Re: Islamic Republic of India
You mention "RigVedic" Aryans.
Doesnt the word RigVedic sound familiar to you ? The Rig Veda is one of
the Holy books of Hinduism---today. So, the RigVedic Aryans were
Hindus.
[quote]
Their religious beliefs were very different from
Hinduism and they did not call themselves Hindu.
[/quote]
That they
didnt call themselves Hindu doesnt matter. "Hindu " was a word given by
Persians anyway. And by the way, they wrote the Vedas and the other
holy books. They automatically became Hindus (and probably the most
revered). If any difference in today's Hindus and them is found,
because Hinduism is not static it has been evolving continuously.
[quote]
When Greeks/Persians for their own references called the ancient
peoples of Sindh/Punjab as Indian/Hindu (corrupting the word Sindhu) it
was purely a geographic term having no association with the religion of
Hinduism nor the peoples of present-day India.
[/quote]
No. It did have
a reference to Hindus. The Hindus were culturally, religiously,
socially--in fact in many matters---were different from Persians, and
hence to give a terminology to these "different" people, the Persians
used the word "Hindu", which meant those people living on the other
side of the Sindhu.
[quote]
Just like the descendents of ancient
Mesopotamians are now Iraqi Muslims, or the descendents of ancient
Myceneaens/Minoans are Greek Christians, or the descendents of ancient
Romans are Italian Christians... it is irrelevant that the descendents
of ancient Harappans/RigVedic Aryas are now Pakistani Muslims.
[/quote]
Completely wrong. Firstly, the Indian subcontinent has seen waves of
Central Asians and Arabs for centuries. So you cant say that the
present day Pakistanis are descendents of so-and-so people. Secondly,
it is a myth that Harrappans and RigVedic Aryans were confined to
present-day Pakistan only and hardly ventured into India. The RigVedic
Aryans had spread out into India as well (the epic battle of the
Mahabharat took place in Kurukshetra in Indian Punjab). The Ganges
river, Yamuna river are in India and all of them are mentioned in the
Vedas as important and holy rivers. The Himalayan peaks are mentioned,
and so are central Indian rivers. The Vedas were only composed in
what falls in today's Pakistan. That doesnt make it non-Indian or
non-Hindu for that matter.
[quote]
There is no proof whatsoever to
suggest that Harappans were Dravidians.
[/quote]
The theory that the
present day South Indians are infact descendents of Dravidians was
proposed by none other than Max Mueller and Danielou themselves, and is
Universally accepted. It has been proven scientifically i.e. by the
category of the race they belonged to is the same as that of the South
Indians today. The language of the South-Indians (primarily Tamil, the
oldest language in India) is different from Sanskrit.
[quote]
According to Mark Kenoyer, the leading archealogist on
Harappans, present-day Pakistanis are the closest descendents of
Harappans,
[/quote]
And according to Max Mueller and many other western
scholars, the South Indians of today are the descendents of the
Harappans.
[quote]
Harappan sites in India are just its periphery
(compare that to Roman sites in Jordan). Indus Valley Civilization was
mostly based in the region of Pakistan.
[/quote]
No. Present-day
Pakistan was lucky to be in the middle of things. Harappan sites have
been found in Afghanistan and Iran also. In India, the famous Harappan
sites are Lothal and Dholavira in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kalibangan,
Bhagwanpura and Rakhigarh in Haryana, Saurahtra, Rajasthan and upto
Uttar Pradesh. In fact, all of Gujarat and most of Haryana and Punjab
states have Harappan sites.
[quote]
"India" was simply the ancient
Greek/Persian name for Sindhu/Indus, thus it belongs to only Pakistan
region (Sindh/Punjab).
[/quote]
India was the name given by the British. It was corrupted from Indus,
again a European corruption of Sindhu. The name "India" did not exist
during the time of ancient
Greeks/Persians.
[quote]
For example, Babylon and Sumeria were the ancient names for
present-day Iraq, but Iraqis dont call themselves as such as it is just
a name from their past (heritage) nor does it's neighbors such as the
Saudis steal it from Iraq calling themselves with that name.
[/quote]
And therein lies the crux of my argument. Sindhu is a Vedic name and
NOT a Harappan name. The word Sindhu finds numerous mention in the
Vedas. Same goes for Saraswathi.
The Greeks (some say it was Alexander) came to know the name of the
river Sindhu by coming into contact with the Vedic people and Northern
Indians--NOT Harappans. Same goes for Persians.
[quote]
The British colonialists conquered the various
countries/peoples/kingdoms of South Asia and for the ease of
administration consolidated them into a single unit called
"India".
[/quote]
But Sindhu-->;Indus-->;India has its roots in
Vedic culture---Indian/Hindu culture, and not the present day Islamic
culture of Pakistan.
[quote]
Thats because they do not follow Zoroastrianism any more. But
Zoroastrianism is part of their past/heritage, and its followers such
as ancient Persians (Achaemenians/Sassanians) were the ancestors of
present-day Iranians.
[/quote]
Completely Mistaken, and I will not argue
this further. The Zorastrians were almost routed from Iran and they
came to India just a few centuries ago. Their facial features are
disctinct (they do not allow intermarriages), and a trained eye can
recognize them, similar to how one can recognize Mongoloids.
Present day Iranians are from a different race altogether.
[quote]
And lets assume that a German citizen adopts Zoroastrian that
does not mean ancient Persians were its ancestors.
[/quote]
Not
racially, but culturally--in the same way that the Vedic people are
mine.
[quote]
Instead of getting emotional with Hindu propaganda, read some
facts: ---------------------
[/quote]
I have read those "facts" in your post before, and let me tell you this
is the most foolish, absurd and nonsensical thing I have ever come
across.
You are using Hinduism's holiest books----to contradict it !!
Its like quoting Koranic verses to "prove" that present-day Arabs are
not muslims.
[quote]
The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e.
today's Pakistan region) were definitely not Hindu because they did not
follow the Hindu caste system, they ate beef, sacrificed cows,
culturally were closer to Avestan Iranians, forbade idolatry,
etc.
[/quote]
Arey bhai, even in the Mahabharata Bhishma Pitamah asks
Yudishthir to offer beef as an offering to God. Beef is exported to
Pakistan by India even today.....but not Cow meat, but meat of bullocks
and buffaloes.
Bhishma pitamah obviously refered to Bull meat because in the same
book, the sacred nature of the cow is drilled to its readers (Lord
Krishna regarded the cow as holy and sacred and so did all others).
Also, have a look at this : (Vedic verses from the RigVedic people):
Atharva Veda I.16.4
Kill the killer of the cow with the bullet of lead.
Atharva Veda III.30.1
You should impart love to each other as the non-killable cow does
for its calf.
RgVeda VII.56.17
Punish the killer of the cow and the man.
RgVeda VIII.101.15
Cow is pure, do not kill it.
RgVeda X.10.87.16
Those who kill the ‘Aghanya’, the cow which is not to be killed
according to the Vedic edicts, their heads should be chopped off.
Yajur Veda XIII.49
Do not kill the cow.
YajurVeda XXX.18
Award death sentence to the killer of the cow.
RgVeda VI.28.3 states
Enemy may not use any “astra” i.e. weapon on cows
RgVeda VI.28.4 states
Nobody should take them to butcher house to kill them
Mahabharata- Shantiparva 262.47
Cow is called ‘aghanya’ and thus non-killable.
Now do you get it ?
[quote]
Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has
been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period.
[/quote]
Forget your excavations. In the Vedas, the epics Ramayana and
Mahabharata and the Upanishads, there is no mention of temples.
Temples are a modern day evolution, thats all.
[quote]
According to A. L. Stravrianos on the non-Hindu nature of Rig
Vedic Aryans: "The word Veda means knowledge.
[/quote]
Correct.
[quote]
There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the
Rigveda, which is also the oldest.
[/quote]
Yes. The Rig Veda is the Big
Boss of the 4 Vedas.
[quote]
The Rigveda is a primary source for study of the early Aryans;
it is in essence a collection of 1028 hymns arranged in ten books. Per
the Vedas, Aryans worshiped elements of nature in personified forms,
and idolatry was forbidden.
[/quote]
Not forbidden. I'll help Mr. Stavrianos : Na tasya pratimasti. (He has
no form). Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste nen na naste kinchan ((There is
only one God, not the second, not at all, not at all, not in the least
bit.") Rigveda, Book 1, Hymn 164, and Verse 46: "God is one; sages call
Him by many names.---and there are many many more.
These are taken from an Islamic site.
Yet, we worship idols because Lord Krishna in the Bhagawad Gita
approves of it. He says that those demi-gods are part of him alone.
Those who are spiritually not strong, worship numerous gods and idols.
Are you satisfied now ?
[quote]
"In Rig Veda, the gods of Dyaus is the same as the Greek Zeus
(Roman Jupiter), Mitra is the same as the Graeco-Roman Mithras, Ushas
is the same as the Greek Eos (Roman Aurora), and Agni is the same as
the Graeco-Roman Ignis.
[/quote]
Wow, so we influenced Greek culture !
[quote]
"The image of the Aryans that emerges from Vedic literature is
that of a virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, and
gambling. Their god of war, Indra, was an ideal Aryan warrior: ‘he
dashed into battle joyously, wore golden armor, and was able to consume
the flesh of three hundred buffaloes and drink three lakes of liquor at
one time’. "When they first arrived in the South Asia the Aryans were
primarily pastoralists. Their economic life centered around their
cattle and wealth was judged on the basis of the size of herds. As the
newcomers settled in fertile river valleys, they gradually shifted more
to agriculture. They lived in villages consisting of a number of
related families. Several villages comprised a clan, and several clans
a tribe, at the head of which was the king. The king’s authority
depended on his personal prowess and initiative, and was limited by the
council of nobles, and in some tribes by the freemen.
[/quote]
Who
doesnt know all this about the Aryans ?
[quote]
Cows were not worshipped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were
not forsaken but joyously consumed.
[/quote]
I've proven this wrong, and same goes for intoxicants.
[quote]
There were classes but no castes,
[/quote]
Exactly, just as they are today and always meant to be. It is the
mentality of people over the centuries that introduced castes (new
castes are discovered by politicians every year like new species).
The 4 classes are Brahmins (scholars), kshatriyas (warriors and kings),
shudras (peasants and merchants), and vaisyas (slaves or Dasyus).
Dalits, Yadavs, Mahars, Kolis, Malis are all modern inventions.
[quote]
Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with
disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where sacrifices are not
performed.” (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)
[/quote]
So ?
[quote]
"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period
(1500-500 BC) was confined to the northwest.
[/quote]
So what ?
[quote]
The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the northwest
(Saptha Sindhva) tell that the Vedic peoples worshipped non-Brahmanical
Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra),
[/quote]
They were worshipped by millions of people---today morning.
[quote]
ate cows, elected their chiefs, drank liqor, considered the
Punjab rivers to be sacred, and refer to people living to the south in
the gangetic region as 'Dasyas'!
[/quote]
Liquor is drunk even today, and bull meat is exported to Pakistan.
If some of them ate cows, then as I showed earlier, the Vedas have
already criticized it.
Dont millions of Muslims drink liquor ? And dont tell me that out of 1
billion muslims, not one has eaten pork (Ex : M A Jinnah).
[quote]
None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu,
Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms
[/quote]
Obviously. Every child knows that the epics, the Upanishads and the
Puranas, Brahmanas etc. that extol these gods were written after the
Vedas.
[quote]
nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite
tablets. Avestan terms for soldiers ('rathaestar') and citizens
('vastriyo') are similar to Vedic-derived terms (kshatriyas, vasihyas)
but the Avestan term for priest ('athravan') is not even close to
'Brahmanas'.
[/quote]
Cool. So the Vedic people influenced many cultures.
[quote]
Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta
and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva
'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas';
[/quote]
Whats this got to do with the topic of this thread. Anyway, there were
numerous tribes. The Kauravas in the Mahabharata had their staunchest
ally in Kandhaar or present day Kandahar. And they were villains. Many
of the allies of the Kauravas were from the west.
All the rest of the quotes from the Vedas that you gave are right on my
Dad's table. We worship them, and here we have a genious using the
Vedas to prove Hinduism wrong.
[quote]
Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our
cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-colored various-hued
or single- colored whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni,
Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these,
Parjanya, great protection. Those who have offered to the gods their
bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma"
[/quote]
What does this mean ?
[quote]
In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and
cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in
fire.
[/quote]
All these are your assumptions. Anyway, those must be dead cows, as for your information Hindus cremate their dead.
I have already pointed numerous verses from the vedas that clearly prohibit cow-slaughter.
[quote]
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen
and cows are slaughtered”, and Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used
to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”
[/quote]
Nonsense. Here is the exact translation of that verse : (Ralph
Griffith):
The bridal pomp of Surya, which Savitar started, moved along.
In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride.
[quote]
Quoting from Rigveda, historian H. H Wilson writes, “the
sacrifice and consumption of horse and cow appears to have been common
in the early periods of the Aryan culture.”
[/quote]
He gives incorrect translations, as I showed (in another thread) in the
case of the infamous Sati-verse of the Rig Veda. He has been proved
wrong by at-least 6 other scholars.
[quote]
Therefore, since Harappan and Rig Vedic Aryan religions were
very different from Hinduism's beliefs and customs,they cannot be
Hindu.
[/quote]
[quote]
Additionally, Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans of Indus/Pakistan
region were geographically a distinct people having no association with
Gangetic Valley and the rest of most India where Hinduism was born in
later centuries,
[/quote]
Oh yes they did, all over the Vedas, the epics and Upanishads. These
are not just Holy scriptures, but a glimpse into the way of life of the
people of those times.
[quote]
nor did they call themselves Hindu.
[/quote]
Technically we must be called not Hindus, but Vedantists---Swami
Vivekanand.
[quote]
The hegemonic and imperialistic Hindu fanatic and Indian
nationalist claims on them are simply false propaganda based on myths and distorted history.
[/quote]
The most utterly foolish aspect of your post Pakistanforever, was that you quote our holy books to prove us wrong. It means that in a desperation to provide your argument, you overlooked a very bare and basic fact.
About the Harappans, I'll post later.