History Of Indian Places

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 12-19-2008, 02:06 PM by Bodhi.)

Husky,

A few things need to be understood:

1. Irrespective all the debate on direction of migration, what is clear is this: Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean") -- was indeed the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period. Evidence is in the older parts of the R^igveda samhitA itself. Above tag was in exclusive use of one particular "tribe", and only later acquired the other meaning of "Noble".

2. Later, many desha-s ("Countries", which too is harmless, so don't get alarmed) of jambUdvIpa where a particular tribe was dominant, the country acquired its name from that dominant tribe. "Andhra" was one such tribe that gave name to the Andhra country. likewise are the names gujarAta, kamboja, kerala, karNATaka and so on. Of course the best understood example can be the most recent of such event - Assam gets its name from Ahoms who migrated as late as last 500 years back or so from east.

3. the tribe names also gave birth to "loaded" words added later in saMskR^ita. Like:
Arya = "Noble";
anArya = "not noble"
dasyu (ethnically some non-Arya tribes, well documented) = thief;
chaura/chora (from choLa) = thief; -- this one is at times disputed too, but has strong literary support.
mlechCha (another non-Arya ethnicity) = foreigner, but later on very much used in a demeaning sense;
yavana (originally an indegenous ethnicity) = greek/foreigner, later on also moslems; in late works used with anger and demeaningly;
comparable with angrez or firangI, harmlessly derived from 'Angles' and 'Frank' respectively; but today not used without somewhat negative sense.

likewise the other side of the picture:
ari (derived from Arya too) = enemy;
sura/asura becoming epithets to address the other by Indo-Iranian people;

4. all of the above in far ancient history only. So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'. Of course if you meant by that term a civilization, then thats might be accurate enough, although might confuse some with a set of religious practice/belief.

5. There was of course a sustained migration of North Indians into south, in old past. This is irrespective of AIT/OIT etc.

6. "draviDa" is a well accepted historic term applied to an ethnicity, and related with words such as Damila, damila and tamiLa etc. All these words were broadly used in our literature. This too of course comprised many tribes in it, but the non draviDa-s often referred to these people as a consolidated draviDa. I see no problem in using the harmless word 'draviDa' for that particular ethnicity.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2008, 09:42 AM by Husky.)

The easy bit:
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)2. Later, many desha-s ("Countries", which too is harmless, so don't get alarmed)[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]Yes, I know what desha means. And am not alarmed at all. It is an entirely inoffensive, indeed neutral, word.
But Desi has connotations and therefore does not merely mean someone from "Bharatadesha" as it should have. You will allow that desha and desi are not the same, even if one was originally intended as no more than a mere derivative of the other.

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)2. Later, many desha-s [...] of jambUdvIpa where a particular tribe was dominant, the country acquired its name from that dominant tribe.Â "Andhra" was one such tribe that gave name to the Andhra country.Â likewise are the names gujarAta, kamboja, kerala, karNATaka and so on.Â Of course the best understood example can be the most recent of such event - Assam gets its name from Ahoms who migrated as late as last 500 years back or so from east.[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]Sure, that is what I meant with reference to the many tribes giving their names to various southern regions of Bharatam. And it is what I thought was the case when it came to Andhra Pradesh, but was not entirely sure. Thanks for the confirmation.

The messy bit:
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 18 2008, 07:01 PM)Husky,

A few things need to be understood:

1. Irrespective all the debate on direction of migration, what is clear is this: Arya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean") -- was indeed the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period.Â Evidence is in the older parts of the R^igveda samhitA itself.Â Above tag was in exclusive use of one particular "tribe", and only later acquired the other meaning of "Noble".[right][snapback]91966[/snapback][/right]I know the present meaning of Arya and also what it meant in earlier and later Vedic literature.

But this line is factually wrong:
QUOTEArya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean")Aryan in English/European languages does *not* mean the same as the old Vedic Hindu tribe's self-designation.
- Aryan (arisch in German) means Indo-European and nothing less. It presupposes PIE, European genes, Urheimat and everything else. So No, it does not mean the same as "the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period".
- Arya is what the Indian tribe used and what you mean with "the name of an ethnicity ("tribe") during vedic and near post-vedic period".

You must see the difference: one is a recent and alien theoretical construct ('Indo-European'), the other was its actual meaning in ancient Hindu literature - the Vedas. The two are not the same: Arya, as the ancient Hindus of the Vedic period of the designated part of Bharatam defined it, does not and never referred to the same thing as the Aryan/Indo-European of recent western envisioning.

This is also why the following post didn't make sense to me:
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)Indo-European ==> bhAropIya
Proto-IE ==> prAk-bhAropIya
Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya
[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]For the first line, the western argument is: "Indo-European ==> Aryan"
Do you not see that there is no need for you to coin an equivalent phrase for this, when the western argument implies that the term is supposedly already there in our literature (in the meaning they read it as).

QUOTE4. all of the above in far ancient history only. So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'. Vedas and pre-Vedic period (as far as is covered or referred to by the Puranas at the least, there are also folk traditions that cover these periods) are all Hindu. And the Mahabharatam era, which comes after, is too.
QUOTEBesides Bharata, who, as will be hereafter seen, was the son of Dushyanta, the VÃ¡yu, Matsya, Agni, and BrÃ¡hma PurÃ¡nÌas enumerate several descendants in this line, for the purpose evidently of introducing, as the posterity of Turvasu, the nations of the south of India: the series is Varuttha, (Karutthama, BrÃ¡hma), ÃndÃra (ÃkrÃra, BrÃ¡hma); whose sons are PÃ¡nÌdÌya, KarnÌÃ¡tÌa, Chola, Kerala; the Hari V. adds Kola, and the Agni very incorrectly GandhÃ¡ra.Oh dear, why do I feel a debate on the 'definition of Hinduism' (alien dialogue) is coming up. (Possibly with Hindus repeating the recent western and christian argument for how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>.... ) If it's okay with you, I'll nod in stupid acquiescence in advance if this will let me off. I've heard it and all its variants before - not from Hindus I confess, but nothing surprises me anymore.

Still on the "So dont use the terms that don't apply to that period, e.g. 'Hindu'" statement.
In any case, can't use 'Bharatam' related stuff in the following, since it most particularly does not apply to the pre-Indo-Aryan (and pre-Bharata) period - as Indo-European studies would have this.
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)Indo-European ==> bhAropIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]Not the case, because when the Indo-Europeans were in their Urheimat - as per IE theory - there was no Bharata and therefore no Bharatavarsha yet.QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)Proto-IE ==> prAk-bhAropIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]Again, most certainly no Bharata and therefore no Bharatam in the even earlier "Proto-IE" period, as per IE theory.
QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]In IE Studies' theory, Indo-Iranian does not mean the time the Bharatas were in argument with certain related Vedic tribes who eventually went off to Iran, but refers to a hypothetical time of a single "Indo-Iranian" population poised to people both Iran and India by eventually splitting either from Iran into Afghanistan and then to India, or from Afghanistan into Iran and India, or from outside into these three regions/countries.

Also, wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 12-19-2008, 09:07 PM by Bodhi.)

QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)it is what I thought was the case when it came to Andhra Pradesh, but was not entirely sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]


Since you are referring to the modern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, I must submit that this was not very precise name for the state. Historical and famous "Andhra" is only one part of this modern state of "Andhra Pradesh". A better name could have been "telugu-desham" for this state. The regions north of godAvarI, although telugu-speakers, are not Andhrites of history. In fact if you review the events of 1956, these folks of Telangana had protested against the name of "Andhra" being applied to the whole state - an event which just went into the footnotes of course, since Andhra was anyways the most dominant region in the "telugu-desham".

QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)But this line is factually wrong:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEArya (Anglicized as "Aryan", just like very harmless "Mongolian", and "Tibetean")Aryan in English/European languages does *not* mean the same as the old Vedic Hindu tribe's self-designation.
- Aryan (arisch in German) means Indo-European and nothing less. ...
You must see the difference... the two are not the same...
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
</div>

The reference of "Aryan" in the original post of that writer had nothing to do with Indo-European etc. It was about the southward expansion of these people calling themselves Arya-s.

Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc? (Then to make it consistent, people should also not call the tamil-speaking people in English as "Tamilian"?)

I have no issues with it, if it is acceptable and gains currency. In fact I like the proposal.

QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)This is also why the following post didn't make sense to me:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Nov 9 2008, 12:06 AM)Indo-European ==> bhAropIya
Proto-IE ==> prAk-bhAropIya
Indo-Iranian ==> bhAratpArasIya
[right][snapback]89922[/snapback][/right]For the first line, the western argument is: "Indo-European ==> Aryan"
Do you not see that there is no need for you to coin an equivalent phrase for this, when the western argument implies that the term is supposedly already there in our literature (in the meaning they read it as).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]
</div>

When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan"). Now I know next you would probably say there is no such thing as IE/IR etc group of languages and the language families is a con job.

And by the way I did not coin these words. These words were coined by early Indian linguists such as P D Gune etc. I only reproduced those here.

In fact this point you raised is symptomic of what we are missing. We are missing our own, native scholoarship in the history of our own languages, both current and classical, as well as foreign. So we dont even care to have technical words in currency as we are much engaged in 'responding the wily Indologist'.

QUOTEIn any case, can't use 'Bharatam' related stuff in the following, since it most particularly does not apply to the pre-Indo-Aryan (and pre-Bharata) period - as Indo-European studies would have this.

You have a point there. But still "Bharat" is only as valid or invalid as "India" or "Europe" or "Iran" when used in referring to a group of languages - both currently spoken as well classical. Please suggest if you have a better term to describe these.

QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)Oh dear, why do I feel a debate on the 'definition of Hinduism' (alien dialogue) is coming up. (Possibly with Hindus repeating the recent western and christian argument for how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>.... ) If it's okay with you, I'll nod in stupid acquiescence in advance if this will let me off. I've heard it and all its variants before - not from Hindus I confess, but nothing surprises me anymore.
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]


I understand your frustration, but not its cause.

As long as one says that "Hindu is one who follows Hindusim" and "Hinduism is a religion that is followed by a Hindu", due to the circular logic the confusion would remain.

While "Hindu" is a rather accurate term, even though also of foreign origin, but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism" (by the way, this word is also an equally recent gift by the very same people who invented the Aryan Invasion etc.)

On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]


Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?

Bharatvarsh · 12-20-2008, 12:04 AM

QUOTEA better name could have been "telugu-desham" for this state.
dEsam is usually used to mean a separate country in Telugu, naadu would be the more appropriate term and is used for both a separate country and a certain region as in palnaadu. So Telugunaadu would have been the most appropriate term.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-24-2008, 05:36 PM by Husky.)

Bodhi, your statements from #63 in blue since otherwise the quoteblocks break.

The reference of "Aryan" in the original post of that writer had nothing to do with Indo-European etc. It was about the southward expansion of these people calling themselves Arya-s.
Then he should have used Aryas not Aryans. Aryans is an English word with a particular meaning. He can't give it another meaning that it doesn't have. It's like if he decided to translate Jagganath with "Juggernaut" when communicating in English, merely because the latter came into English from the former (even though it has an entirely different meaning).

Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc?
Aryas.

Now, if an Indian speaking in english has to refer to those people, how do you propose should he refer to them? "Arya"/"Arya-s" etc? (Then to make it consistent, people should also not call the tamil-speaking people in English as "Tamilian"?)
"Tamilian" in English can mean only one thing, it is not ambiguous. There is no similar-sounding word in Tamil that means one thing and another in English that means something significantly different.

While Aryan has only one meaning too (=Indo-European), it is not the same as Arya. First para again: while it looks, sounds and is in fact derived from the Samskrita word "Arya" - just as Juggernaut is derived from Jagganath - it has a different meaning entirely.

"Aryan" (Indo-European) is not, going by what you say, what the person in your earlier post meant. According to you, he meant to use Arya the Vedic Hindu tribe. If he pluralises the word, then it loses more of its ambiguity (less likely to mean merely "noble" and rather more specifically refers to the Vedic Hindu tribe).

If he meant Arya and not Aryan, he should use the former and not the latter. While Indians often tend to presume the meaning of English words and then misuse it (I do this regularly too) - for example, many Indians think that "homely" means home-maker/looking after the home, instead of what it *actually* means in English (homely means plain and downright ugly) - this can have very bad side-effects. The accidental wrong use of words - such as those that end up involving Indo-European Studies where it is not really pertinent - adds a controversial tinge to cases that have none, and in this case tie unrelated matters into IE.

When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan").
If the need arose, then Indo is an Indian-derived word. It may be found to suffice.

Now I know next you would probably say there is no such thing as IE/IR etc group of languages and the language families is a con job.
There's no need to attempt to speak for me, particularly when your predictions are wrong. I had no intention of bringing the tiresome matter up again. But since you have, and since you have tried to give my opinion on it but done so incorrectly, here is my view on the matter:

Lincoln, Trubetskoy and whoever says there is as yet no need to accept that IE languages are supported by the historical record/have a historical basis/basis underpinned by reality rather than mere convenient linguistic taxonomy (even if we were to continue to use the classification scheme today for whatever purposes). Going by their summary of the (non)'evidence' for any historical validation of the classification, I find I merely concur.

As for "con job": that these theories have and continue to be used to deceive and manipulate people with regard to their own populations and others is certainly true as well, as again noted by Lincoln and Arvidsson too (<-referencing them, since, when does my opinion matter?). But this is an issue that stands separate from this discussion.

And by the way I did not coin these words. These words were coined by early Indian linguists such as P D Gune etc. I only reproduced those here.
Okay. While my comments on them remain the same, they are to be redirected.

In fact this point you raised is symptomic of what we are missing. We are missing our own, native scholoarship in the history of our own languages, both current and classical, as well as foreign. So we dont even care to have technical words in currency as we are much engaged in 'responding the wily Indologist'.
Sure, native scholarship, fine. But native scholarship hopefully does not *merely* consist of transplanting - through translating - the current dominant (and non-native) discourse/view on it.

And in those cases where people do find a use for translating the western view on the "history of Indian languages", then, with equal interest, Hindus may find it expedient to translate the other, alternative theories laid down by Trubetskoy, for instance. And Lincoln's and Arvidsson's writings too. And of course Dr Kalyanaraman's writings on Bharatiya Languages.

Actually, I did not know that India's Samskritam speakers were clamouring for a translation of all the works of IE Studies, or even for a written/oral dialogue in Samskritam on these matters. English is, I thought, a sufficient language to discuss, review and write-up matters that are originally non-native assertions (as per Lincoln etcetera, these are still no more than assertions at present). Save translation efforts for literature, mainstream science, and works of cinematic arts of other languages and nations - that is, for such materials as will interest and inspire a greater audience. For example, translations of the Tao Te Ching, Kalevala, dubs of Japanese films, translations of indigenous works, useful reference books, oh I don't know.

You have a point there. But still "Bharat" is only as valid or invalid as "India" or "Europe" or "Iran" when used in referring to a group of languages - both currently spoken as well classical. Please suggest if you have a better term to describe these.
As I said, I see no need to translate the "Indo" in Indo-European. It has the added benefit of also intimating the non-indigenous twist.

While "Hindu" is a rather accurate term, even though also of foreign origin,
I have not seen it absolutely proven that the word 'Hindu' is in fact of foreign origin. And I have seen the case made for it being of indigenous origin. An example is somewhere on Dr Kalyanaraman's pages. Here:
http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf
Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja

but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism" (by the way, this word is also an equally recent gift by the very same people who invented the Aryan Invasion etc.)
Which is why I called it "Hinduism" only in the context of the "recent western and christian argument" on how the "Vedic religion" is separate and how "Hinduism is ...<familiar old sermons>....". See my #62

I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.

but I just don't know what should be called "Hinduism"
And
As long as one says that "Hindu is one who follows Hindusim" and "Hinduism is a religion that is followed by a Hindu", due to the circular logic the confusion would remain.
Many declare their understanding on what the definition of the Hindu religion is. Mine is rather terribly simple and probably will be in conflict with everyone else's, although I (obviously) don't see that I am wrong. This will keep for some other occasion. But I am not at a loss as to what Hindu Dharma is. To me it is well-defined, which is why I know clearly that I am a member of it.

But when exactly Hindu Dharma "started" I'd define as the first time the first creature in the region encompassed by Bharatavarsha interacted with a Hindu God (or rather vice-versa) <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> This also includes the first time such a creature addressed a Hindu God like in poetic verses or in prose. And regional Hindu folk traditions, Puranas, Vedas - all mention instances of this.

Such a definition for beginnings of a noticeable "Hindu Dharma" is not unique to me. While the history of the Tao (specifically the force that is called the Tao and not the entire tradition that includes knowledge of the Tao) is dated to the time when the Yellow Emperor gained knowledge of it, the Chinese traditional religion that the west calls "Taoism" actually encompasses more than merely the Tao whose main aspects were later recorded by Lao Tse. The Chinese traditionalists of Taiwan and China date their religion by their Gods - that is, it is Eternal (Sanatana). They say that their Gods, whom the people knew of before the Tao, knew eternally of this wisdom and it was through their Gods' benevolence that the Tao came down to mankind in the reign of the Yellow Emperor. Ancient China already had their Gods. So the Yellow Emperor's period does not mark the beginning of "Taoism" - where this is used to refer to the traditional religion of China - since at that time their Gods were already well-established in people's ken.

Meanwhile, the west dates "Taoism" to Lao Tse's written work on it, which they say is around the 6th-4th BCE I think it was. The west also dates Jaina tradition to about 6th or 5th BCE - the time of the *last* Tirtankara, Mahavira, instead of the first <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' />

On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]I don't follow in what context I am to be reminded of this.

Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?
Bodhi, if you insist on speaking for me, you are free to do so. And with it, also free to carry on producing my side of the dialogue all by yourself. I only wonder that you then seek my confirmation for *your* (moreover incorrect) sketch of what you presume my opinion is.

In my mind I classify Jains as Hindus, and in this Sandhya Jain and numerous older-generation Jains agree. However, until it is universally recognised, I can hardly impose a term on a community if it is disagreeable to a reasonable number among them. My opinion does not matter on this score either. *Theirs* is what matters: whether they identify with and consequently agree to be included under "Hindu".

And who did you mean were "Jains" and who "Hindus" in an earlier newspaper translation you made here. Was this your definition or that of the newspaper or that of the Jains of Jammu making the statement? The next question then: how far do you concur with the implications of that translation/the original?
I ask this - in spite of it being of no moment to me - because it evidently is for you, else you would not have brought it up.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2008, 12:20 PM by Bodhi.)

Husky, I shall follow your scheme then - your comments in blue.

There's no need to attempt to speak for me, particularly when your predictions are wrong. Lincoln, Trubetskoy and whoever .... Going by their summary of the (non)'evidence' for any historical validation of the classification, I find I merely concur.

Husky, this position is not far from what I had anticipated from you. so I was not off the mark. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

But once again, this too I see as symptomic of the tendency of the native scholars of lingustics. They see the whole thing always from the prism of either the AIT or OIT, but never independent of this debate. The debate itself (and trust me, I am not referring to your assertions here, but basis a large number of others i have seen online on DLs), always laced with passion and lacking altogether any evidence or even solid theories; no attempt to learn our classical languages - leave aside prAkR^ita-s and apabhraMsha and pAlI and cHandas, even the plain and simple laukika saMskR^ita too, even the native mother languages of today too. And the folks enter the linguistics-based debates, and of course because they have no language study to themselves, they find it easy to bash the linguistics/philology altogether, or best they would do it drop some obscure names.

Why did you assume IE/IR refers to HISTORICAL connection? Forget history, I am asking how should these current languages that are derived from Latin, Greek, pehlavI and saMskR^ita be referred as? I only hope (against my belief, and in order not to "attempt to speak for you") that you are not going to say that there is no organic connection between them. I was referring of PRESENT, not HISTORY, while the authors you sited speak of past, that too I think in reference to the migration theories or against it.

When someone speaks in Indic languages, say Hindi, and wants to refer to the so-called IE/IR group of languages, I think it is better to use an Indic term. (like we should use word "Arya" and not "Aryan").
If the need arose, then Indo is an Indian-derived word. It may be found to suffice.

But you did not explain why Indics should not use words of their own for this domain, when discussing the subject amongst themselves. Basically, you insist not to translate the foreign words in this domain, in fact you actually insist not to move the medium of this research from being English. And you also presume that native research only means natives joining mlechCha indologuists in doing what they have been doing.

This can be called IE/linguistics-fobia. yes I concede there is ample and justified cause over a sustained period for having resulted in this fobia among Hindus; but as of today, the fobia has set in. (other symptoms of which being: judging the commitment of scholars to Hindu causes on the benchmark of where they stand on AIT/OIT debate - e.g. Dr. K Elst flogging on DLs by hyperactive but hollow "Hindu scholars".)

I have not seen it absolutely proven that the word 'Hindu' is in fact of foreign origin. And I have seen the case made for it being of indigenous origin. Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja

1. But by the evidence sited in this paper itself, The oldest inscriptional evidence of the usage of the term outside India is from 6th century BCE of Iran, and the same inside India is from Asokan inscriptions 3 centuries later. Likewise the literary use of word Hindu is first seen from avestan and greek literature, where none of the indigenous scriptures of BCE use this term to describe ourselves. The reversal of this evidence and suggesting a saurAShTran origin for 'Hindu' without any evidence, falls in the category of 'pleading'.

2. And the point this paper did not make, but is evident, that all the while 'Hindu' described a nationality and not a religious affiliation or bent. Precisely in line with what I said before. This definition of religion might have been added to differenciate the pagans from alien systems/civilizations of christians and mohammedans, and is justified.

So, I am fine with this word Hindu to describe all people of Indic origin and nationality that are not subscribers of the 'alien' religions that imperialistically demand a holy place and prophet and philosophy of non-Indian origin. But I am not fine to then subvert this definition by stating there is some sort of "religion" that goes by the name of Hinduism or even Hindu Dharma or even Sanatana Dharma. Pls. show the pre-colonial evidence for this description/definition.

In fact, this is what is much more important, and is PRECISELY the very accurate definition of Hinduism/Dharma etc:

I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.

"I", the individual Indic, using traditions of my forefathers, define what is my religion, and refer to it as Hindu Dharma, which may be different from someone else defining his own religion and referring by the same name. That may be a more precise "Hindu Dharma".

By the way this statement by writer is very interesting:

In the Avestan Gatha 'Shatir', 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to
the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces
himself saying 'man marde am Hind jijad' 8 - I am man born in 'Hind'. Veda Vyas
was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 B.C.).

First of all, 'veda vyAsa' is not a name but a title, and there are many who are called vyAsa-s. If he is referring to the great savant kR^iShNa dwaipAyana, then that means jaruthaShTra was contemporary of mahAbhArata evenets? Interesting!

And who did you mean were "Jains" and who "Hindus" in an earlier newspaper translation you made here. Was this your definition or that of the newspaper or that of the Jains of Jammu making the statement? The next question then: how far do you concur with the implications of that translation/the original?

of course translation. "Jaina" is indeed a particular religion and philosophy, Hindu is a "civilization" where that religion too arose. So I see the same problem here too.

Bharatvarsh:

QUOTEdEsam is usually used to mean a separate country in Telugu, naadu would be the more appropriate term and is used for both a separate country and a certain region as in palnaadu. So Telugunaadu would have been the most appropriate term.

Yes I agree, and I think this was one of the proposals, Telugunadu.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-24-2008, 05:31 PM by Husky.)

Warning Bodhi: this post is boring not to mention excessively long, though it is the first part of the response. If I were you, I'd go straight on to the next post myself. I find that one more important.

1/2

Husky, this position is not far from what I had anticipated from you. so I was not off the mark.
You predicted my response to be a denial of IE. I corrected you by saying it was no more than (and can be no more than) agnosticism: as things are at present, we know no evidence for PIE or IE people; and IE itself is only *a* plausible classification scheme. Denial and agnosticism are entirely different, you will allow.

(Of course, I insist on the right to make fun of Oryans and Dravidoids: since the ideas have been imposed on me as "facts" when it turns out that they are actually not, I will derive what enjoyment there is to be had of them.)

They (native scholars of linguistics) see the whole thing always from the prism of either the AIT or OIT, but never independent of this debate.
AIT and OIT both presuppose PIE, IE people, Urheimat - that is, they both take the IE-divergence-from-common-root model (which is the dominant model in IE Studies) as a given.

And the folks enter the linguistics-based debates, and of course because they have no language study to themselves, they find it easy to bash the linguistics/philology altogether, or best they would do it drop some obscure names.
I am not sure if the above is an indirect reference to me (unlikely, since elsewhere you address me directly) or someone else. In any case, the above can have nothing to do with me.
If by "obscure names" you mean my mention of Lincoln and those other two - well, the reason for Lincoln's obscurity was explained by Arvidsson: the main body in IE Studies didn't take kindly to his rebellion against the dominant paradigm - both his agnostic position on it as a consequence of his disillusionment and his exposing the earlier hyper-biased entities that were involved in constructing it.

Why did you assume IE/IR refers to HISTORICAL connection? Forget history, I am asking how should these current languages that are derived from Latin, Greek, pehlavI and saMskR^ita be referred as? I only hope (against my belief, and in order not to "attempt to speak for you") that you are not going to say that there is no organic connection between them. I was referring of PRESENT, not HISTORY, while the authors you sited speak of past, that too I think in reference to the migration theories or against it.

1) I have always had the suspicion that L,G,A,S have some connection (I think I had stated this far earlier somewhere on IF. Not going to repeat it.) I do not intend to speculate on the nature of it: since I have not studied any of them, it can be no more than speculation on my part.

2) Organic connection implies historical connection.
Besides, you speak of IE (and IR). There is only one accepted IE model and that is inextricable from a historical context: PIE necessitates a history.

3) Why did you assume IE/IR refers to HISTORICAL connection?
Again, exactly as I said above: because the divergence-from-common-root model is the dominant one of IE Studies; in fact it is the only one that is generally acknowledged. This automatically presupposes a historical connection. And the terms IE and IR are *from* IE Studies and inherit these assumptions. That is, using these phrases invariably means you are stuck with their existing meanings and assumptions.

If it were the case that you solely wish to reconsider Latin, Greek, Avestan and Samskritam together in a separate context of their own, you cannot use the term "Indo-European". It is already taken and has a definite meaning. Using it means you auto-inherit Old Germanic, Norsk, Slavic, Celtic, and the rest. While one might initially think that the L,G,A,S languages can be conveniently referred to with the word "Indo-European", it still does not mean you will be allowed to redefine what "IE" entails. I didn't make these rules. It's just the way things are.
("IndoEuropean" is also misleading in the L,G,A,S case: Ancient Greece and Rome did not know of any "Europe" in the sense we do today, and it is certainly not anything they considered themselves a part of. While 'IndoIranianGrecoRoman' might be a more applicable term for the more limited consideration you seem to propose, I don't envy anyone trying to pronounce it.)

Hmmm. Put it another way. Imagine a tree diagram - named "IE" - depicting the IE language model: all the IE languages are located in their respective branches or leaf nodes in the tree, including the branch labelled IR.
Now, when you say IR or IE, you are not merely talking about some flexible, reusable term "Indo-Iranian" or "IndoEuropean", one that you can use as you see fit and that can then turn out to have a different meaning to you as you discover more.
Instead, by using either of these phrases, you are immediately importing that *entire* diagram into your research, regardless of whether this was your intention or not. The diagram itself is the smallest unit. There is no way to reuse either term and give it a new meaning in a new context of your understanding/your research. You did not invent those words, and you have no say on their meanings. IE Studies does.

4) I was referring of PRESENT, not HISTORY, while the authors you sited speak of past, that too I think in reference to the migration theories or against it.
I've only read the excerpts of the writings of those indologists mentioned (Trubetzkoy, Lincoln, Arvidsson) as posted on or linked to from IF. You can read those excerpts for yourself at
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ajhwbk..._620hs8zfc
Just keep searching the page for all occurrences of Trubetzkoy, then for all of Lincoln, then Arvidsson.
The first two talk about the IE language model itself (and PIE, too, in the case of Trubetzkoy at least and even Lincoln to some extent). They consider the migration theories to be in consequence of the chosen models, and that these models are themselves based on earlier assumptions (PIE/nature of relationship between the languages).

But you did not explain why Indics should not use words of their own for this domain, when discussing the subject amongst themselves. Basically, you insist not to translate the foreign words in this domain, in fact you actually insist not to move the medium of this research from being English.
Re-read. See also a little further below.
You are mistaken. I did not "insist" on anything nor did I advocate people to bar translations.
You can only justifiably accuse me of disinterest and at worst for wanting initial translating efforts/resources directed elsewhere - to topics that interest me more (well, what can anyone expect when I was left to opinionate).

And you also presume that native research only means natives joining mlechCha indologuists in doing what they have been doing.
Absolutely the opposite of what you have attributed to me. Here is what I wrote before:
"Sure, native scholarship, fine. But native scholarship hopefully does not *merely* consist of transplanting - through translating - the current dominant (and non-native) discourse/view on it."

Direct translation of IE and its terms would mean no more than translating the mainstream indologists' position by bringing over their concepts, their view - instead of taking the occasion of a new language medium as an opportunity to start completely fresh.

IMO, as I already wrote you once before, a real indigenous-mounted research into the study of the history of Indian languages would start with:
A1) Presupposing nothing
2) Reviewing all the data from a clean slate with no prior assumptions.
3) Further investigation of new data. Again, no assumptions. Working hypotheses should always be considered modifiable to suit the data, rather than squeezing the data to suit the hypotheses (latter is what IE Studies does at present).

B) Or if they are too lazy and indifferent or even incapable to do all the above, then I guess they could sit around without any opinions either way, waiting for absolute evidence for the claims currently made. That is, exercising the agnostic position that Lincoln suggested. Not what I'd advocate our side do, but since I intend to do no more than B myself (indifferent, lazy, won't be surprised to find I am incapable too were I to bother attempting it), there's little sense in me telling others to put all their effort in.

presume that native research only means joining mlechCha indologuists in doing what they have been doing.
You specifically mentioned IE and IR. If indigenous research were to start off presupposing IE, then I do not see how this is so widely different from the trodden path of indology that you refer to. You spoke of Indic researchers having/needing "words of their own for this domain", but in such a limited case it would be little more than "words of their own for ideas of others". Which is necessary too, but what about this native research also reviewing things to see if it allows other views on the matter to be developed - i.e. the possibility of ideas of our own instead of merely words of our own?
And this is what I referred to, instead of your misreading that I "insisted" we not transplant IE into Indic languages.

(other symptoms of which being: judging the commitment of scholars to Hindu causes on the benchmark of where they stand on AIT/OIT debate - e.g. Dr. K Elst flogging on DLs by hyperactive but hollow "Hindu scholars".)
I have nothing to do with this. Am I expected to respond?

Last time I re-read pages on Elst's site, he was still sympathetic to the possibility of OIT or at least neutral on AIT/OIT. (Though I think he finds Trubetzkoy's maintaining that the divergence model is not a given and Lincoln's "agnostic position" untenable. Elst appears to consider PIE/IE and IE people to be indisputable facts, from what I understand.)

There are different positions on the entire matter:
A) Lincoln arguing for agnosticism on at least the theories that have sprung up as a consequence of PIE, if not PIE itself (though Trubetskoy seemed to argue for not committing to any theory on how the current config of 'IE languages' came to be),
B) Then among those that take PIE and then also IE people as a given:
1) Talageri seems to be for the OIT,
2) Elst looks to be neutral on AIT/OIT but is certainly not closed off to the OIT (what are they faulting him on?) even if he is closed off to A above.
3) and most of the west is for AIT/AMT.

I have always considered it rather a good thing that people have different approaches to this obviously disputed problem (one where none has produced irrefutable evidence of any kind). More and varied approaches means *competition* in arriving at a conclusion: it will require the different sides to prove the strengths and validity of their argument. To the onlooker (me), that just means the promise of a more thorough investigation and more reliable outcome. My interest goes no further than that I want to know *who* committed the murder; am not willing to watch the slow unfolding of how the crime was solved or all the red herrings they chased in between.

Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja [...] The reversal of this evidence and suggesting a saurAShTran origin for 'Hindu' without any evidence, falls in the category of 'pleading'.
1. It's been a while since I read it, but the main points I remember taking from the paper were: that there was also an S->H innovation within Bharatam itself (that is, that it was not an innovation unique to Parsa), and that the 'Hindu' pronunciation for Sindhu need not only have happened among our then-neighbours' Parsa. The paper shows that islamis, instead of inventing the term as is often claimed for them, merely continued using an ancient pre-christoislamic term - one which moreover had found ancient use in India. If the term 'Hindu' itself did not become a self-designation for the entire nation until after the Persians started designating our people that way, then this won't be a problem for most either: "So, the Parshyas came up with it". Perhaps Persia initially named the Indian population such after its first encounter with an Indian community, like IIRC "Greeks" is derived from the western Hellenic tribe Romans knew of.

2. Ah yes, pleading. I don't like pleading either and would ideally see it altogether disallowed. But in the inexact sciences they seem to do a lot of special pleading, and generally everyone seems to get away with it.

An example that comes to mind:
Bernard Sergent is of the opinion that the origins of the practise of Sati in India should be found in some shared IndoEuropean roots, merely because another sort of suicide ritual - where the wife and servants and slaves killed themselves after a prominent man had died - occurred in early Scandinavian/Germanic and Celtic communities. The same Bernard Sergent did not see that the case of early Imperial China doing something rather more similar to the Celtic and Germanic situation than the Sati of India meant there may be no need to resort to IE reasoning behind such things. (Or maybe next they'll find that it "could not have been otherwise" than that the Indo-Europeans introduced this sort of suicide-ritual-after-death-of-head-of-household to China.) Perhaps Sergent merely doesn't know/care about Imperial China altogether due to a myopic view on exclusively "Indo-European things". Who knows.
Whatever be the case, I happen to think that Sergent's suggestion falls under pleading as well. And so do all those people trying to garner sympathy votes for their chosen country to be the Urheimat. Even Indo-Europeans as a people is also pleading since there is still no evidence for them.

It may be that I personally view the matter of pleading in this unforgiving manner because I am not used to any kind of pleading at all in my mini-subfield inside (wannabe) mathematics: something either is so, or it isn't, or it needs further investigation until it is knowable. Guesswork is inadmissable. One certainly isn't allowed to build further uncertainties on it.
But I can be forgiven for thinking that pleading and getting popular votes to elect tangential inferences/theories into Absolute Indubitable Fact was the done thing in (certain) inexact sciences.

This can be called IE/linguistics-fobia.
Others' complaints have no bearing on me though, I don't suffer from either kind of phobia.

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-24-2008, 05:45 PM by Husky.)

^
2/2

If he is referring to the great savant kR^iShNa dwaipAyana, then that means jaruthaShTra was contemporary of mahAbhArata evenets? Interesting!
Perhaps there were several Zarathushtras? Or maybe it is no more than another instance of the west dating all non-christian events very late, or of them trying to fit their AMT/AITs in the required timeframe. Who knows.

To be fair, different Zarathushtrian sites dated their founder variously with several thousand years of separation. The most recent date for him is in those Zarathustrian sites that repeat western assertions. But one of the earliest dates for him was some thousands of years BCE - IIRC it was much earlier than 3000 BCE (I vaguely remember a 6000 or 8000 BCE?).
Yes, here's something pertinent from page 20-21 of the book "Zoroastrianism. An Introduction to an/the (?) ancient faith" by Peter Clark" at Google books
QUOTETravelling west, we find that a number of Greek writers have placed the prophet at the almost inconceivably early time of before 6000 BCE, writers such as Diogenes who reports earlier attempts to place Zarathushtra at, variously 6480 BCE (citing Xanthus of Lydia), 6200 BCE (from Hermodorus). Eudoxus suggests some six thousand years before Plato, which would put him roughly at 6300 BCE. Plutarch, who dates Zarathushtra "five thousand years before the Trojan War" (i.e. at 6200 BCE), gives a recongizable if inaccurate account of the twin spiritsÂ whom he calls "gods":
[...]The ancient Greeks could have had this account from their contemporaneous Mazdeans themselves.
And if the wackypedia is to be consulted, the section now called "Zoroaster in History" that deals with the methods of dating Zarathustra:
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Zarathushtra
QUOTEÂ Â *Â Greek: Based on textual evidence reported in ancient Greece by Plutarch, Plato, Diogenes Laertius, and others.

Â Â Â Â These dates suggest 6,500 BCE to 6,000 BCE and are the dates which members of the Parsi Zoroastrians subscribe.IE Studies finds that Hindus aren't the only ones "entirely wrong" when it comes to the antiquity of their Vedas and Jainas' Tirtankaras: the Zarathushtrians are "all wrong" too (and let's not forget the Chinese). After all, what do we know? Our alien masters - who, after the literate Hellenistic GrecoRoman civilisation was murdered, were first more than 99% illiterate (courtesy of christoism) and then 90-95% illiterate and who, by the start of the 19th century, had scrambled to a very respectable 90% illiteracy - may kindly condescend to tell us.

there are many who are called vyAsa-s.
Yes. And there are many who could later have been named Veda Vyasa (not just Vyasa) by eager parents.

Husky: I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
Bodhi: "I", the individual Indic, using traditions of my forefathers, define what is my religion, and refer to it as Hindu Dharma, which may be different from someone else defining his own religion and referring by the same name. That may be a more precise "Hindu Dharma".
I did not actually provide a definition of Hindu Dharma anywhere in my post. My line "I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion" merely meant to indicate what I'd say if anyone asks me what the name of my religion was.

"Jaina" is indeed a particular religion and philosophy,
Yes? And then what do you say is my particular religion's name? Since we cannot now use "Hindu" all of a sudden. If the Digambaras and Shwetambaras are both called Jainas, then what is the name of the overall group of Dharmics who have since ancient times worshipped our Gods (Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishnavas, Surya-bhaktas, Mahendra-bhaktas, bhaktas of the Vedic Gods, etcetera)? That is, what's the name of the branch encompassing all those streams where any of my Gods are central, because I belong to *that* super-group. There deserves to be a name for that intermediate branch, just like Digambaras belong to the intermediate Jaina branch (before we are all together combined). Until just now, this branch was called "Hindus" by all other Dharmics, by the outside world, certainly by Indian christomedia, all old encyclopaedias and by its own adherents. Therefore until another satisfactory name comes along, we may have to live with the currently assigned/accepted definition for 'Hindu'.

I know it is rather common for different Natural Traditions not to actually have any name for themselves - as is also the case with what the outside world calls China's "Taoists" (because theirs *is* the ancient religion of their region and they needed no name until Buddhism came along; Confucianism was more a social philosophy that in general just sat on top of Taoism). It was rather unfortunate that they were named after the Tao alone, as this term only reveals one aspect of their religion, and that too one not universally adhered to among the Taoist Chinese populace - a disadvantage not dissimilar from ours: people now find it easy to redefine Hindu Dharma as suddenly consisting of several religions instead ("Vedic Religion" and "Hinduism" and whatever else they fancy will make them score cheap sheep).

But having a name is important. For one thing, without it, the terrorists do what they have done to every other unnamed but ancient religious body: "you don't exist, you have no religion, you are a blank waiting to be saved, you have no memory, we plant our flag on you in the name of our gawd" and then the zombie proceeds to stab you with its cross-crescent=instrument of torture.

It is not as if we don't know ourselves, or who we are. We have existed since ancient times: in the essential points of Hindu Dharma (like affinity to our Gods), we are the same as our ancestors were.

HareKrishna · 12-22-2008, 05:01 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 19 2008, 08:44 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)it is what I thought was the case when it came to Andhra Pradesh, but was not entirely sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]


On this, I can only remind the same good advise of yours:
QUOTE(Husky @ Dec 19 2008, 06:41 PM)wish Hindus would give complete thought to what exactly they are legitimising through terminology (language).
[right][snapback]92002[/snapback][/right]


Just curious, those who are "Jains" are not "Hindus" in your definition of the term, yes?
[right][snapback]92005[/snapback][/right]
</div>
This conception of hinduism came from the evolution theory.As everything evolve from simple to complex so was the religion.
First was unga bunga(the misterios invisible presence or force that souround our existence).
Then was the religion of spirits(animism,folk religion).
Then came the religion of gods(olimpian gods,vedic samhitan gods).
In the last came the religion of philosophy and salvation(like bhakti,buddhism,advaita,dvaita,monotheism).
This scheme was used to make a chronological map of hinduism;first whit a primitive hinduism and later whit the more intelectual version.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 12-25-2008, 06:14 PM by Bodhi.)

Husky (67 & 68),

Sorry for delay in response. My reasons of delay in response are comparable to yours .... lack of interest in such boring topic, besides had some other things to attend to.

1. I accept that the term "Aryan" should not be used, since such better terms as "Arya" and "Arya-s" are anyways available to denote what is intended.

2. On the terms IE/Indo-Iran etc.: One can not do without these terms, and there is no replacement around, certainly no native terms available to denote what these mean. Today these are no more any monopoly of AITists. The others who propose OIT have to also rely upon this, incl. S G Talageri. I am not aware of any worthwhile school of thought in mainstream that is suggesting no organic connection between those languages that are called IE, IIr etc. Certainly there is no plausible theory to explain the massive similarity, except that they evolved from a common source. So until that is present, I see no issues using IE/IIr, and in Hindi their translated versions.

3. On term "Hindu". Certainly, this is a well accepted and fairly established name applied to this composite continuum of Indic nation, civilization, culture and traditions. These traditions would of course include the religious traditions too, those of indigenous origin. Beyond this, there can be no particular caveat applied when talking about the Hindu Dharma, e.g. such and such practice, such and such philosophy and such and such traditions are called Hindu Dharma. Which is why I had highlighted what you had writen in your post though not intended it to be a definition, and yet inadvertantly offered a very good way of saying it. Since one follows one's tradition, one calls it Hindu Dharma, even though it might be very different from another Indic following another Indigenous tradition calling that too Hindu Dharma. I hope I am able to convey what I mean, so let me try it differently.

Hindu Dharma is a valid term, but there can be no qualifying definition of this term, either explicit or implicit. No one can/should define this term beyond saying that all the dharma-s that emerge from Hindu civilization (not simply created by Indians, but from the values of Indic civilization, not inimical to these) are Hindu Dharma-s -- comprising in it multiple traditions, drastically different, even conflicting.

But problem comes when, in our mind, we think what we follow is Hindu Dharma and then start creating a structure around it. This has happened only during late Islamic period onwards. Until then the term Hindu was used to define collective Indic civilization. (in fact Arya also).

Now, to illustrate what I mean, let me give you example of this lady from USA who has written some text book on "Hinduism" for NRI kids. (You know her, we had had some interchange with het last year in context of reviewing a chapter of her book. Since then she has completed it). Now, looking at the context of the book, it seems by "Hinduism" what she means is vedAnta, that too of a particular leaning. And it is from that vantage/prism that she sees the whole body of Hindu traditions - even those that have absolutely nothing to do with vedAnta. And she calls it "Hinduism", since she herself beleives in it that way.

This is really symblizes how people commonly define Hinduism / Hindu Dharma etc. "My Dharma" is the Hindu Dharma. Which is not wrong, but only incomplete. One has to understand that there can be, and are, several independent traditions which can have equally just claim at that title. And therefore by calling one religious tradition as Hindu Dharma, we introduce some new problem which did not exist earlier.

One aspect of this new problem is this. This new definition of "Hindu", as a religion, has caused many to cultivate a distance from the term Hindu, particularly the minority traditions of Hindu Dharma-s (like Jains and Sikhs). Although as much a part of Hindu Civilization, since they see the term "Hindu" being claimed as a label for some particular religion different from theirs, they start calling themselves as non-Hindu, which in turn causes many more serious repurcussions. Consider the classical case of RKM, who went up to the courts of law to claim that they are not "Hindu Dharma" (and lost). Supreme Court in the historic judgement rightly said that Hindu is not a religion but a way of life.

Enough of this boring subject when we can talk about Hindu Muslim marriage and the such. Now, Let us get back to enjoy the "mitrotsava holiday"!

Husky · (This post was last modified: 12-27-2008, 09:34 AM by Husky.)

QUOTEOne aspect of this new problem is this. This new definition of "Hindu", as a religion, has caused many to cultivate a distance from the term Hindu, particularly the minority traditions of Hindu Dharma-s (like Jains and Sikhs). Although as much a part of Hindu Civilization, since they see the term "Hindu" being claimed as a label for some particular religion different from theirs, they start calling themselves as non-Hindu, which in turn causes many more serious repurcussions. Consider the classical case of RKM, who went up to the courts of law to claim that they are not "Hindu Dharma" (and lost). Supreme Court in the historic judgement rightly said that Hindu is not a religion but a way of life."This new definition of "Hindu", as a religion, has caused many to cultivate a distance from the term Hindu".In English and other western languages, "Hindu" has a particular meaning and refers to a particular religion of the Hindu civilisation.
And since you say "Jaina" is its own religion, then there is another religion (also a subgroup of the Hindu civilisation and a subgroup of the overall Dharmic traditions of India) that is also distinct, and to which I and many another belong. What is its name, I'd still like to know.

I thought I read that RKM declared itself a minority religion ("not Hindu") in order to escape the anti-Hindu actions of the communist govt, particularly in W Bengal.

QUOTEEnough of this boring subject when we can talk about Hindu Muslim marriage and the such.Hindu muslim marriage discussions, while important, are not really interesting to me.... (And I think/hope I've said everything I had to say about it already.) <Snip. Irrelevant>

QUOTENow, Let us get back to enjoy the "mitrotsava holiday"!Mitrotsava is not a tradition in my family.

Instead, at this time we used to honour ancient Dutch tradition when in NL: celebrating the shortest day of the year by carrying out their ancient traditional fir tree celebrations. (Teachers explained that their "ancestors had found the winter harsh, the land white and brown as if all life had gone, and it looked like summer and the warm sun would never return. Then they saw the ever-green fir tree - a sign of hope in winter, the promise that life and greenery remained and would return... -" and it was obviously love at first sight for them. Decorating the beloved tree followed.
Dutch kids in primary school were moved to tears every time the lovely story was repeated and we'd all end up singing "O Denneboom..." <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> )

Though I don't know Mitrotsava, and winter solstice does not happen at the same time the world over, I will wish you "Dies Natalis Dei Solis Invicti" instead - in honour of Julian, his comrades and the other traditionalists of ancient Rome and their traditionalist descendants. After all, Julian's God (Ishtadevam) is my God, his Gods are my Gods and his religion is my religion.

01-12-2009, 08:42 AM

Asteroid crater 

New Delhi, Jan. 11 (PTI): Shivpuri in Madhya Pradesh has thrown up one of the earthâs oldest impact craters, created by an asteroid hit 2,500 million years ago.

The crater â an âimpact structureâ in technical jargon since erosion has wiped out many of its original features â is 11km in diameter and is Asiaâs largest. An Indian geologist discovered it near Dhala village.

Geologist discovers oldest impact structure

07-06-2009, 06:30 AM

Surutapalli
QUOTESANI PRADOSHAM ABOUT 56 KM from Chennai, on the Tamil Nadu-Andhra Pradesh border, is a small village called Surutapalli, which houses the only "Sayana Sivan" (sleeping Shiva) called Pallikondeswarar. The temple has an interesting history which is as follows:Once Indra lost his kingdom and found that only if he consumed the Divine Nectar he could rule. So there was a tug of war between the devas and asuras to obtain this nectar. The Devas and Asuras got together to churn the ocean, using Mandramalai & Vaasuki, the snake. As they continued to churn the ocean, Vaasuki the snake began to tire and started spewing its poison. Siva came and consumed all the poison. Thus Siva became blue up to his throat and is also known by the name "Neelakandan" ( neela-blue colour, kandam-throat). Goddess Parvati rushed and held his neck so that the poison would not spread to the whole of his body. Shiva then became drowsy and selected a village called Surutapalli (near Chennai), where he is seen sleeping on the lap of Parvathi. This is the only temple that houses Lord Shiva in a sleeping position. Narada, meanwhile, passed on the message and down came the Devas, Brahma, Vishnu and the Saptarishis, to have darshan. They were promptly stopped by Nandi who asked them all to come after some time, as Shiva was resting. All of them waited. Shiva, when he woke up, was filled with extreme happiness and danced ("Ananda Thandavam"). This day, when the Devas, Brahma, Vishnu, Narada and Saptarishis had Shiva darshan was a Krishnapaksha Trayodasi (Stiravaram, Saturday). This is the Mahapradosham day. Pradhosham, generally, is a significant occasion observed with great piety at all Shiva temples. It is believed that all the Devas & Gods are assembled in the Shiva temples during Pradosham time. Further, the first pradosham was on a Saturday & hence "Sani Pradosham" is even more auspicious.

During Prodhosha time anointing (Abhishekam) the Shiva deity with the following is considered fruitful.

07-21-2009, 10:48 PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-In...how/4796583.cms
QUOTEThe longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century at Taregna village near Danapur in Biharâs Patna district will be an occasion to sing the glory of ancient India and its contribution to mathematics and astronomy.

It is in Taregna, which offers best sight for eclipse, that the celebrated astronomer of ancient India, Aryabhata, had camped to study celestial bodies. Khagaul (present-day Danapur Junction), is said to be the place where he had his observatory.

The word âTaregnaâ perhaps comes from the Sanskrit ââtaraka-gnanaââ (calculating stars). âKhagaulâ is thought to be a variant of ââKhagolââ (astronomy).

Aryabhata was born in Pataliputra (then Kusumpura), in 476 AD (according to some experts on April 13) and at age 23 wrote his monumental work âAryabhatiyamâ. At the same age, Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation in 1665 AD.

Almost 1,000 years before Copernicus (1473-1543 AD) and Galileo (1564-1642), Aryabhata discovered that the earth is round and rotates on its axis. He proposed a theory of his own to explain various planetary motions and accurately predicted the duration of an eclipse and total obscuration of the sun and the moon, as noted by the then Bihar governor R R Diwakar in his book âBihar Through the Agesâ in the 1950s. Aryabhata, sometimes credited with inventing zero, enjoyed the reputation of a mathematician and astronomer non-pareil.

Bodhi · (This post was last modified: 09-15-2009, 03:14 PM by Bodhi.)

Reading the history of rAThora-s, I got some new data to speculate about a discussion initiated by Rajesh, regarding a strange pig inscription on the outside doors of the fortess-like nAthadwArA temple of shrInAtha jI.

The year of the inscription is 1805, and the name of the governor is yashavanta rava -- so we ought to not have missed it in the first place!

Those were the years when struggle for supremacy between rAjapUta-s and the maharaTTa-s was still going on, and the latter, especially sindhiyA and holkar, used to employ afghan-gujjar-mallAh-mahAr freebooters and mercenaries, the piNDArI-s, in once-a-year raids of rAjapUtAnA (and elsewhere). While there is much misinformation that goes in the mainstream about piNDArI-s, what is certain is that they used to loot what came in their way, and they used to be both moslems and hindus.

Therefore the inscription to exempt the shrine from the raids ordered by the maharaTTA general yashavanta rAva, who often operated around mewADa and mAravADa at this time, and whom the piNDArI-s would probably not disobey. But for the added measure, one more from the nawAb of bhopAl (or Tonk), another client of the piNDArI-s, the Tonk one a piNDArI himself!

Indeed, the temple is only fortified enough to face but small fire weaponry, which is what was used by piNDArI-s besides lances of which they were experts -- meaning the protection was probably required against none other but them!

10-01-2009, 04:47 PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/ci...how/4973865.cms

QUOTEGujarat historians are thrilled at the discovery of a four-km long fortification south-west of Taranga Hills, comprising Jogida, Shamalia and Dhagolia, in Mehsana district. It was discovered in May this year and kept a closely guarded secret by the state archaeology department. They have all the reasons to believe that this could be the city of Anarthpura, the fabled land of warriors and the possible origin of Gujarat.

It is sheer coincidence that the fortified city in Taranga is in Mehsana, 20 km from Vadnagar, from where Chief Minister Narendra Modi hails, and is estimated to date back to the third or fourth century BC. Early references of this city talk about Anartha, Anarthapura or the Giri Durga of Anartha.

...

11-18-2009, 02:23 AM

I dont know why this nut keeps referring to this story as "love story".. story talks about how ahmedabad came into being.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ah...how/5241234.cms

QUOTE According to legend, the main reason behind Ahmedabad coming into existence 600 years ago is a love story involving Ahmad Shah, the cityâs founder. The beauty the sultan fell for in Ahmedabad was Teja, the gorgeous daughter of Asha Bhil who lived in Ashawal, todayâs Astodia.

...

Legend tells us that one âdarbariâ of the sultan was first messemerised by this beauty. He used to come regularly to Ahmedabad from Patan to see Teja.

One day, the sultan came to know about this routine. He called the âdarbariâ to explain his absence. The âdarbariâ praised the beauty of the girl sky high and told the sultan that the girl was suitable for a king. The sultan became curious and himself came to Ahmedabad to see Teja. It was love at first sight. The sultan went back to Patan and then moved towards Astodia with his army.

The Bhils of Ashawal came and requested him not to attack such a small human habitation. They also agreed to give extortion money. Shah asked for a huge amount which Asha Bhil could never have raised. Shah then gave him another option â his daughter Tejaâs hand in marriage. Asha didnât want to agree to this initially and it was only on his wifeâs advice that he finally relented.


and the nut again tells us..

QUOTEBut donât forget the love story behind this tale and also the heroine, Teja, who pulled a capital from Patan to Ahmedabad.

01-17-2011, 08:46 AM

Record no of pilgrims throng Parshuram kund

Quote:Agencies

Itanagar, Jan 16:

Over 80,000 devotees took a holy dip in Parshuram Kund in Lohit district of Arunachal Pradesh on the occasion of Makar Sankranti.

Most of the pilgrims were from Manipur, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and various parts of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh besides Nepal, Lohit Deputy Commissioner R K Sharma said today.

Last year about 60,000 pilgrims thronged the kund, while the number of visitors this year in January, including on Makar Sankranti, touched the one lakh mark, the DC said.

Makar Sankranti was celebrated yesterday.

Parshuram Kund, nestled in the lower reaches of Lohit River is regarded as a holy place for Hindu devotees.

According to the legend, Parshuram had bathed in this kund to get atoned from his sin of matricide. Thus, it is believed that if a person takes a dip in the kund once, his sins would be wiped out forever.

neelima · 02-12-2011, 11:30 AM

Hey folk its a good idea and the best way to know abt our past histories.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?