The vedic civilization and evolution of society in India

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
This thread is specially for Indians. It is supposed to be thought provoking.

The Vedas do not contain the word "Hindu". The Upnishads and Puranas do not contain the word "Hindu" even once.

Then why people in India call themselves 'Hindu'?

The name of the nation is 'Bharat' and has been since king Bharat (ancestor of Pandavas). The name of the nation was 'Aryavarta' at the time of king Rama (that is the nation of Aryas). At no time was it 'Hindustan' except during Muslim rule.

Where did the word 'Hindu' came from.

What is the real history of India, and how Indians came to be what they are now?




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Why address modern India?
You suggest there is more than this oversimplification...continue on with that and discuss the varied cultures that history has shown inhabited that region for millennia.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
"Hindu" is the name Persians had for people of the Indus Valley. I read somewhere that idolatry was not condoned by their scriptures, so somewhere along the way they became forgetful of their own scripture. It's written somewhere in the vedas that idolatry is wrong.
edit on 21-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by vedatruth
 

Since no Indian until the Emperor Asoka, and precious few after until the Mughals came along, ever wrote a word of history, we shall never know the true history of India.

As far as I know, India was invented by the Mughals and given its final form by the British. It was just a subcontinent of warring states with different languages, gods and dishes before that. No more a country than ‘Europe’ is a country.

Indians tend to forget this.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by vedatruth
 

Since no Indian until the Emperor Asoka, and precious few after until the Mughals came along, ever wrote a word of history, we shall never know the true history of India.

As far as I know, India was invented by the Mughals and given its final form by the British. It was just a subcontinent of warring states with different languages, gods and dishes before that. No more a country than ‘Europe’ is a country.

Indians tend to forget this.


History has been written, but not in the same way as in China and Europe. But almost all of the written history is lost.

Muslims destroyed entire libraries existing in Taxila and Nalanda universities during invasions. It is said that library at Taxila was so big that it kept burning for six months.

Muslims always made sure to destroy books even in private collections.

Books were expensive back then. There was no mass production. Reprinting was done by copying manually. The books written on 'bhoj patra' (tree bark) tend to degrade over time in hot and moist environment of India.So reprinting was necessary.

We shall examine many lines of evidence of the original vedic civilization that existed as we go along in this thread. Thanks for posting your views.

Asoka was not the first emperor.

The British found many old books which are either in their possession or have been destroyed. It is the disgrace of defeat that the history is lost.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FrenchOsage
Why address modern India?
You suggest there is more than this oversimplification...continue on with that and discuss the varied cultures that history has shown inhabited that region for millennia.



Sure. And your views are welcome. We shall examine many aspects as we go along. I promise to make this thread interesting and full of wisdom.

I would only request patience.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
"Hindu" is the name Persians had for people of the Indus Valley. I read somewhere that idolatry was not condoned by their scriptures, so somewhere along the way they became forgetful of their own scripture. It's written somewhere in the vedas that idolatry is wrong.
edit on 21-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


Well it seems it is the Arab traders who could not pronounce 'Sindhu'. The kingdom of 'Sindhu desh' was along the river Sindhu (in modern Pakistan). The Persian people were in touch with India much longer and could pronounce the word correctly.

There were many kingdoms in ancient India. So all people cannot be called 'Sindhu' or 'Hindu'.

People are normally known by the country they live in. This is true now as well as in the past.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
yes, the Mughal empire spreading into india called them Hindoos as a mispronounciation for Sindhu's as indicated above, and to distinguise them as "non-muslims" as much of the area was being mass-converted to Islam.

the more correct term for hindus is 'dharmists' or sanatan dharmists or shivaists or even krishnans.

hinduism is where Krishna was romanized into Christ. if you look at alot of christian religious terms (baptise, mass, armageddon) they were taken from hindu scriptures and repackaged as a romanized hinduism for the jews (originally of afghanistan, not israel) and christians.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by vedatruth
 


Almost all of the written history is lost.

No doubt a lot of it was. But even the destruction of Taxila and Nalanda cannot account for the strange paucity of written records. Surely something would have survived, as the teachings of Confucius, for example, survived episodes of barbarism in China? Where are the stone inscriptions, for example? Where are the records of the southern Deccan, where the Mughals never set foot?

The only surviving chronicle of ancient events on the subcontinent is the Mahavamsa, the Great Chronicle of the Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, which covers a period between the third century BC (the Maurya period, in fact) and the fifth century AD, when it was written. It often mentions India, but only in passing; its focus is principally on the island of Lanka.

Certainly India – in parts, at least – must have been civilized in Vedic times. But we have no record of its history, only legends that cannot be unambiguously located in time or space.


Muslims always made sure to destroy books even in private collections.

This is easily read as hate speech of the kind often spouted by Hindu chauvinists. It is massively false: Western civilization is largely founded on the cultural legacy of ancient Greece and Rome, much of which is only known through works diligently preserved by Muslim scholars during the Middle Ages. If that were not enough, the wealth of antiquities in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the Middle East amply proves it wrong; while in modern Indonesia, Muslim scholars are hard at work uncovering and illuminating the pre-Islamic history of that nation. I have actually worked with some of these scholars, and can vouch for their bona fides.

The Muslims who invaded India weren’t merely Muslims; they were Mongols. That’s what ‘Mughal’ means: Mongol. And yes, Mongols were known for destroying pretty much everything they touched. But that’s no reason to tar all Islam with the same brush.


The British found many old books which are either in their possession or have been destroyed. It is the disgrace of defeat that the history is lost.

Again, this is a common lie repeated by Hindu chauvinists. In fact, it is owing to the British that anything at all is known of the history of India. It was British scholars, and other European scholars operating under British auspices, who translated the writings of ancient India into modern languages and reconstructed its history.

I am not accusing you of chauvinism, you understand, but these are incendiary claims – in a literal sense. An accusation of book-burning might stick against the Spanish or Portuguese, but not, I think, against the British.


Asoka was not the first emperor.

Yes; he was preceded by others, among them Alexander the Great. I am tolerably familiar with what is known of the history of ancient India.


We shall examine many lines of evidence of the original vedic civilization that existed as we go along in this thread. Thanks for posting your views.

Thank you for reading them. I look forward to a lively and interesting thread.

edit on 21/9/11 by Astyanax because: of kindergarten reasons.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I was told it was the name for the people on the other side of the Sindhu river who saw aspects of the divine in many demi-gods, and therefore they did not really call themselves anything unified, and it was a name their Arab neighbors called them.
Hinduism as a self-identity was only adopted under the British to refer to the Veddic-based religious followers.

Sindhu later became the Indus river:

The name Indus is used in Megasthenese's book Indica for the mighty river crossed by Alexander, based on Nearchus's contemporaneous account. "Indus" is a Hellenic derivative of the Iranian Hindu, in turn derived from Sindhu, the name of the Indus in the Rigveda. The Sanskrit Sindhu generically means river, stream, ocean, probably from a root sidh meaning to keep off; Sindhu is attested 176 times in the Rigveda, 95 times in the plural, more often used in the generic meaning

en.wikipedia.org...
See also the term Hindu for a superficial introduction of what it broadly includes and excludes:
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-9-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

No doubt a lot of it was. But even the destruction of Taxila and Nalanda cannot account for the strange paucity of written records. Surely something would have survived, as the teachings of Confucius, for example, survived episodes of barbarism in China? Where are the stone inscriptions, for example? Where are the records of the southern Deccan, where the Mughals never set foot?


Yes, a lot of it survived. And I shall talk about that. However there are cultural differences. Bharat did not have a culture of inscribing stones. The books were written on 'bhoj patra' (bark of bhoj tree).

A lot of it survived due to a tradition of memorising books. This is difficult for a Westerner to understand that entire books were committed to memory.


Certainly India – in parts, at least – must have been civilized in Vedic times. But we have no record of its history, only legends that cannot be unambiguously located in time or space.


We shall examine historical and linguistic evidence, as well as the contents of the books that survived.


Muslims always made sure to destroy books even in private collections.
This is easily read as hate speech of the kind often spouted by Hindu chauvinists. It is massively false: Western civilization is largely founded on the cultural legacy of ancient Greece and Rome, much of which is only known through works diligently preserved by Muslim scholars during the Middle Ages.


Maybe they drew inspiration from Greece and Rome. They certainly did not preserve Indian books. Maybe they considered Indians as 'kaffirs', thats why.

I do not engage is hate speech. It is perfectly logical to present unrecorded historical facts preserved in people's memory. After all what is a book. You are insinuating that if you write bull# in a book, it becomes hard facts. How?


If that were not enough, the wealth of antiquities in Iraq, Iran and the rest of the Middle East amply proves it wrong; while in modern Indonesia, Muslim scholars are hard at work uncovering and illuminating the pre-Islamic history of that nation. I have actually worked with some of these scholars, and can vouch for their bona fides.


Iraq (Babylonia) and Iran (Persia) are ancient civilizations and are proud of their heritage.
Indonesia has been greatly influenced by Indian thought. Many people of Indonesia are Hindu. Again it is cultural. Good to know Indonesians are preserving their heritage..



The Muslims who invaded India weren’t merely Muslims; they were Mongols. That’s what ‘Mughal’ means: Mongol. And yes, Mongols were known for destroying pretty much everything they touched. But that’s no reason to tar all Islam with the same brush.


Good point.


The British found many old books which are either in their possession or have been destroyed. It is the disgrace of defeat that the history is lost.


Again, this is a common lie repeated by Hindu chauvinists. In fact, it is owing to the British that anything at all is known of the history of India. It was British scholars, and other European scholars operating under British auspices, who translated the writings of ancient India into modern languages and reconstructed its history.


There is some truth to what you say but what was the intention?
British found a great ally in 'Hindu' elite that was comprised of Brahmins and Petty Kings. One reason was that 'Hindus' were fed up of Muslim rule. However these elites were the same who have virtually enslaved the people of India for 2000 years. So how good is this translation is worth examining.

Any person who offered the correct translation of Veda was ridiculed by the Pandits and ignored by the British.
It is called selective hearing.



I am not accusing you of chauvinism, you understand, but these are incendiary claims – in a literal sense. An accusation of book-burning might stick against the Spanish or Portuguese, but not, I think, against the British.


I have barely started. So it is OK even if you are accusing me.
I did not say British burned books.


Asoka was not the first emperor.
Yes; he was preceded by others, among them Alexander the Great. I am tolerably familiar with what is known of the history of ancient India.


Alexander did not actually rule India, but his successors did rule a significant part of India.
There were many emperors before Alexander and we shall talk about that.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
It is logical to have varied records and 'facts' about a large and old civilization as exists in India. An important reason to that variety is due to Vedic system that did not presecute any person just for his/her religion or creed.

"yastu sarvani bhutan anye atmane va anupashyati. Sarva bhuteshu cha atmanam tato na vi chikitsati." (Yajurveda 40/6)

Meaning: You will not be put to grief ('hell') only if you understand that the other 'jeev' (humans/animals/plants) have the same soul as you.

Vedic justice system provides punishment for a crime - like cheating, theft, rape, murder etc. There is no punishment specified for holding a belief.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
In these times of strife and uncertainity, it is wise to start with a vedic prayer.

asato ma sadgamaya
tamaso ma jyotirgamaya
mrtyorma amritam gamaya
om shanti shanti shanti. (Brihad Aranyak Upnishad 1.3.28)


Translation:

Lead Us From the untruth(also called Maya or illusion) To the truth,
Lead Us From Darkness To Light,
Lead Us From Death To Immortality,
OM (the universal sound of God)
Let There Be Peace Peace Peace. - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28.

What is "asat" (also called maya or illusion). The manifest universe is called maya because God made it from formless Prakriti with His power. The Universe is destroyed when God withdraws His power from it. God is called "Satrupa" or "Sachhidanand" because God is true (means always stays the same, is never destroyed). So pray to take me to "Sat" or what is true, that is God.

God is the source of light in this Universe. Universe was created in darkness, and no star emitted any light until God entered it. The stars shine until God's power is acting in this Universe. So take me to the source of light "Jyoti", that is God.

Jeev (soul) is imprisoned in a never-ending cycle of life and death, due to his own ignorance. Jeev becomes fond of objects created from Prakriti, and develops an attachment to them. These becomes the chains of his bondage, forcing jeev to keep coming back to these objects in different bodies. Amrit (moksha) is the state of freedom from this bondage, the state of eternal bliss.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Before we understand history and look for clues, we have to understand the Vedic system.

The language of Vedic people is 'Sanskrit'. So we shall look at Sanskrit literature.

The main book of religion and law of Vedic people is the Vedas, a book carefully preserved by ORAL tradition by people of India. Yes, this entire book has been committed to memory and has been transferred from one generation to the next, until the advent of the printing press and mass printing of this book.

The next comes the Upnishad. These books contain the explanation of Veda (each verse of Veda is called a 'mantra'). These books are written by great Rishis of Bharat and Aryavarta over a very long period of time.

Next comes the 'Shashtra' (like 'Yoga Shashtra'), treatises on philosophy, science, politics, engineering etc. written by Rishis and masters of these disciplines.

This entire body of literature runs into more than 200 books. The expanse of this entire literature proves a very long tradition of intellectual discourse in India, which produced such a rich body of knowledge.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
>>Krisn bhagwan and avatar



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Idolatry is wrong. Even the bible says do not make images of me. The reason it is wrong is because the truth is there is no 'other'.
Adviata vedanta means one without a second, or non duality.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
fail, please remove this post.
edit on 26-9-2011 by KnocksMeDead because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Did I mention 'idols' anywhere in this thread?

There are no idols/statues/temples in Vedic religion.

There is only one all powerful, all seeing, formless God.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by KnocksMeDead
 


I did not get what you want me to do?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by vedatruth
 


If you read the post i answered then it will all make sense!!





top topics
 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join