05-12-2006, 01:54 AM
The Vedas and Upanishads and older mantras in Sanskrit. Later others in Prakrit and Pali. Others in Tamil (yes, we have mantras in Tamil) and Kannadam, etc.
which are outside vedas and upanishads and gita. all hinduism revolves around vedas and the rest are derivatives.
The original versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata are in Sanskrit, because the people of these epics spoke Sanskrit (not in Hindi).
i know.
However, there are local South Indian language versions of Ramayana too.
copies. the original as you said is in sanskrit.
Extensions to the Ayurveda are also in Tamil and other South Indian languages.
we may get extentions in english to in future. already there are i think western extentions to yoga. dont mean yoga is western. any extention ipso facto, has just borrowed from the original.
It was not stagnant, but continued to be added to. Where were the Ayurveda manuscripts preserved? In the South.
and in tibet. the south and tibet didnt get ravaged by islam. doesnt prove that the ayurveda manuscripts were not of sanskritic manufacture.
By whom? Indians - South Indians. Hindus - of the South.
hindus is the iranian word for the arya living on this side of the sindhu river. the rig vedic tribes mention people speaking inflective languages like sanskrit and avestan.
The first treatiseson the topics you suggest might have been written partly in the North, but it was a pan-Hindu effort.
circumstance. north india could not hold on to its hindu traditions, despite fathering hinduism and carry on the good work, due to islamic onslaught.
And additions to the treatises you speak of continued to be made and discovered all over the Hindu subcontinent.
sure. try disproving that hinduism as we know it (vedas, upanishads, epics, ayurvedas, astronomy, yoga werent of sanskrtitic manufacture. the very words and terms are entirely sanskrit.) wasnt formed in north india. ujjain ws the indian greenwich.
The only Vedic people are the Vedic Hindus. Those who know of the Vedas, or accepted it as part of their corpus, were Vedic Hindus.
and their progeny.
The Persians were Avestan.
before which they shared the same gene and knowledge pol with the vedic indians. then they went west with their version of the vedas and formed zoroastrianism.
The Druids, Alans and Lithuanians were never in India when the Vedas were compiled.
druids i am sure are a post vedic people (in fact dru-vids are brahmins). since the similiraty with lithuanians is mostly in the language and not religion, they were most likely a post sanskritic (after sanskrit was formed) and pre vedic people. alans get their name from arya - so again they emmigrated after it was already in fashion to call ourselves arya.
They are not Vedic people. Vedic means related to the Vedas.
yes. and the druids were very vedic. as were the persians - before they sort of mutinied and came up with zoroastrianism.
Except for Hindus, no one else you mentioned are related to the Vedas.
i am sure the vedas dont mention hndus even - given that the persian word for sindhu (ie hindu) was coined long after the vedas were written.
Just because today some Europeans are trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language and are interested in a Proto-Indo-European religion which supposedly existed (in Central Asia from where the White people they think were called Aryans came) doesn't make the claimants such.
yeah they are wrong. all aryans come from the SSVC. some moved into the indo gangetic plain, some moved out to iran and further north and west.
They imagine their European ancestors practised the PIE religion in Central Asia, that gave rise to the Indian and old Iranian religion. Some imagine their ancestors wrote the Vedas. They like to call themselves Vedics, Vedicists and other English nonsense terms (like Aryan). Central Asia isn't where the Vedas were written.
yes. it was clearly written in whats today haryana and the punjab.
Hittites were not, but adopted a kind of Sanskrit-like language probably from the Mitannis. The Mittanis might have been Vedic. But we can't expect people from Bengal or Tamil Nadu to travel all over India, through Persia into Anatolia, now can we? No, it's more likely that the people settled in the Punjab did that.
hitties spoke a sanskritic (ie., aryan) language. as did the mittanis. and they both most likely emigrated from the SSVC.
Only the Indians (Hindus, Jains who both use the term Acharya and Buddhists) and Persians (Zoroastrians) CALL THEMSELVES ARYA. None of the others you listed in 5.
jainism came much much later. besides ethnically/genetically jains are hindus. the people who called themselves arya are sanskrit speaking indians, persians, the irish (the name ireland comes from arya), the alans (the name allan comes from arya) and basically all those who were from the SSVC originally.
The Airya in Iran were not children of Parasu. They were of the Parshu tribe.
when i say children of parasu i dont mean the descendants of mr. parasu. i mean the parasu tribe.
They called the people settled near the Sindhu that they came in contact with as Hindus.
yes. the arya on this side of rives sindhu are the hindu.
That includes the ancestors of present day Pakistanis, Afghans and Punjabi, possible UP, Kashmiri,... It also included the ancestors of Jains who were not Vedic (in the sense of taking the Vedas as central).
pakistanis cant be described. they are the descendants of just about anyone who has entered india in the past 1400 years. and where did you get that the ancestors of the jains were not vedic/hindu???
If the Persians met people beyond these regions, realising they practised the same religion they would have dubbed them Hindus also. Even if it was only to not bother inventing a new name,
hindu isnt a name persians invented. its the same name as sindhu in persian. the persian H is the sanskrit S
though the region was different, the religion was the same.
yes, the druids were hindus.
The Greeks and Romans callled all of the Indian subcontinent "India" - also based on the river Indus.
i knoiw.
So if the river is to determine what our religious beliefs and nationality are called then count the opinion of all the ancients.
didnt get you.
which are outside vedas and upanishads and gita. all hinduism revolves around vedas and the rest are derivatives.
The original versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata are in Sanskrit, because the people of these epics spoke Sanskrit (not in Hindi).
i know.
However, there are local South Indian language versions of Ramayana too.
copies. the original as you said is in sanskrit.
Extensions to the Ayurveda are also in Tamil and other South Indian languages.
we may get extentions in english to in future. already there are i think western extentions to yoga. dont mean yoga is western. any extention ipso facto, has just borrowed from the original.
It was not stagnant, but continued to be added to. Where were the Ayurveda manuscripts preserved? In the South.
and in tibet. the south and tibet didnt get ravaged by islam. doesnt prove that the ayurveda manuscripts were not of sanskritic manufacture.
By whom? Indians - South Indians. Hindus - of the South.
hindus is the iranian word for the arya living on this side of the sindhu river. the rig vedic tribes mention people speaking inflective languages like sanskrit and avestan.
The first treatiseson the topics you suggest might have been written partly in the North, but it was a pan-Hindu effort.
circumstance. north india could not hold on to its hindu traditions, despite fathering hinduism and carry on the good work, due to islamic onslaught.
And additions to the treatises you speak of continued to be made and discovered all over the Hindu subcontinent.
sure. try disproving that hinduism as we know it (vedas, upanishads, epics, ayurvedas, astronomy, yoga werent of sanskrtitic manufacture. the very words and terms are entirely sanskrit.) wasnt formed in north india. ujjain ws the indian greenwich.
The only Vedic people are the Vedic Hindus. Those who know of the Vedas, or accepted it as part of their corpus, were Vedic Hindus.
and their progeny.
The Persians were Avestan.
before which they shared the same gene and knowledge pol with the vedic indians. then they went west with their version of the vedas and formed zoroastrianism.
The Druids, Alans and Lithuanians were never in India when the Vedas were compiled.
druids i am sure are a post vedic people (in fact dru-vids are brahmins). since the similiraty with lithuanians is mostly in the language and not religion, they were most likely a post sanskritic (after sanskrit was formed) and pre vedic people. alans get their name from arya - so again they emmigrated after it was already in fashion to call ourselves arya.
They are not Vedic people. Vedic means related to the Vedas.
yes. and the druids were very vedic. as were the persians - before they sort of mutinied and came up with zoroastrianism.
Except for Hindus, no one else you mentioned are related to the Vedas.
i am sure the vedas dont mention hndus even - given that the persian word for sindhu (ie hindu) was coined long after the vedas were written.
Just because today some Europeans are trying to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language and are interested in a Proto-Indo-European religion which supposedly existed (in Central Asia from where the White people they think were called Aryans came) doesn't make the claimants such.
yeah they are wrong. all aryans come from the SSVC. some moved into the indo gangetic plain, some moved out to iran and further north and west.
They imagine their European ancestors practised the PIE religion in Central Asia, that gave rise to the Indian and old Iranian religion. Some imagine their ancestors wrote the Vedas. They like to call themselves Vedics, Vedicists and other English nonsense terms (like Aryan). Central Asia isn't where the Vedas were written.
yes. it was clearly written in whats today haryana and the punjab.
Hittites were not, but adopted a kind of Sanskrit-like language probably from the Mitannis. The Mittanis might have been Vedic. But we can't expect people from Bengal or Tamil Nadu to travel all over India, through Persia into Anatolia, now can we? No, it's more likely that the people settled in the Punjab did that.
hitties spoke a sanskritic (ie., aryan) language. as did the mittanis. and they both most likely emigrated from the SSVC.
Only the Indians (Hindus, Jains who both use the term Acharya and Buddhists) and Persians (Zoroastrians) CALL THEMSELVES ARYA. None of the others you listed in 5.
jainism came much much later. besides ethnically/genetically jains are hindus. the people who called themselves arya are sanskrit speaking indians, persians, the irish (the name ireland comes from arya), the alans (the name allan comes from arya) and basically all those who were from the SSVC originally.
The Airya in Iran were not children of Parasu. They were of the Parshu tribe.
when i say children of parasu i dont mean the descendants of mr. parasu. i mean the parasu tribe.
They called the people settled near the Sindhu that they came in contact with as Hindus.
yes. the arya on this side of rives sindhu are the hindu.
That includes the ancestors of present day Pakistanis, Afghans and Punjabi, possible UP, Kashmiri,... It also included the ancestors of Jains who were not Vedic (in the sense of taking the Vedas as central).
pakistanis cant be described. they are the descendants of just about anyone who has entered india in the past 1400 years. and where did you get that the ancestors of the jains were not vedic/hindu???
If the Persians met people beyond these regions, realising they practised the same religion they would have dubbed them Hindus also. Even if it was only to not bother inventing a new name,
hindu isnt a name persians invented. its the same name as sindhu in persian. the persian H is the sanskrit S
though the region was different, the religion was the same.
yes, the druids were hindus.
The Greeks and Romans callled all of the Indian subcontinent "India" - also based on the river Indus.
i knoiw.
So if the river is to determine what our religious beliefs and nationality are called then count the opinion of all the ancients.
didnt get you.