20syllabus.html

[acharya]

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalvi...ofHinduism2.htm

Myth of One Hindu Religion PT 2

By
Hadwa Dom

5.5 Creation of Hinduism after 1830 by the English Colonialists
The Brahmins of India actively collaborated with the English colonialists in their conquest of India. As a result, the English rewarded them by inventing the designation `Leaders of Hinduism' for their loyal servants, their Aryan Brahmin cousins.

Gentoos & Anglo-Indians
The English came to India after the Portuguese, and due to the immense cultural influence of the latter, the English also adopted the word Gentoo as applying to any follower of an Indian religion:

" The first digest of Indian legislation, which was complied under orders of Warren Hastings and published in 1773, has the title `A Code of Gentoo Law'."
-- [ Asia,p.168 ]

Yule is led to believe that the English form Gentoo did not come into general use till late in the 17th century. [ Asia.168 ]

Nor did the early English travellers use the words `Hindu' or `Sanatani', instead they used the Portuguese word `Gentoo':

* " The late scarcity of provisions necessitating us to take some cows from the Jentue inhabitants to supply the fleet... "
-- [ Forrest, Selections, Home Series, Vol. II, p.31 cited in Asia,p.167.n1 ]
* " The Gentues , the Portugal Idiom for Gentiles, are the Aborigines, who enjoyed their freedom till the Moors or Scythian Tartars .. undermining them, took advantage of their Civil Commotions."
-- [ Fryer, East India, Hak. Soc. Vol. I, p.81 in Asia, p.167.n1 ]

Thus the concept of `Hindu' or `Sanatani' as applying to a religion did not exist, nor were any of these terms used by the early English colonialists. Hence, even by the time of the early English colonialists `Hinduism' did not exist.

Invention of Hinduism by English Census-Compilers
The English census-compilers were assigned the daunting task of conducting the Indian head-count by the British government. These people were not theologians, and coined the term `Hindu' as a blanket term to encompass several religions. Thus a `Hindu' was defined in the Census as anybody who was not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Jain. It was thus an exclusivist term: Hinduism was defined by what it was not, and not by what it was. It is hence entirely unsuitable as a definition. Later the term Sanatana Dharma was invented to deliberately submerge the English creation of Hinduism. In the words of the Babri Masjid archive [ Basic ] :

" Finding it difficult to get the names of the religions of these communities, the British writers gave them the word "Hinduism" to be used as a common name for all of their religions in about 1830."
-- [ Basic citing EB 20:581]


Indeed, the concept of Hinduism was invented by the English with the ulterior motive of making their loyal servents, the Aryan Brahmins, the rulers of India.



" The Europeans who came to India in 1498 A.D. for the purpose of establishing trade became the rulers of India. History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins were the supporters and assistants for the Europeans to capture the political power of India and enslave the Indians . It is a political strategy to befriend the traitors within a country in order to get its secrets and capture its political power. "
-- [ Dev ]

All the invasions of India by foreigners were engineered by the Brahmins. They actively collaborated with the Portuguese, helping them to conquer large parts of India. The offices of the Mughal empire were full of Brahmin conspirators. A full one-third of the British Bengal army was Brahmin. Indeed, the answer to the much-asked question, `Why has Indian history been a series of invasions ?' is `The Brahmins engineered them !' -



" If the history of India is analyzed, it is revealed that the Aryan Brahmins have acted as the traitors through the ages. They also betrayed India to the Europeans. The term Aryans denote the group of people who came to India in different periods without any religion, "
-- [ Dev ]

In this connection one need only remember that the Brahmin Canakya engineered the Macedonian invasion of India by Alexander the Great. Through his protege Candragupta Maurya, Canakya lured the Greeks deep into the Punjab. With the troops and mercenaries provided by Alexander, Canakya and Candragupta managed to overthrow the indigenous dynasty of Magadha and succeeded in imposing the first totalitarian state the world had ever seen : the Mauryan Empire. A few decades later, the Bactrian Greeks followed up on Canakya the Brahmin's open invitation, and annexed major parts of India.

Ulterior Motives in Creation of Hinduism
The creation of Hinduism, the subsequent formation of Sanatana Dharma and the propagation of these concepts is mainly due to vested interests with the following ulterior motives.

* Reward of Brahmin Collaborators - As shown above, the main motive in the English invention of Hinduism was to reward their Aryan Brahmin collaborators with an imagined leadership of all of Hinduism and by extension, all of India. Such were the services rendered to the British crown that not only were the Brahmins made leaders of India at that time, but the whole of Indian history was completely falsified to portray them as the `eternal rulers of all Hindus'.
* Dravidianism Suppressed - India obtained Independance from Anglo-Brahmin and Brahmin-Portuguese rule in 1947. However, the new state that arose was merely a neo-Brahminist casteocracy. One of the main `threats' to the integrity of the new Aryan Brahmin-ruled republic was the spectre of Dravidian Nationalism. The Sudroids (Dravidoids and Kolarians) represent the original inhabitants of India, who were later subjugated by the Aryan invaders. They form the overwhelming majority in Southern India, and strong demands existed for a separate Dravidian nation. Ambedkar and many others fought for recognition of the Dravidian Religion as separate from the Hindu religion, but M.K.Gandhi foiled these attempts, and succeeded in temporarily subverting the Dravidians in Hinduism. The British were reluctant to recognise the Dravidian religion, since it would have antagonised their Brahmin collaborators. This is one of the prime motives behind the invention of Hinduism.
* Vaishnavite Ambitions - Since the majority of `Hindus' were Brahminist Vaishnavites in any case, it was hoped that Vaishnavism would thus become a synonym for Hinduism, thereby subverting Shavism (Dravidian Religion), Smartism, etc. in one go.
* Christian Missionaries - The creation of Hinduism suited the missionaries who did not have to deal with any Indian theological system. Christianity historically made the greatest inroads in `pagan' (ie. religions lacking a developed sustem of theology) regions, while failing in areas where `devoloped' religions like Islam, Confucianism, etc. By creating Hinduism and submerging thereby Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Saurism, etc. into `One Great Pagan Religion' they had to deal with `merely another pagan cult'. Hence, `Hinduism' served the interests of the Christian missionaries.
* English Imperialism - The creation of Hinduism entailed inclusion of the Negroid-Australoid Aboriginal Races of India as `Hindu'. Thus, English dominion in India was justified by claiming that it represented a pious mission to `civilize the pagan natives'.
* Aryanism Suppressed - English colonial rule was justified by the rule of `Whites' over `non-Whites'. Accepting the existence of `Aryans' in India would have meant a nullification of this justification, since a sizeable fraction of India's population would be `white' and would not require `white' Anglo-Saxon rule. The submergence of Indo-Aryans as `Hindus' served to suppress this menace to British rule. The early Arya Samajists realised this attempt to subvert the identitiy of Aryans. and staunchly opposed the use of the word `Hindu'; a move equally opposed by the British. By denying `white' status to Indo-Aryans (a fact since proven by genetics). the English justified rule over `non-whites'.
* Rajputism Suppressed - The Rajputs are descendants of the Scythians, Greeks, and other immigrants who entered India just prior to the rise of the Indo-Islamic Caliphate of Delhi. Throughout their history they followed their Solar religions (`saura' cults), independant of any Aryan Vaishnavite Brahmans. Yet the invention of Hinduism served to subvert Saura religion as well.
* Smarta Subversion - The creation of Hinduism suited the Smartas (Advaitins) most of all, since their religion was defined in terms of giving equal worship to 5 major gods of India, as well as a whole host of others. It remained a very minor religion in India, having been propagated only by Sankaracharya and being localised mainly in Kerala. The overwhelming majority of Hindus were (and still are) Vaishnavites (more than 75 %). However, the definition of `Hinduism' was essentially Smarta, and by propagating `Hinduism' the Smartas hoped to submerge their old rivals the Vaishnavites.

Noted Sikh author G.S.Khalsa has amply pointed out the manner in which Hinduism was invented :

" The Brahmanists came to power on the Congress elephant by deviously converting the pre-independence political debate and struggle into a communal Hindu-Muslim religious struggle. This was made possible by the master stroke of Mahatama Gandhi - the Hindu nationalist cum holy sadhu who made "Hindus" a 55% majority on paper in the 1920s upon getting the Dalits or "untouchables" (20%) dubbed as "Hindus" by the British. This coup moved the "Hindus" from 35% to a 55% majority in British India. In pre-independence India, Muslims were 25%, Sikhs/Christians/Buddhists/tribals/etc. formed the remaining 20%. This action, along with recognition of Congress as the sole political representative of all Indians in national matters, was a payoff by the British colonial authorities to the Brahmanist lead Congress and Gandhi for loyal services rendered to Queen and empire in supporting their WWI war effort; recruiting the "martial" communities (e.g. Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gujars of Saka-origin) of the northwest and Muslims to go fight for the British Empire in Europe/middle east; subduing, opposing, infiltrating and sabotaging other non-Congress/non-Brahmanist lead political parties and independence movements organized at home (who saw British weakness during the war as an ideal opportunity). The 55% fraudulent "Hindu pile" was little more than a political game of Brahmanist politicians and political parties in Delhi while caste Hindus would not eat/touch/marry/socialize or even worship with their "polluted" Dalits (20% untouchables) in the 1920s. After this "victory on paper", Brahmanist politicians, political parties, and organizations totally communalized pre-independence politics along "Hindu/Muslim" religious lines of "nationhood" to get on the road to empire and Delhi. "
-- [ Khals ]

Indeed, Encyclopedia Britannica accepts that `Hinduism' is a blanket term covering several religions and does not refer to a single religion :



" Hinduism is both a civilization and a congregation of religions ; it has neither a beginning nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or organization. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has prvoed unsatisfactory in one way or antoher."
-- [ EB.20 `Hinduism' 519-520 ]

Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [ 7 ]. It has no organization, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognized jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu.
5.6 Invention of Sanatana Dharma by Smartas
Subsequent to the invention of Hinduism the followers of the different Indian religions realised that the word `Hindu' and `The Religion of Hinduism' were English inventions. This caused much embarassment, and many Vaishnavites, Shavites etc, declared that they were followers of different religions, which they actually are. Had this process reached its full development, there would have been no problem. However, some Smartas and other vested interests attempted to preserve the superficial unity which the English creation of Hinduism had given. Hence, the English concept of `Hinduism' was renamed as `Sanatana Dharma' in order to fabricate a Sanskritic name for the concept. The word `Sanatana' was created in sometime in the 19th century as an attempt to replace the foreign word `Hindu'.

The non-Muslim people of the South Asian subcontinent called Hindu had no precise word for their religions [ Land ]. They were, as they are, divided into thousands of communities and tribes, each having its own religious beliefs, rituals, modes of worship, etc.

The Smarta religion arose "by the 7th century, when the Smartas inistituted their worship of 5 deities, omitting Brahma, he had lost all claims as a superior diety. " [ EB 2.460 ]

" The people called Hindu have nothing common in their religious affairs. 'Hinduism', therefore, cannot give any precise idea as to what it means. Attempts were made to define the term but could not succeed. "
-- [ Basic ]

To summarise, realising that Hinduism was in fact an English invention; this circumstance becoming widely known and the cause of much satire on `Hinduism' and its English invention, the Brahmin Vaishnavas invented the term `Sanatana Dharma' in order to counter these difficulties :

" Faced with this dilemma, Hindu scholars sometime use the word Sanatan Dharma (eternal religion) and sometime Vedic Dharma (religion of the Veda), etc. for their religion. But as names of their religion, these words are also untenable as they do not imply anything precise for all the people called Hindu."

[Guest]

Check out the latest expose on <b>Steve Farmer</b>.

http://www.sabha.info/4mreport.html#1
http://www.sabha.info/4mreport.html#4

From page 337 of Steve Farmer's PhD dissertation submitted in Sep 1977:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Those who would see "a new proposition for European man" in the last part of this thesis should first note well <b>God's words to man in Genesis 1:28</b>: "And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

"God's words to man" indeed. This "thesis" sounds more like a repository of Bible-thumping "procreationist" bilge!

And there's more:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We cannot, unfortunately, reconstruct the more complicated arguments, perhaps involving detailed numerical calculations, which Pico planned to use in answering <b>more involved questions, such as determining the date of the end of the world.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

"More involved questions". Indeed. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->

And this one takes the cake:

Here is more from "Asst. to the Professor" Steve Farmer's PhD thesis - <b>two is an evil number</b>!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Jerome tells us that the number two is an "evil" number</b>, a fact he uses to explain why on the second day of Creation we are not told "And God saw that it was good." In the properties of this <b>malevolent number</b> Jerome also . . .
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This pretty much clinches the issue!

[Guest]

Oh! Steve Farmer is a bible thumper. No surprise why he is after Hinduism and hate Hindus.

[Guest]

Vernaculars (des'i) and Sanskrit

[Guest]

Vijay
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.sabha.info/4mreport.html#1
http://www.sabha.info/4mreport.html#4
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That expo on Witzel's lackey Farmer is a dynamite!! <!--emo&:blow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now wonder this guy is anti-Hindu.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is more from "Asst. to the Professor" Steve Farmer's PhD thesis - two is an evil number!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That expose should stop Farmer's number two for a while now. Milk of Magnesia sales in California to go up <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

PS Mods: If this is out of line, feel free to delete.

------------------


Steve,

This afternoon at about 12:45PM, I posted two messages in your Indo-Eurasian_research forum. I registered with my own last name and my full name was embedded in the email ID.

First message was in response to you earlier claim about VF.

Here is my full post:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->

--- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com, Steve Farmer <saf@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
> Here's another weekend post -- and very timely at that.
>
> Remember the Vedic Foundation's webpage on the dates of when the
> "Aryans" arrived in India -- 1.972 billion years ago?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/du4kq

There is NOTHING about "Aryans" arriving in India in the webpage you
linked.

>
> Just the people you'd want to edit history textbooks.
>
> Yesterday someone pointed out to me that Ramesh Rao, who sits on the
> Executive Council of and is often a spokesperson of the Hindu American
> Foundation, has written a defense of those dates. It turns  that these
> claims were meant by the VF _symbolically_, not _literally_ -- hiding
> depths of meaning beyond the comprehension of Western historians (but
> not physicists).
>
> http://www.indiareacts.com/columns/full_column18.htm

I think you are confusing Hinduism  with prophetic religions. We do
not have a "book" that we take literally. That is why, you dont see
any schools of creationism or intelligent design in Hindusim.

That date, as Ramesh Rao explainded, cannot  be taken literally. It is
something that is derived from tradition.

>
> I wonder if the Vedic Foundations proposed edits to California
> textbooks -- their Master Document submitted to the Board claimed that
> the Mauryan Dynasty and the historical "Buddh" (sic) lived in the first
> half of the second millennium BCE -- were also "symbolic"? If so, why
> didn't they tell the Board of Education and put that in the edits?
>
> Read their denunciation of claims that the Mauryan dynasty came after
> the time of Alexander the Great; their dating here of the Dynasty
> doesn't look very symbolic to me:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rsw9w

Lets be fair and ask the question, "what evidence exists to prove that
Chandragupta Maurya is contemporary of  Alexander?

Any thoughts, Steve?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

To my surprise, you labeled me , mocked me, all withing 45 minutes:

Lets see what you said:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasia...ch/message/3329

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here are a few choice bits of an unsigned note (which we don't ever
release straight to the List) of someone who joined the List this
morning to send us a series of obnoxious posts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What is obnoxious about my post?

BTW, my second post was addressed to you and Witzel asked for a full transcript of VH suggested revisions.

I challendge you Steve, to come here and explain us about dating of Chandragupta Maurya.

[Guest]

Just for the record, here is Steve Farmer's slanderous post in full:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear List,

Our Hindutva mail bag once again overfloweth. Michael and I spare the
List most of it, but sometimes a beauty is sent to the List that is
worth sharing, at least in part.

Here are a few choice bits of an unsigned note (which we don't ever
release straight to the List) of someone who joined the List this
morning to send us a series of obnoxious posts.

Thewriter begins:

> --- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com, Steve Farmer <saf@...
> wrote:

>> Remember the Vedic Foundation's webpage on the dates of when the
>> "Aryans" arrived in India -- 1.972 billion years ago?
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/du4kq

Our anonymous poster responds:

> There is NOTHING about "Aryans" arriving in India in the webpage you
> linked.

The Vedic Foundation webpage tells us that the "Aryans were the
original Indian race" and further that "Indian Civilization has
unceasingly existed for 1,972 million years as the fully develolped
Ganges civilization," so I guess I did make an umwarranted inference
here. I guess they arose from spontaneous generation from the loins of
Mother India without entering from evil foreign parts.

One more gem from the same note, defending VF claims of second
millennium dates for the Mauryan dynasty, including Ashoka:

> Lets be fair and ask the question, "what evidence exists to prove that
> Chandragupta Maurya is contemporary of  Alexander?

Right, Chandragupta belongs back there in the first half of the second
millennium with Ashoka and the "Buddh", as the Vedic Foundation tells
us.

You can see why posts like this normally get a quick "delete".

Steve<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Haven't you heard? Farmer has been exaggerating that his brain is operating at 1/4th it's capacity. You'd have a unfair advantage Aarya.

http://irffanclub.blogspot.com/2006/03/aph...missing-in.html

[Guest]

When the going gets tough..the tough heads to latrine <!--emo&:bcow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_cowboy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_cowboy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/Steve_Farmer_running_away_001.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[Guest]

Sent him an email challenging him to come here and respond. Here is his response.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->--- Steve Farmer <saf@safarmer.com> wrote:

I don't know who you are, but ours is a List predominantly populated by
professional researchers. Read the List posting rules, as every Member
is asked, and you'll find that posts like yours are excluded.

On Monday, March 20, 2006, at 11:29  AM,  me wrote:


> Since you chose to call me names and censor me, I
> herein challenge you to come and debate me in an open
> forum.
>
> http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index....topic=1216
>
><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

My response:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Steve,

I read the rules. There is nothing that precludes my
posts. May be you can point me out the correct rule.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No reply from Steve.

Steve, If you are lurking around, prove that you are really worthy of Doctrate. YOu dont have to prove me wrong, just answer my questions like a legitimate researcher.

Can you do that, Steve?