Present-day India has nothing to do with “ancient India” … “Ancient India” was in present day Punjab/Sindh (derived from “Indus/Sindhu”)… its pathetic how present-day Indians have hijacked a name belonging to another country … like I said before they should thank their former British masters for giving them the name/identity of “India(n)”… Too bad that they are ashamed to name their British-created country of India as “Bharat” since Bharat was only a small ancient Aryan kingdom in upper Ganges Valley.
When I said people living yonder the Indus means people with their distinct culture and identity, that was different from the Persians' own. Those were the Vedic people or Hindus as you know them today. So what if today's political map of the world shows that region as Pakistan ?
[quote]
The fact is Pakistanis are descended from a blend of Harappans, Rig Vedic Aryans,
[/quote]
Harrappans were the ancestors of present day South-Indians.
Reg-Vedic people were my ancestors and the ancestors of Indians today. Besides, Indians have a multitude of Central-Asian ancestors.
[quote]
with only parts of northwest India having Harappan colonies as its periphery, and Vedic Aryans (not Rig Vedic) being the ancestors of only north/northwest Indians (higher castes).
[/quote]
Harappan sites have been found in Northwest, central India and upto Gujarat. Harrappans were indeed the ancestors of the Dravidas of South India today.
This fact has been established beyond doubt. If you meet a typical south-Indian today, his facial features are a somewhat aboriginal or a cross between caucusoid and negroid....the same people who lived at the Harrappa and Mohenjodaro sites.
[quote]
Present-day India has nothing to do with "ancient India" ... "Ancient India" was in present day Punjab/Sindh (derived from "Indus/Sindhu")... its pathetic how present-day Indians have hijacked a name belonging to another country ...
[/quote]
Bhaisahab, I do not care even if archeologists prove that entire present day India was barren and the Vedic people lived entirely in present-day Pakistan (yonder the Sindhu, but west of the border with India).
What matters is that those were Hindus, and mine and Indians' ancestors.....*and not your*s or ancestors of Pakistanis. Their culture, ideas,beliefs, identity all belong to the Hindu people of the Union of India and not the people of Islamic Reublic of Pakistan.
*Just because on a political map drawn in 1947, the Vedic sites fell into Pakistan DOES NOT mean that you start calling yourselves Indians.
*
Do the Iranians call them-selves Zoroastrians just because a couple of millenia ago it was a Parsi majority area ? No they dont.
By the way, I am not getting emotional. I get rather nauseated.
[quote]
ush yaar.no logic.no argument.samandar ko koozay main band kar diya.uff kitna hansata hay.
[/quote]
Toh phir tu merey arguments koh wrong prove kar key dikha. Phir dekhtey hain kaun hasta hai.
The peoples of Indus whether they be Harappans or RigVedic Aryans were NOT Hindus. Their religious beliefs were very different from Hinduism and they did not call themselves Hindu. 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.
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.
There is no proof whatsoever to suggest that Harappans were Dravidians. As long as the Indus script remains undeciphered it will remains a mystery. There are all kinds of “theories” of Harappans being Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic, Semitic, or even an isolate like Sumerian. And even if we assume/theorize that Harappans were Dravidians that still does not make them the ancestors of South Indians. With your logic the Irish will be the descendents of ancient Hittites (of Anatolia/Turkey) since Hittites spoke an Indo-European language similar to how the Irish speak today..lol.
What we know for a fact is that Harappans were a multi-racial people based on skeletal and genetic analysis of their body remains uncovered. According to Mark Kenoyer, the leading archealogist on Harappans, present-day Pakistanis are the closest descendents of Harappans, and that Harappans never migrated to present-day India rather they were absorbed among the different waves of invaders/migrants through out the centuries. Similarly, based on Rig Veda, present day Indians have nothing in common with Rig Vedic Aryans as their religion, geography, and culture were distinct.
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. The names used for the Civilization are “Indus Valley” or “Harappan”, both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harappa and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of Hakra/Ghaggar river (extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more mature Harappan sites on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side. The proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley Civilization, at its peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan to northern Maharashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About 90% of Indians (i.e. outside of northwest India) have nothing to do with Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.
I am not advocating that Pakistanis start calling themselves Indians. “India” was simply the ancient Greek/Persian name for Sindhu/Indus, thus it belongs to only Pakistan region (Sindh/Punjab). 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.
It were the British/European colonialists who started calling the inhabitants of their creation (“India”) as Indians. 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”. No country with such name or/and size existed prior to its British creation.
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. And lets assume that a German citizen adopts Zoroastrianism that does not mean ancient Persians were its ancestors.
Instead of getting emotional with Hindu propaganda, read some facts:
Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were NOT Hindu !
There has been a strong campaign by Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists in trying to make wild hegemonic claims on ancient peoples who have very little to do with them. Unfortunately, a few respected scholars have also been manipulated into promoting their agendas and vested interests. This article in particular covers the ancient peoples of Indus Valley (Pakistan) called Harappans and Rigvedic Aryans (who were the ancestors of most Pakistanis) with facts that prove they were not Hindu debunking those Hindu/Indian claims. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Harappans and Rig Vedic Aryans were Hindu.
Harappans:
Not a single Hindu idol/deity/temple has been excavated at Indus sites. Plus evidence shows that Harappans ate beef and buried their dead. This is what the renowned historian John Keays states on the religion of Harappans:
"The religion of Harappans is unknown. No site has certainly been identified as a temple and most suppositions about sacrificial fires, cult objects and deities rest on doubtful retrospective references from Hindu practices of many centuries later. Such inferences may be as futile as, say, looking to Islamic astronomy for an explanation of the orientation of the pyramids. In short, these theories are all fanciful and do not bear scrutiny.
"Depicted on some Harappan seals, is that of a big-nosed gentleman wearing a horned head-dress who sits in the lotus position, an air of abstraction and an audience of animals. He cannot be the early manifestation of Lord Shiva as Pashupati, `Lord of the Beasts.’ Myth, as has been noted, is subject to frequent revision. The chances of a deity remaining closely associated with the specific powers - in this case, fertility, asceticism, and familiarity with the animal kingdom - for all of two thousand years must raise serious doubts, especially since, during the interval, there is little evidence for the currency of this myth. Rudra, a Vedic deity later identified with Shiva, is indeed referred to as Pasupati because of his association with the cattle, but asceticism and meditation were not Rudra’s specialties nor is he usually credited with an empathy for animals other than kine. More plausibly, it has been suggested that the Harappan figure’s heavily horned headgear bespeaks a bull cult, to which numerous other representations of bulls lend substance.
“Similar doubts surround the female terracotta figurines which are often described as mother goddesses. Pop-eyed, bat-eared, belted and sometime miniskirted, they are usually of crude workmanship and grotesque mien. Only a dusty-eyed archaeologist could describe them as `pleasing little things.’ The bat-ears, on closer inspection, appear to be elaborate head dresses or hairstyles. If, as the prominent and clumsily applied breasts suggest, they were fertility symbols, why bother with millinery? Or indeed miniskirts?”
The Harappan seals depicting the sitting man/deity wearing horned headdress (which Hindus claim as so called Shiva) is as follows:
Similar to this horned Harappan man/deity is the horned Celtic Cernunnos that was worshipped in parts of ancient Europe:
On the other hand, Hinduism’s Shiva looks totally different:
So obviously Harappans did not worship Shiva, not even close! With Hindu hegemonic claims would ancient Europeans also be considered Hindu since the Celtic Cerrunos looks very similar to the horned Harappan deity? By the way, it is the cow that’s worshipped in Hinduism whereas bull has a minor role. Bull was much more sacred in ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures similar to the popular Harappan bull.
This is further supported by Encyclopaedia Britannica:
“The Bull Cult was a prehistoric religious practice that originated in the eastern Aegean Sea and extended from the Indus Valley of Pakistan to the Danube River in eastern Europe … The Bull Cult continued into historic times and was particularly important in the Indus Valley and on the Grecian island of Crete. In both places the bull’s ‘horns of consecration’ were an important religious symbol.”
On the non-Hindu beliefs/customs of Harappans, Richard K. Hines states:
“Similar to the cultures of ancient Middle East, it appears that the Indus religion recognized some type of life after death. Unlike Hindus who practice cremation, Indus people carefully buried their dead in wooded coffins with their heads facing north and the feet pointing south. Included in the graves were pottery jars containing food and weapons for use in the afterlife.”
And on beef as a common aspect of Harappan diet, Dr. Kamal Lodaya states:
“Meat was an important part of Harappan diet which included beef, mutton, fowl, fish, and other animals.”
Rig Vedic Aryans:
Now coming to the Aryans.. The concept of Aryan Race is nonsense invented by the Nazis. But what is historically correct is that Aryans were an ancient people who originally inhabited Central Asia and later migrated southwards to the regions stretching from Iran to northwest India. These early Aryans had a similar language, race, culture, and religion with many variations. The Aryans of Iran were later influenced by the Elamites and Babylonians. The Aryans of Pakistan were later influenced by the Harappans. The Aryans of north India were later influenced by the Dravidic-Mundic natives giving birth to Hinduism. Of course in later centuries other peoples also invaded/migrated bringing other influences/mixing.
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. Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period.
Here are some excerpts that support my views:
“The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas”. (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)
According to A. L. Stravrianos on the non-Hindu nature of Rig Vedic Aryans:
"The word Veda means knowledge. There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the Rigveda, which is also the oldest. 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.
"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.
"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.
“The outstanding characteristics of this early Aryan society was its basic difference from the later Hinduism. Cows were not worshipped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were not forsaken but joyously consumed. There were classes but no castes, and the priests were subordinate to the nobles rather than at the top of the social pyramid. In short, Aryan society resembled much more the contemporary Indo-European societies than it did Hinduism that was to develop in later centuries in the Gangetic Valley.”
Further supports how a few Aryans who later migrated eastward towards India slowly became Hindu because of Dravidic-Mundic influences:
"The castes were hardened by the time the Aryans occupied the middle land i.e., the Gangetic Valley and distinguished themselves from their brethern in Sind and the Punjab who were despised by them for not observing the rules of caste … and for their non-Brahmanical character.” (Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakur)
“While some Aryans had by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. 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)
This is further supported by Dr. Gurupdesh Singh:
"From geographical information in the RigVeda, the Vedic Period (1500-500 BC) was confined to the northwest. The hymns composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the northwest (Saptha Sindhva) tell that the Vedic peoples worshipped non-Brahmanical Gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra), 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’! None of the gangetic Brahmanical gods (e.g Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in RigVeda hyms 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’. Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva ‘mlechas’, ‘sudras’ and ‘vratyas’; ‘forbid Brahmins’ from even visiting the northwest country (‘Vahika-desa’); and depict dark Dravidian Gods like Krishna fighting and defeating Vedic Aryan gods like Indra (Mahabharta). Similarly, the RigVeda contains taboos and injunctions against the ‘dasya-varta’ region to the south of Saptha Sindhva and praises Indra (god of thunderbolt) for victories over ‘dasya-purahs’ (dasya cities).
"Both early RigVedic and gangetic Puranic sources clearly point to ethnic, cultural and religious differences and a ‘clash of civilizations and nations’ at the ganga indicating that the Vedic people and culture of the northwest did not accept the gangetic priests, their gods, shastras, religion, culture and Brahmanical caste ideology. The eastern gangetic heartland is not only historically a separate region, but geographically resides over 1500 miles to the southeast of the Saptha Sindhva country. Uptil the advent of Mohammed Ghori in the 13th century, the northwest was politically unified with southasia only 92 years under the Mauryas (out of 27 centuries) since the start of Saptha Sindhva’s Vedic period (1500 BC).
“A few Vedic tribes from Saptha Sindhva broke RigVedic norms and migrated southward. These numerically outnumbered groups expanding into the trans-gangetic region near the end of the Vedic period (8-6th century BC) tried to use the indigenous Dravidian priesthood to entrench themselves as the new ruling order. Within a few generations of acquiring control over the foreign Gangasthan, the minority Vedic tribes were usurped by the indigenous ‘borrowed’ priesthood; their Aryan religion, gods and customs mostly deposed and supplanted with indigenous gangetic gods and mythologies; and their new social order (varna or color based) replaced with the pre-existing profession (jati) based Brahmanical caste system (‘chatur-varna’ ). Through religious manipulation and intrigue, the Vedic in-comers to Gangasthan were usurped and made to surrender their political rule and soon pigeon-holed into becoming the loyal obedient chownkidars of their ‘superior’ dravidic Brahmanas.”
Now coming to idolatry which is an integral part of Hinduism, there are clear evidences of early Aryans rejecting it :
“They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti—the material cause of the world—in place of the All-pervading God, but those who worship visible things born of the Prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.”—Yajur Veda 40:9.
“The Formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.”—Yajur Veda 32:3.
Also, early Aryans had a Monist belief of worshipping elements of nature (in non-idolatrous personified forms): “There is only one God, worship Him” (Rig Veda, Vol. 6, Hymn 45 vs 16 ) and “Do not worship any one beside Him” (Rig Veda Bk. 8, Hymn 1, Vs 1)
Then there are clear evidences in the Rig Veda that Aryans regularly ate beef and sacrificed cows for religious purposes which are strictly forbidden in Hinduism:
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” [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. 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.
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.”
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.”
Conclusion:
Finally, to claim that Hinduism has been evolving is simply a very weak argument. Every religion is identified with a set of beliefs and customs making it distinct and recognizable from others, including Hinduism. Any people and religion can claim of their beliefs and customs evolving, but when a change occurs it represents a new identity. For example, Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as ancient Roman Paganism. Therefore, since Harappan and Rig Vedic Aryan religions were very different from Hinduism’s beliefs and customs, they cannot be Hindu. 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, nor did they call themselves Hindu.
In conclusion, all the evidence proves that Harappans and early Aryans were not Hindu. The hegemonic and imperialistic Hindu fanatic and Indian nationalist claims on them are simply false propaganda based on myths and distorted history.
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.
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.
.
Technically we must be called not Hindus, but Vedantists---Swami
Vivekanand.
[Mahatma] Gandhi himself says, "I know there are scholars who tell us that
cow-sacrifice is mentioned in the Vedas. I... read a sentence in our Sanskrit
text-book to the effect that Brahmins of old [period] used to eat beef" [M.K.
Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, New Delhi, 1991, p. 120]
Such is the state of the evidence on the subject of cow-killing and beef-eating. Which part of it is to be accepted as true? The correct view is that the testimony of the Satapatha Brahmana and the Apastamba Dharma Sutra in so far as it supports the view that Hindus were against cow-killing and beef-eating, are merely exhortations against the excesses of cow-killing and not prohibitions against cow-killing. Indeed the exhortations prove that cow-killing and eating of beef had become a common practice. And that, notwithstanding these exhortations, cow-killing and beef-eating continued. That most often they fell on deaf ears is proved by the conduct of Yajnavalkya, the great Rishi of the Aryans. The first passage quoted above from the Satapatha Brahmana was really addressed to Yajnavalkya as an exhortation. How did Yajnavalkya respond? After listening to the exhortation this is what Yajnavalkya said: “I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.”
That the Hindus at one time did kill cows and did eat beef is proved abundantly by the description of the Yajnas given in the Buddhist Sutras which relate to periods much later than the Vedas and the Brahmanas. The scale on which the slaughter of cows and animals took place was colossal.
With this evidence no one can doubt that there was a time when Hindus-both Brahmins and non-Brahmins ate not only flesh but also beef.
WHY SHOULD BEEF-EATING MAKE BROKEN MEN UNTOUCHABLES? Full article
(Excerpted from Chapters 11 to 14 of B.R. Ambedkar’s 1948 work The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? as reprinted in Volume 7 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, published by Government of Maharashtra 1990. Copyright: Secretary, Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.)
Forget those scholars. India exported tons of beef to Pakistan just last year.
Now cow slaughter is illegal in India. So this seems contradictory. It is actually bull (oxen) or buffalo meat, and the same that Bhishma Pitamah asked Yudishthir to sacrifice (note that the Mahabharata also clearly says cows to be sacred and holy).
Also, the verse about consigning cows and oxen to Agni (fire) means that the dead cows were being cremated (Hindus cremate their dead).
In fact there is just one verse which may suggest something about bull slaughter. I have given numerous verses that clearly prohibit cow slaughter and regard cows as holy and sacred. Cows are regarded as mothers by Hindus.
I have already spoken about this in my previous post.
The articles from Outlook that you've posted are also the same---one verse of possible bull slaughter, quotations from Manu Smriti (a book burnt publicly by Ambedkar himself, and not regarded as a holy book by Hindus), etc.
It may be true that some Aryans may have eaten cows and thats nothing to do with religion, as I'm sure that many thousands of Muslims today must have eaten pork for lunch and concluded it with alcohol.
About the Harappans, I'll post later as I dont have time right now.
Conclusion :
[quote]
Finally, to claim that Hinduism has been evolving is simply a very weak argument.
[/quote]
No it is not. In fact, it is its very strength unlike the static Arabic-Jerusalemic religions like Islam, and Christianity.
Just as the latest Boeing 787 works on the same basic principles of the Wright Brothers' Flying Machine of 1903, or the latest Microprocessor works on the same principle of Von Neumann architecture laid out more than 75 years ago....Hinduism in its current form has NOT evolved, but GROWN keeping the core foundations intact, just as they were about 4 millenia ago.
Hence your argument is completely flawed in its foundation and I shall prove so.
You talked about no temples being found in excavations. So what ? The people must have kept small idols in their homes, or under large trees till someone hit upon the idea that why not build a building to house the sacred shrines ?
Is monument building a la Taj Mahal or Qutub Minar mentioned in the Koran ? Is writing the Koran on a grain of rice or a leaf mentioned in the Koran ? I dont think so. So does that mean that people who lived in the 7th century A.D. not muslims ?
[quote]
Every religion is identified with a set of beliefs and customs making it distinct and recognizable from others, including Hinduism.
[/quote]
Completely mistaken and biased.
This statement must be re-phrased as "Every Arabic-Jerusalemic religion like Islam and Christianity is identified with a set of beliefs.......etc....etc....This however does not apply to the eastern religions like Hinduism or Buddhism, which have constantly grown keeping their core values intact.
Never do they argue whether Music is Haram or democracy is Un-Hindu. They are just taught to do whatever is right.
If they want audio cassettes for the recordings of their holy books or build temples on other planets.....its fine as long as it is right."
Ganesh chaturthi may not have been celebrated 3 millenia ago, but it is now.
Now that doesnt mean it is not a part of Hinduism or vice-versa that since RigVedic Aryans did not practice it so they werent Hindus.
[quote]
Any people and religion can claim of their beliefs and customs evolving, but when a change occurs it represents a new identity.
[/quote]
Hinduism has GROWN and NOT changed as you say. It keeps the same core beliefs and idea, while growing with the times.
[quote]
For example, Catholic Christianity is not the same religion as ancient Roman Paganism.
[/quote]
Excuse me, Roman Paganism was purged by Christianity. They were different religions and different beliefs alogether.
You are trying to mislead by claiming that Christianity has descended from Roman Paganism.
[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, nor did they call themselves Hindu.
[/quote]
Incorrect. Rig-Veda might have been composed on what falls in present-day Pakistan, but those people had spread out to all of northern and central India.
You conveniently omitted out the numerous references to Ganges, Yamuna or the Himalayas in the Vedas to prove your biased point.
[quote]
The hegemonic and imperialistic Hindu fanatic and Indian nationalist claims on them are simply false propaganda based on myths and distorted history.
[/quote]
I would put it as the inherent inferiority complex of some muslim Pakistanis who cannot culturally or racially claim the RigVedic Aryans or Harappans as part of their culture, history and values---even though their settlements fell in the present day political map of Pakistan--- have come up with the theory that Hinduism originated in the Gangetic plain only later.
In their utter desperation and frustration to prove their point, they made false, erroneous and even fabricated statements, which anybody can prove wrong.
