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"!
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"!