About The Name "Hindu"
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm
By Stephen Knapp
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words âHinduâ
and âHinduism.â The fact is that true âHinduismâ is based on Vedic knowledge,
which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an identity is beyond any
temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God
never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is
only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the
greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only
as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary
designations. So am I calling the name âHinduâ a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term âhinduâ is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars
say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly
represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is
no basis for âHinduism.â
Most scholars feel that the name âHinduâ was developed by outsiders, invaders
who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources
report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the
Indu, dropping the beginning âSâ, thus making it easier for the Greeks to
pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India
around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the
Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and
Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name
âHinduâ was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the
northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the
region itself was called âHindustan.â Because the Sanskrit sound of âSâ converts
to âHâ in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as âhindu,â
even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name âhinduâ
themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people
and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians
conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu
and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place
value on it or now use it out of convenience.
Another view of the name âHinduâ shows the confusing nature it causes for
understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written be R.
N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in
1952), âThe political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25
centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation
and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to
trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and
therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term
âHinduâ. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our
Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political
power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The
word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means âthe
black of the skyâ and âSaturnâ. In the Arabic lan
guage Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read
all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people
of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.â
--------------------
Article:
About The Name "Hindu"
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm
By Stephen Knapp
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words âHinduâ
and âHinduism.â The fact is that true âHinduismâ is based on Vedic knowledge,
which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an identity is beyond any
temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God
never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is
only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the
greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only
as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary
designations. So am I calling the name âHinduâ a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term âhinduâ is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars
say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly
represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is
no basis for âHinduism.â
Most scholars feel that the name âHinduâ was developed by outsiders, invaders
who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources
report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the
Indu, dropping the beginning âSâ, thus making it easier for the Greeks to
pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India
around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the
Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and
Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name
âHinduâ was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the
northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the
region itself was called âHindustan.â Because the Sanskrit sound of âSâ converts
to âHâ in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as âhindu,â
even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name âhinduâ
themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people
and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians
conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu
and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place
value on it or now use it out of convenience.
Another view of the name âHinduâ shows the confusing nature it causes for
understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written be R.
N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in
1952), âThe political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25
centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation
and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to
trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and
therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term
âHinduâ. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our
Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political
power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The
word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means âthe
black of the skyâ and âSaturnâ. In the Arabic lan
guage Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read
all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people
of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.â
Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a
derogatory meaning. It is said that, âMoreover, it is correct that this name
[Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim
invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave,
and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as
slaves.â (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat
Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the Introduction)
Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,
published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as âchore
[thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].â In another
dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the
word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), siafaam (balck
color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory
expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the
people of India.
So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that
became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand
that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the
true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that
was called âHinduismâ until the Indian
people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.
The real confusion started when the name âHinduismâ was used to
indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the words âHinduâ and
âHinduismâ was used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the
religious differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as
âHindusâ. This was done with the rather successful intention of creating
friction among the people of India. This was in accord with the British policy
of divide and rule to make it easier for their continued dominion over the
country.
However, we should mention that others who try to justify the word
âHinduâ present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also
called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The
following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the
Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still waiting to learn the
exact location where we can find this verse:
Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah
Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram
vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru
bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.
Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of
Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her
motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have the real
and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. âBhoomiâ (or
Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha,
which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas,
Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as
Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan.
Another couple of references that are used, though the exact
location of which I am not sure, includes the following:
Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe
Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla
devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu
These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the
Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that all
Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of course, not
everyone is going to agree with that.
Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as the
country of âSapta Sindhuâ, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of
course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes
from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the word âSindhuâ refers
to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific river called âSindhuâ.
Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit, according to ancient
dictionaries, âsaâ was pronounced as âhaâ. Thus âSapta Sindhuâ was pronounced as
âHapta Hinduâ. So this is how the word âHinduâ is supposed to have come into
being. It is also said that the ancient Persians referred to Bharat as âHapta
Hindâ, as recorded in their ancient classic âBem Riyadhâ. So this is another
reason why some scholars came to believe that the word âHinduâ had its origin in
Persia.
Another theory is that the name âHinduâ does not even come from the
name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. âThis
[Sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably ranked
highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not have been
without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to be discovered,
identified and Christened by foreigners.â He cites an argument from the book
Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of
an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana
known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this
verse:
himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah
Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing, but
Kumar translates it as: âThe country lying between the Himalayan mountains and
Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the
first letter âhiâ of âHimalayaâ and the last compound letter ânduâ of the word
âBindu.ââ
This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name âHinduâ,
indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this area are thus known as
âHindusâ.
So again, in any way these theories may present their information,
and in any way you look at it, the name âHinduâ started simply as a bodily and
regional designation. The name âHinduâ refers to a location and its people and
originally had nothing to do with the philosophies or religion of the people,
which could certainly change from one thing to another. It is like saying that
all people from India are Indians. Sure, that is acceptable as a name referring
to a location, but what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are
known by numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus,
they are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system
already object to calling themselves by that name. So âHinduâ is not the most
appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of sanatana-dharma
is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians and their early
history is Vedic culture. So it is more appropriate to
use a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than a
name that merely addresses the location of a people.
Unfortunately, the word âHinduâ has gradually been adopted by most
everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general way, so
much so, in fact, that now âHinduismâ is often used to describe anything from
religious activities to even Indian social or nationalistic events. Some of
these so-called âHinduâ events are not endorsed in the Vedic literature, and,
therefore, must be considered non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call
themselves a âHinduâ and still be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor
can any activity casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be
considered a part of the true Vedic culture.
Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called
sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the soul in
its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of sugar is to be sweet,
this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then it is not sugar. Or the
dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If it does
not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a particular dharma
or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or eternal. It does not change. So
there is the state of dharma and the path of dharma. Following the principles of
sanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining our forgotten
relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge
of the Vedas and all Vedic literature, such as Lord Krishnaâs message in
Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not
limited to only âHindusâ who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or
family of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As
everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as described
according to the principles of sanatana-dharma, then everyone should be given
the right and privilege to understand this knowledge. It cannot be held for an
exclusive group of people.
Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual philosophy
that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less
philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is a
âuniversal spiritual truthâ which can be applied by all people, in any part of
the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is eternal.
Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all time and worldly
designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of Vedic wisdom and is more
than what the name âHinduâ implies, especially after understanding from where
the name comes.
Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga
after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hinduism (as
we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth, there will still be
the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and universal truth, even if such
truths may be forgotten and must be re-established again in this world by Lord
Krishna Himself. I doubt then that He will use the name âHindu.â He certainly
said nothing of the sort when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.
Thus, although I do not feel that âHinduâ is a proper term to
represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time
to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part
of everyoneâs vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of
sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use
the label of âHinduâ and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic
path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus begin to use this term
sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology,
but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of
the Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even dharmists,
both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.
