All About the Name "Hindu"

[Guest guest]

Dear Pilgrims,

 

It's fine be aligned with Hinduism and definitely opens many doors. I

like

when doors open up easily enough. It certainly helps for the sake of

clarity

to be referred to as "Hindu." There's safety in numbers. The terms

Vaisnava,

sanatana dharma, and vedic are more obscure and the subtlety will be

lost on

most people. And there's nothing wrong with being a Hindu. Some of my best

friends are Hindus. In my own field, many Hindus appreciate and

support my work

in presenting Vedic teachings through storytelling. I often define

myself as a

Vaisnava/Hindu.

 

Besides delving into linguistics, I think the real discussion is VFA's

positioning with Hinduism. In a sense, we are talking Hinduism as

the medium for

the message of VFA. But Hinduism itself is not the message, and the

medium

should not obstruct the message. The analogy that Vrn gave is very

appropriate. We are Americans (those of us in the USA), but although

we have American

passports and are functioning within American society, we're not eager

to promote

the corporate power, consumerism, and the entertainment industry that

America

stands for. Of course, there are American ideals of liberty and justice

which are important. In the same way, VFA is extracting the ideals

and essence

of what is termed as "Hinduism" and making them relevant and

meaningful for

people in general. I think that this is the trick.

 

In some cases, to play the Hindu card would be beneficial. But there are

other instances where it would prevent our message from properly being

heard and

understood. Vaisnavism and Vedic knowledge does not describe a particular

type of faith as does Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, but is the

essential

components of all spiritual teachings. If we are making presentations to

academia or Hindus then the Hindu card is fine. But to broaden our

sphere, we are

asking people in general to consider the Vedic wisdom in the context

of their

own lifestyles and/or religious systems. They might not be interested in

Hinduism and all the baggage that comes with it. So it would be

beneficial to have

the softer profile of Vaisnava, sanatana dharma, Vedic. In this way

we can

connect with spiritual tradition and present the universality of these

terms,

and not limiting it in the context of Hinduism. Of course, all this

can be

brokered individually.

 

So the question for VFA is are we positioning ourselves with Hinduism

and

Hindu causes or do we want to reach a larger audience. Can we do both?

 

Just a few thoughts for your consideration,

Later,

Andy

www.sacredvoices.com

=======================================================================

"universalyoga" <Universalyoga Add to Address Book

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:39:15 -0400

RE: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

I was under the impression that the word "Hindu" came from the word

Sindhu. Which is derived from the Sindhu/Indus river. I believe the

term is credited to the Persians referring to the people of that region.

The word undergone modification from the Greeks to other invading

cultures. The Persians were considered part of the early Vedic culture,

eventually moving more westward.

 

>From the teachings of Srila Prabhupada

 

They gave the name, Indian people, as "Hindu.Hindu" means... There is

one river, Sindhu. (This is reference to Muslim neighbors giving the

name.) http://www.salagram.net/hindu-ism-origin.html

 

Harinam Baba Prem

A quick follow-up, I would agree that the people of the region did not

refer to themselves as "Hindu" and that it does not appear in any sacred

texts as such. So it was a term used to refer to the Aryans by others.

 

Harinam Baba Prem

My window did not include Sri Nandanandana dasa's article in the window.

I thought it covered most of the relevant views quite well.

 

It is interesting regarding the Persian connection though. I believe I

also read that the word "Hindu" can be found in the Avestha, the sacred

book of the Zoroastrians. Can anyone confirm this? Though the

Zoroastrian period was much later than the earlier Persian religion. I

believe conservative Zoroastrians date the founding of the religion to

6000 BCE, other followers to a period much closer to the common era and

of course that famed 1000-1500 BCE date appears as well.

 

The Persian God Ahura Mazda is a later representation of Varuna, if my

memory serves me correctly. Though Vamadeva could clarify this. The

Persian Mithra could be a little reference to the Vedic Mitra, though

the Mithras role has changed from the Vedic Mitra, it is interesting

that they remain connected to some degree even in the Zoroastrian

religion. This along with Sri Nandanandana dasa's information on the

Persian interpretation of "Hindu" could illustrate the gradual decline

of the Persians Vedic connection and could represent the changes in

their own religion growing in a different direction. Just as various

Vedic peoples might refer to other Vedic peoples in times of conflict,

with derogatory terms as appeared with the Angirasa and Bhrighu's, they

still belonged to the greater Vedic culture. I would like to submit

that the later Persian interpretation could reflect a similar process at

work especially when we are looking at time periods going back 8-10

thousand years and coming forward in time.

 

Vamadeva connected the Persians with the Yadus under the name Parshus

and had a reference in the Rg Veda pertaining to this.

 

Harinam Baba Prem

========================================================================

 

 

--Original Message-----

victorgarg

[victorgarg]

Friday, September 10, 2004 3:40 PM

VFA-members

Re: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

 

Since the name 'Hindu' was given by foreign invaders out of hatred,

which means 'Kafir', 'coward' etc. we now know what that means and how

we got it. Who want to be called as one of those words. Vedic religion

being the most logical, scientific, natural; its about time to correct

our name. Probably, the world is looking for one word name, like

Christianity, Muslims, Buddhist etc., in that case we can call 'Vedic

Religion'. The followers of Vedic Dharma are 'Aryas', Arya means noble,

nice person. Throughout Mahabharata and Ramayana Arya word is used.

Even the visitors from China 800 years ago called the residents of

Bharat as Aryas. Hitler gave bad name to the word Arya. How about Vedic

Religion and the followers are 'Vedic Aryas'.

 

Thanks,

Vidya Sagar

=======================================================================

For me, the use of the name "Hindu" is not an accurate name in

referring to the real purpose and meaning behind the philosophy of Vedic

culture. However, many people already use the name to mean

Sanatana-dharma. Therefore, in our upcoming conference the use of the

name "Hindu" is a matter of ease of conversation in a way that most of

those who will be attending the conference are already familiar. Those

the issues that are meant to be discussed are also described in this

context. It is a closed conference, invitation only, so the matter

should not subject to the misinterpretation of those who may not

understand our purpose. If it was an open forum, or anyone was invited

to attend, a change of language or description may then be necessary.

As far as the word "Hindu" relates with other members or groups who

follow the process of Sanatana-dharma, there are many who do not use the

word "Hindu" nor do they identify themselves with being Hindus. This

includes some Vaishnava groups, some Kashmiri Pandits, followers of

Swami Narayana, the RamaKrishna mission, and others. So there must be a

banner under which all Hindus and followers of the Vedic system can

unite, and that is positively the banner of Sanatana-dharma.

In this regard, I have already posted my thought and research in

this matter on my website in an article that is enclosed below. I hope

you find it informative and interestiing.

 

ABOUT THE NAME "HINDU"

 

By Stephen Knapp

 

I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the

words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." The fact is that true "Hinduism" is based

on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an

identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist,

or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging to

any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a Muslim

God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual masters

from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The Vedic

path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary designations.

So am I calling the name "Hindu" a temporary designation?

&nb sp; We must remember that the term "hindu" is not even Sanskrit.

Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So

how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And

without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for "Hinduism."

Most scholars feel that the name "Hindu" was developed by

outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River

properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first

renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning "S", thus

making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the

Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His

Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India,

a name used especially during the British regime.

Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as

Afghanistan and Persia, they ca lled the Sindhu River the Hindu River.

Thereafter, the name "Hindu" was used to describe the inhabitants from

that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the

Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was called "Hindustan."

Because the Sanskrit sound of "S" converts to "H" in the Parsee

language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as "hindu," even though at

the time the people of the area did not use the name "hindu" themselves.

This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people and

the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the

Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used

the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except

for those who place value on it or now use it out of convenience.

Another view of the name "Hindu" shows the confusing nature it

causes for understanding the true essence of the spir itual paths of

India. As written be R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion

(p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), "The political situation of our

country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very

difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The

western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true

name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and therefore,

they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term

'Hindu'. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by

any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It

seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous

use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian

literature. Hindu-e-falak means 'the black of the sky' and 'Saturn'. In

the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and

ridiculous to have r ead all along in history that the name Hindu was

given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on

the sacred soil of Sindhu."

Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a

derogatory meaning. It is said that, "Moreover, it is correct that this

name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by

Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word

means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam

were termed as slaves." (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka

Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the

Introduction)

Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,

published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as

"chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave]."

In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (P art One, p.

615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda

(obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black). So these

are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in

the Persian label of the people of India.

So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that

became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can

understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have

anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path.

No religion ever existed that was called "Hinduism" until the Indian

people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.

The real confusion started when the name "Hinduism" was used to

indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the words "Hindu"

and "Hinduism" were used frequently by the British with the effect of

focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the people

who became known as "Hindus". This was done with the rather successful

intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was in

accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier for

their continued dominion over the country.

However, we should mention that others who try to justify the word

"Hindu" present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago,

also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there

Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma

Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still

waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:

 

Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah

MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

 

Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sin dhu maha samudhram

vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru

bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu. Both of

these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of

Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her

motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have

the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi.

"Bhoomi" (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of

Bharata or Bharata- varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous

Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the

area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata

and not as Hindustan.

Another couple of references that are used, though the exact

location of which I am not sure, includes the following:

 

Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram

Tha m Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

 

Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla devanirmmithamaya

deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

 

 

These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the

Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that

all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of

course, not everyone is going to agree with that.

Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as the

country of "Sapta Sindhu", i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This

is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this

verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the

word "Sindhu" refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific

river called "Sindhu". Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit,

according to ancient dictionaries, "sa" was pronounced as "h a". Thus

"Sapta Sindhu" was pronounced as "Hapta Hindu". So this is how the word

"Hindu" is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that the

ancient Persians referred to Bharat as "Hapta Hind", as recorded in

their ancient classic "Bem Riyadh". So this is another reason why some

scholars came to believe that the word "Hindu" had its origin in Persia.

Another theory is that the name "Hindu" does not even come from the

name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. "This

[sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably

ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would

not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines

waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners." He

cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B.

Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and

Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as

Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this

verse:

 

himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram

hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

 

Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing,

but Kumar translates it as: "The country lying between the Himalayan

mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan

by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the last

compound letter 'ndu' of the word 'Bindu.'"

This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name

"Hindu", indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this area

are thus known as "Hindus".

So again, in any way these theories may present their information,

and in any way you look at it, the name "Hindu" started simply as a b

odily and regional designation. The name "Hindu" refers to a location

and its people and originally had nothing to do with the philosophies or

religion of the people, which could certainly change from one thing to

another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians. Sure,

that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about

their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous names

according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not all

Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already object

to calling themselves by that name. So "Hindu" is not the most

appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of

sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient

Indians and their early history is Vedic culture. So it is more

appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those who

follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses t he location of a

people.

Unfortunately, the word "Hindu" has gradually been adopted by most

everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general

way, so much so, in fact, that now "Hinduism" is often used to describe

anything from religious activities to even Indian social or

nationalistic events. Some of these so-called "Hindu" events are not

endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered

non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a "Hindu" and still

be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity

casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be considered

a part of the true Vedic culture.

Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called

sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the

soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of sugar

is t o be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then it

is not sugar. Or the dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If it

does not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a

particular dharma or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or eternal.

It does not change. So there is the state of dharma and the path of

dharma. Following the principles of sanatana-dharma can bring us to the

pure state of regaining our forgotten relationship with God. This is the

goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all Vedic

literature, such as Lord Krishna's message in Bhagavad-gita, as well as

the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only

"Hindus" who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or family

of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As

everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as

described according to the principles of sanatana-dharma, then everyone

should be given the right and privilege to understand this knowledge. It

cannot be held for an exclusive group of people.

Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual philosophy

that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less

philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is a

"universal spiritual truth" which can be applied by all people, in any

part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is

eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all

time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of

Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name "Hindu" implies, especially

after understanding from where the name comes.

Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga

after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hindui

sm (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth, there

will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and

universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be

re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt then

that He will use the name "Hindu." He certainly said nothing of the sort

when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

Thus, although I do not feel that "Hindu" is a proper term to

represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word

from time to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is

already so much a part of everyone's vocabulary. Otherwise, since I

follow the Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a

sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label of "Hindu" and

also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path. Therefore, I

propose that all Hindus begin to use this term sanatana-dharmist, whic h

not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also more

accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of the

Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even dharmists,

both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.

[Guest guest]

Dear VRN Parker,

 

According to me VFA needs to reach a large audience.You had pointed

out about American corporate power ,entertainment etc.I would like to

inform you that India is getting americanised in a major way

especially the metro cities like bombay,Delhi etc.Shopping

malls,Multiplexes,Mc donalds,Sub way,Pepsi,Spiderman I guess the

americanisation is getting completed over here.Lets examine the side

effects of all this.Due to the influence of hollywood and also

porn,juvenile crime is increasing in bombay.Moral values are coming

down and many men and women think that having affairs or extra

marital relationship is modern life.I guess people are not

realising the side effects of all this.Due to discotheques,drug usage

among college students and urban indians are on the rise.In olden

days there were grandparents to look after kids,but now due to

nuclear families kids do not have any role models.Grandparents are

being send to old age homes like in USA and parents are having their

affairs.Kids who are looked after by servants do not inherit any kind

of moral values or culture.The rishis of ancient india must have seen

all this long back.I seriously feel VFA should address all this

because if an institution in India tries to do this,everybody makes

them quiet by shouting they are part of hindutva or hindu

fundamentalism.Therefore I seriously feel VFA needs to do play a

constructive role right from school level.

 

 

vediculture, "vrnparker" <vrnparker>

wrote:

> Dear Pilgrims,

>

> It's fine be aligned with Hinduism and definitely opens many

doors. I

> like

> when doors open up easily enough. It certainly helps for the sake

of

> clarity

> to be referred to as "Hindu." There's safety in numbers. The terms

> Vaisnava,

> sanatana dharma, and vedic are more obscure and the subtlety will be

> lost on

> most people. And there's nothing wrong with being a Hindu. Some of

my best

> friends are Hindus. In my own field, many Hindus appreciate and

> support my work

> in presenting Vedic teachings through storytelling. I often define

> myself as a

> Vaisnava/Hindu.

>

> Besides delving into linguistics, I think the real discussion is

VFA's

> positioning with Hinduism. In a sense, we are talking Hinduism as

> the medium for

> the message of VFA. But Hinduism itself is not the message, and

the

> medium

> should not obstruct the message. The analogy that Vrn gave is very

> appropriate. We are Americans (those of us in the USA), but although

> we have American

> passports and are functioning within American society, we're not

eager

> to promote

> the corporate power, consumerism, and the entertainment industry

that

> America

> stands for. Of course, there are American ideals of liberty and

justice

> which are important. In the same way, VFA is extracting the ideals

> and essence

> of what is termed as "Hinduism" and making them relevant and

> meaningful for

> people in general. I think that this is the trick.

>

> In some cases, to play the Hindu card would be beneficial. But

there are

> other instances where it would prevent our message from properly

being

> heard and

> understood. Vaisnavism and Vedic knowledge does not describe a

particular

> type of faith as does Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, but is the

> essential

> components of all spiritual teachings. If we are making

presentations to

> academia or Hindus then the Hindu card is fine. But to broaden our

> sphere, we are

> asking people in general to consider the Vedic wisdom in the

context

> of their

> own lifestyles and/or religious systems. They might not be

interested in

> Hinduism and all the baggage that comes with it. So it would be

> beneficial to have

> the softer profile of Vaisnava, sanatana dharma, Vedic. In this way

> we can

> connect with spiritual tradition and present the universality of

these

> terms,

> and not limiting it in the context of Hinduism. Of course, all

this

> can be

> brokered individually.

>

> So the question for VFA is are we positioning ourselves with

Hinduism

> and

> Hindu causes or do we want to reach a larger audience. Can we do

both?

>

> Just a few thoughts for your consideration,

> Later,

> Andy

> www.sacredvoices.com

>

======================================================================

=

> "universalyoga" <Universalyoga@n...> Add to Address Book

> Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:39:15 -0400

> RE: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

> I was under the impression that the word "Hindu" came from the word

> Sindhu. Which is derived from the Sindhu/Indus river. I believe

the

> term is credited to the Persians referring to the people of that

region.

> The word undergone modification from the Greeks to other invading

> cultures. The Persians were considered part of the early Vedic

culture,

> eventually moving more westward.

>

> From the teachings of Srila Prabhupada

>

> They gave the name, Indian people, as "Hindu.Hindu" means...

There is

> one river, Sindhu. (This is reference to Muslim neighbors giving the

> name.) http://www.salagram.net/hindu-ism-origin.html

>

> Harinam Baba Prem

> A quick follow-up, I would agree that the people of the region did

not

> refer to themselves as "Hindu" and that it does not appear in any

sacred

> texts as such. So it was a term used to refer to the Aryans by

others.

>

> Harinam Baba Prem

> My window did not include Sri Nandanandana dasa's article in the

window.

> I thought it covered most of the relevant views quite well.

>

> It is interesting regarding the Persian connection though. I

believe I

> also read that the word "Hindu" can be found in the Avestha, the

sacred

> book of the Zoroastrians. Can anyone confirm this? Though the

> Zoroastrian period was much later than the earlier Persian

religion. I

> believe conservative Zoroastrians date the founding of the religion

to

> 6000 BCE, other followers to a period much closer to the common era

and

> of course that famed 1000-1500 BCE date appears as well.

>

> The Persian God Ahura Mazda is a later representation of Varuna, if

my

> memory serves me correctly. Though Vamadeva could clarify this.

The

> Persian Mithra could be a little reference to the Vedic Mitra,

though

> the Mithras role has changed from the Vedic Mitra, it is

interesting

> that they remain connected to some degree even in the Zoroastrian

> religion. This along with Sri Nandanandana dasa's information on

the

> Persian interpretation of "Hindu" could illustrate the gradual

decline

> of the Persians Vedic connection and could represent the changes in

> their own religion growing in a different direction. Just as

various

> Vedic peoples might refer to other Vedic peoples in times of

conflict,

> with derogatory terms as appeared with the Angirasa and Bhrighu's,

they

> still belonged to the greater Vedic culture. I would like to submit

> that the later Persian interpretation could reflect a similar

process at

> work especially when we are looking at time periods going back 8-10

> thousand years and coming forward in time.

>

> Vamadeva connected the Persians with the Yadus under the name

Parshus

> and had a reference in the Rg Veda pertaining to this.

>

> Harinam Baba Prem

>

======================================================================

==

>

>

> --Original Message-----

> victorgarg@d...

> [victorgarg@d...]

> Friday, September 10, 2004 3:40 PM

> VFA-members

> Re: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

>

> Since the name 'Hindu' was given by foreign invaders out of hatred,

> which means 'Kafir', 'coward' etc. we now know what that means and

how

> we got it. Who want to be called as one of those words. Vedic

religion

> being the most logical, scientific, natural; its about time to

correct

> our name. Probably, the world is looking for one word name, like

> Christianity, Muslims, Buddhist etc., in that case we can

call 'Vedic

> Religion'. The followers of Vedic Dharma are 'Aryas', Arya means

noble,

> nice person. Throughout Mahabharata and Ramayana Arya word is used.

> Even the visitors from China 800 years ago called the residents of

> Bharat as Aryas. Hitler gave bad name to the word Arya. How about

Vedic

> Religion and the followers are 'Vedic Aryas'.

>

> Thanks,

> Vidya Sagar

>

======================================================================

=

> For me, the use of the name "Hindu" is not an accurate name in

> referring to the real purpose and meaning behind the philosophy of

Vedic

> culture. However, many people already use the name to mean

> Sanatana-dharma. Therefore, in our upcoming conference the use of

the

> name "Hindu" is a matter of ease of conversation in a way that most

of

> those who will be attending the conference are already familiar.

Those

> the issues that are meant to be discussed are also described in this

> context. It is a closed conference, invitation only, so the matter

> should not subject to the misinterpretation of those who may not

> understand our purpose. If it was an open forum, or anyone was

invited

> to attend, a change of language or description may then be

necessary.

> As far as the word "Hindu" relates with other members or groups

who

> follow the process of Sanatana-dharma, there are many who do not

use the

> word "Hindu" nor do they identify themselves with being Hindus. This

> includes some Vaishnava groups, some Kashmiri Pandits, followers of

> Swami Narayana, the RamaKrishna mission, and others. So there must

be a

> banner under which all Hindus and followers of the Vedic system can

> unite, and that is positively the banner of Sanatana-dharma.

> In this regard, I have already posted my thought and research in

> this matter on my website in an article that is enclosed below. I

hope

> you find it informative and interestiing.

>

> ABOUT THE NAME "HINDU"

>

> By Stephen Knapp

>

> I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of

the

> words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." The fact is that true "Hinduism" is

based

> on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity.

Such an

> identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim,

Buddhist,

> or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging

to

> any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a

Muslim

> God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual

masters

> from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The

Vedic

> path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary

designations.

> So am I calling the name "Hindu" a temporary designation?

> &nb sp; We must remember that the term "hindu" is not even

Sanskrit.

> Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic

literature. So

> how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And

> without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for "Hinduism."

> Most scholars feel that the name "Hindu" was developed by

> outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu

River

> properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who

first

> renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning "S",

thus

> making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as

the

> Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His

> Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as

India,

> a name used especially during the British regime.

> Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as

> Afghanistan and Persia, they ca lled the Sindhu River the Hindu

River.

> Thereafter, the name "Hindu" was used to describe the inhabitants

from

> that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the

> Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was

called "Hindustan."

> Because the Sanskrit sound of "S" converts to "H" in the Parsee

> language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as "hindu," even though

at

> the time the people of the area did not use the name "hindu"

themselves.

> This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people

and

> the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the

> Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and

used

> the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning

except

> for those who place value on it or now use it out of convenience.

> Another view of the name "Hindu" shows the confusing nature it

> causes for understanding the true essence of the spir itual paths of

> India. As written be R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal

Religion

> (p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), "The political situation of

our

> country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very

> difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion.

The

> western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true

> name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and

therefore,

> they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless

term

> 'Hindu'. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use

by

> any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It

> seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon

continuous

> use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in

Persian

> literature. Hindu-e-falak means 'the black of the sky'

and 'Saturn'. In

> the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and

> ridiculous to have r ead all along in history that the name Hindu

was

> given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed

on

> the sacred soil of Sindhu."

> Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a

> derogatory meaning. It is said that, "Moreover, it is correct that

this

> name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the

region by

> Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the

word

> means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace

Islam

> were termed as slaves." (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka

> Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the

> Introduction)

> Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,

> published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as

> "chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam

[slave]."

> In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (P art One, p.

> 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as

barda

> (obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black). So

these

> are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term

hindu in

> the Persian label of the people of India.

> So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term

that

> became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can

> understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have

> anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual

path.

> No religion ever existed that was called "Hinduism" until the Indian

> people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.

> The real confusion started when the name "Hinduism" was used to

> indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the

words "Hindu"

> and "Hinduism" were used frequently by the British with the effect

of

> focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the

people

> who became known as "Hindus". This was done with the rather

successful

> intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was

in

> accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier

for

> their continued dominion over the country.

> However, we should mention that others who try to justify the

word

> "Hindu" present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years

ago,

> also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there

> Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana,

Padma

> Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am

still

> waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:

>

> Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah

> MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

>

> Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sin dhu maha

samudhram

> vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru

> bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.

Both of

> these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land

of

> Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or

her

> motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also

have

> the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata

Bhoomi.

> "Bhoomi" (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of

> Bharata or Bharata- varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous

> Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts,

the

> area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of

Bharata

> and not as Hindustan.

> Another couple of references that are used, though the exact

> location of which I am not sure, includes the following:

>

> Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram

> Tha m Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

>

> Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla devanirmmithamaya

> deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

>

>

> These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and

the

> Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is

that

> all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of

> course, not everyone is going to agree with that.

> Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as the

> country of "Sapta Sindhu", i.e. the country of seven great rivers.

This

> is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter

this

> verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that

the

> word "Sindhu" refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the

specific

> river called "Sindhu". Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic

Sanskrit,

> according to ancient dictionaries, "sa" was pronounced as "h a".

Thus

> "Sapta Sindhu" was pronounced as "Hapta Hindu". So this is how the

word

> "Hindu" is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that

the

> ancient Persians referred to Bharat as "Hapta Hind", as recorded in

> their ancient classic "Bem Riyadh". So this is another reason why

some

> scholars came to believe that the word "Hindu" had its origin in

Persia.

> Another theory is that the name "Hindu" does not even come

from the

> name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India

explains. "This

> [sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably

> ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth

would

> not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines

> waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners."

He

> cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B.

> Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and

> Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as

> Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained

this

> verse:

>

> himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram

> hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

>

> Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is

missing,

> but Kumar translates it as: "The country lying between the Himalayan

> mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as

Hindusthan

> by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the last

> compound letter 'ndu' of the word 'Bindu.'"

> This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name

> "Hindu", indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this

area

> are thus known as "Hindus".

> So again, in any way these theories may present their

information,

> and in any way you look at it, the name "Hindu" started simply as a

b

> odily and regional designation. The name "Hindu" refers to a

location

> and its people and originally had nothing to do with the

philosophies or

> religion of the people, which could certainly change from one thing

to

> another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians.

Sure,

> that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about

> their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous

names

> according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not

all

> Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already

object

> to calling themselves by that name. So "Hindu" is not the most

> appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of

> sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient

> Indians and their early history is Vedic culture. So it is more

> appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those

who

> follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses t he location

of a

> people.

> Unfortunately, the word "Hindu" has gradually been adopted by

most

> everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very

general

> way, so much so, in fact, that now "Hinduism" is often used to

describe

> anything from religious activities to even Indian social or

> nationalistic events. Some of these so-called "Hindu" events are not

> endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered

> non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a "Hindu" and

still

> be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity

> casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be

considered

> a part of the true Vedic culture.

> Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called

> sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of

the

> soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of

sugar

> is t o be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then

it

> is not sugar. Or the dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If

it

> does not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a

> particular dharma or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or

eternal.

> It does not change. So there is the state of dharma and the path of

> dharma. Following the principles of sanatana-dharma can bring us to

the

> pure state of regaining our forgotten relationship with God. This

is the

> goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all

Vedic

> literature, such as Lord Krishna's message in Bhagavad-gita, as

well as

> the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only

> "Hindus" who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or

family

> of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As

> everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as

> described according to the principles of sanatana-dharma, then

everyone

> should be given the right and privilege to understand this

knowledge. It

> cannot be held for an exclusive group of people.

> Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual

philosophy

> that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less

> philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul

is a

> "universal spiritual truth" which can be applied by all people, in

any

> part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It

is

> eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond

all

> time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence

of

> Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name "Hindu" implies,

especially

> after understanding from where the name comes.

> Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga

> after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even

Hindui

> sm (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth,

there

> will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and

> universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be

> re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt

then

> that He will use the name "Hindu." He certainly said nothing of the

sort

> when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

> Thus, although I do not feel that "Hindu" is a proper term to

> represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the

word

> from time to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is

> already so much a part of everyone's vocabulary. Otherwise, since I

> follow the Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a

> sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label

of "Hindu" and

> also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path.

Therefore, I

> propose that all Hindus begin to use this term sanatana-dharmist,

whic h

> not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also more

> accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of the

> Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even

dharmists,

> both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreeramwji,

Thanks for yr excellent response to the topic. I fully agree with you.

The truth is a majority of societies ills would be solved by good

education.

Chanakya Pandit I belive said that to plan for the next year, build

roads, to plan for the next 10 years, plant trees.

To plan for the next 100 years, invest in education. (not exact quote)

Sincerely Vrndavan

PS I didnt write the info in the message 'all about the name hindu' it

is a discussion from the VFA egroup that i forwarded to vediculture.

http://www.vedicfriends.org

 

 

vediculture, "sreeramw" <sreeramw> wrote:

> Dear VRN Parker,

>

> According to me VFA needs to reach a large audience.You had pointed

> out about American corporate power ,entertainment etc.I would like to

> inform you that India is getting americanised in a major way

> especially the metro cities like bombay,Delhi etc.Shopping

> malls,Multiplexes,Mc donalds,Sub way,Pepsi,Spiderman I guess the

> americanisation is getting completed over here.Lets examine the side

> effects of all this.Due to the influence of hollywood and also

> porn,juvenile crime is increasing in bombay.Moral values are coming

> down and many men and women think that having affairs or extra

> marital relationship is modern life.I guess people are not

> realising the side effects of all this.Due to discotheques,drug usage

> among college students and urban indians are on the rise.In olden

> days there were grandparents to look after kids,but now due to

> nuclear families kids do not have any role models.Grandparents are

> being send to old age homes like in USA and parents are having their

> affairs.Kids who are looked after by servants do not inherit any kind

> of moral values or culture.The rishis of ancient india must have seen

> all this long back.I seriously feel VFA should address all this

> because if an institution in India tries to do this,everybody makes

> them quiet by shouting they are part of hindutva or hindu

> fundamentalism.Therefore I seriously feel VFA needs to do play a

> constructive role right from school level.

>

>

> vediculture, "vrnparker" <vrnparker>

> wrote:

> > Dear Pilgrims,

> >

> > It's fine be aligned with Hinduism and definitely opens many

> doors. I

> > like

> > when doors open up easily enough. It certainly helps for the sake

> of

> > clarity

> > to be referred to as "Hindu." There's safety in numbers. The terms

> > Vaisnava,

> > sanatana dharma, and vedic are more obscure and the subtlety will be

> > lost on

> > most people. And there's nothing wrong with being a Hindu. Some of

> my best

> > friends are Hindus. In my own field, many Hindus appreciate and

> > support my work

> > in presenting Vedic teachings through storytelling. I often define

> > myself as a

> > Vaisnava/Hindu.

> >

> > Besides delving into linguistics, I think the real discussion is

> VFA's

> > positioning with Hinduism. In a sense, we are talking Hinduism as

> > the medium for

> > the message of VFA. But Hinduism itself is not the message, and

> the

> > medium

> > should not obstruct the message. The analogy that Vrn gave is very

> > appropriate. We are Americans (those of us in the USA), but although

> > we have American

> > passports and are functioning within American society, we're not

> eager

> > to promote

> > the corporate power, consumerism, and the entertainment industry

> that

> > America

> > stands for. Of course, there are American ideals of liberty and

> justice

> > which are important. In the same way, VFA is extracting the ideals

> > and essence

> > of what is termed as "Hinduism" and making them relevant and

> > meaningful for

> > people in general. I think that this is the trick.

> >

> > In some cases, to play the Hindu card would be beneficial. But

> there are

> > other instances where it would prevent our message from properly

> being

> > heard and

> > understood. Vaisnavism and Vedic knowledge does not describe a

> particular

> > type of faith as does Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, but is the

> > essential

> > components of all spiritual teachings. If we are making

> presentations to

> > academia or Hindus then the Hindu card is fine. But to broaden our

> > sphere, we are

> > asking people in general to consider the Vedic wisdom in the

> context

> > of their

> > own lifestyles and/or religious systems. They might not be

> interested in

> > Hinduism and all the baggage that comes with it. So it would be

> > beneficial to have

> > the softer profile of Vaisnava, sanatana dharma, Vedic. In this way

> > we can

> > connect with spiritual tradition and present the universality of

> these

> > terms,

> > and not limiting it in the context of Hinduism. Of course, all

> this

> > can be

> > brokered individually.

> >

> > So the question for VFA is are we positioning ourselves with

> Hinduism

> > and

> > Hindu causes or do we want to reach a larger audience. Can we do

> both?

> >

> > Just a few thoughts for your consideration,

> > Later,

> > Andy

> > www.sacredvoices.com

> >

> ======================================================================

> =

> > "universalyoga" <Universalyoga@n...> Add to Address Book

> > Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:39:15 -0400

> > RE: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

> > I was under the impression that the word "Hindu" came from the word

> > Sindhu. Which is derived from the Sindhu/Indus river. I believe

> the

> > term is credited to the Persians referring to the people of that

> region.

> > The word undergone modification from the Greeks to other invading

> > cultures. The Persians were considered part of the early Vedic

> culture,

> > eventually moving more westward.

> >

> > From the teachings of Srila Prabhupada

> >

> > They gave the name, Indian people, as "Hindu.Hindu" means...

> There is

> > one river, Sindhu. (This is reference to Muslim neighbors giving the

> > name.) http://www.salagram.net/hindu-ism-origin.html

> >

> > Harinam Baba Prem

> > A quick follow-up, I would agree that the people of the region did

> not

> > refer to themselves as "Hindu" and that it does not appear in any

> sacred

> > texts as such. So it was a term used to refer to the Aryans by

> others.

> >

> > Harinam Baba Prem

> > My window did not include Sri Nandanandana dasa's article in the

> window.

> > I thought it covered most of the relevant views quite well.

> >

> > It is interesting regarding the Persian connection though. I

> believe I

> > also read that the word "Hindu" can be found in the Avestha, the

> sacred

> > book of the Zoroastrians. Can anyone confirm this? Though the

> > Zoroastrian period was much later than the earlier Persian

> religion. I

> > believe conservative Zoroastrians date the founding of the religion

> to

> > 6000 BCE, other followers to a period much closer to the common era

> and

> > of course that famed 1000-1500 BCE date appears as well.

> >

> > The Persian God Ahura Mazda is a later representation of Varuna, if

> my

> > memory serves me correctly. Though Vamadeva could clarify this.

> The

> > Persian Mithra could be a little reference to the Vedic Mitra,

> though

> > the Mithras role has changed from the Vedic Mitra, it is

> interesting

> > that they remain connected to some degree even in the Zoroastrian

> > religion. This along with Sri Nandanandana dasa's information on

> the

> > Persian interpretation of "Hindu" could illustrate the gradual

> decline

> > of the Persians Vedic connection and could represent the changes in

> > their own religion growing in a different direction. Just as

> various

> > Vedic peoples might refer to other Vedic peoples in times of

> conflict,

> > with derogatory terms as appeared with the Angirasa and Bhrighu's,

> they

> > still belonged to the greater Vedic culture. I would like to submit

> > that the later Persian interpretation could reflect a similar

> process at

> > work especially when we are looking at time periods going back 8-10

> > thousand years and coming forward in time.

> >

> > Vamadeva connected the Persians with the Yadus under the name

> Parshus

> > and had a reference in the Rg Veda pertaining to this.

> >

> > Harinam Baba Prem

> >

> ======================================================================

> ==

> >

> >

> > --Original Message-----

> > victorgarg@d...

> > [victorgarg@d...]

> > Friday, September 10, 2004 3:40 PM

> > VFA-members

> > Re: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

> >

> > Since the name 'Hindu' was given by foreign invaders out of hatred,

> > which means 'Kafir', 'coward' etc. we now know what that means and

> how

> > we got it. Who want to be called as one of those words. Vedic

> religion

> > being the most logical, scientific, natural; its about time to

> correct

> > our name. Probably, the world is looking for one word name, like

> > Christianity, Muslims, Buddhist etc., in that case we can

> call 'Vedic

> > Religion'. The followers of Vedic Dharma are 'Aryas', Arya means

> noble,

> > nice person. Throughout Mahabharata and Ramayana Arya word is used.

> > Even the visitors from China 800 years ago called the residents of

> > Bharat as Aryas. Hitler gave bad name to the word Arya. How about

> Vedic

> > Religion and the followers are 'Vedic Aryas'.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Vidya Sagar

> >

> ======================================================================

> =

> > For me, the use of the name "Hindu" is not an accurate name in

> > referring to the real purpose and meaning behind the philosophy of

> Vedic

> > culture. However, many people already use the name to mean

> > Sanatana-dharma. Therefore, in our upcoming conference the use of

> the

> > name "Hindu" is a matter of ease of conversation in a way that most

> of

> > those who will be attending the conference are already familiar.

> Those

> > the issues that are meant to be discussed are also described in this

> > context. It is a closed conference, invitation only, so the matter

> > should not subject to the misinterpretation of those who may not

> > understand our purpose. If it was an open forum, or anyone was

> invited

> > to attend, a change of language or description may then be

> necessary.

> > As far as the word "Hindu" relates with other members or groups

> who

> > follow the process of Sanatana-dharma, there are many who do not

> use the

> > word "Hindu" nor do they identify themselves with being Hindus. This

> > includes some Vaishnava groups, some Kashmiri Pandits, followers of

> > Swami Narayana, the RamaKrishna mission, and others. So there must

> be a

> > banner under which all Hindus and followers of the Vedic system can

> > unite, and that is positively the banner of Sanatana-dharma.

> > In this regard, I have already posted my thought and research in

> > this matter on my website in an article that is enclosed below. I

> hope

> > you find it informative and interestiing.

> >

> > ABOUT THE NAME "HINDU"

> >

> > By Stephen Knapp

> >

> > I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of

> the

> > words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." The fact is that true "Hinduism" is

> based

> > on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity.

> Such an

> > identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim,

> Buddhist,

> > or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging

> to

> > any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a

> Muslim

> > God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual

> masters

> > from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The

> Vedic

> > path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary

> designations.

> > So am I calling the name "Hindu" a temporary designation?

> > &nb sp; We must remember that the term "hindu" is not even

> Sanskrit.

> > Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic

> literature. So

> > how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And

> > without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for "Hinduism."

> > Most scholars feel that the name "Hindu" was developed by

> > outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu

> River

> > properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who

> first

> > renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning "S",

> thus

> > making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as

> the

> > Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His

> > Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as

> India,

> > a name used especially during the British regime.

> > Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as

> > Afghanistan and Persia, they ca lled the Sindhu River the Hindu

> River.

> > Thereafter, the name "Hindu" was used to describe the inhabitants

> from

> > that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the

> > Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was

> called "Hindustan."

> > Because the Sanskrit sound of "S" converts to "H" in the Parsee

> > language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as "hindu," even though

> at

> > the time the people of the area did not use the name "hindu"

> themselves.

> > This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people

> and

> > the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the

> > Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and

> used

> > the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning

> except

> > for those who place value on it or now use it out of convenience.

> > Another view of the name "Hindu" shows the confusing nature it

> > causes for understanding the true essence of the spir itual paths of

> > India. As written be R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal

> Religion

> > (p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), "The political situation of

> our

> > country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very

> > difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion.

> The

> > western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true

> > name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and

> therefore,

> > they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless

> term

> > 'Hindu'. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use

> by

> > any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It

> > seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon

> continuous

> > use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in

> Persian

> > literature. Hindu-e-falak means 'the black of the sky'

> and 'Saturn'. In

> > the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and

> > ridiculous to have r ead all along in history that the name Hindu

> was

> > given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed

> on

> > the sacred soil of Sindhu."

> > Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a

> > derogatory meaning. It is said that, "Moreover, it is correct that

> this

> > name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the

> region by

> > Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the

> word

> > means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace

> Islam

> > were termed as slaves." (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka

> > Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the

> > Introduction)

> > Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,

> > published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as

> > "chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam

> [slave]."

> > In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (P art One, p.

> > 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as

> barda

> > (obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black). So

> these

> > are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term

> hindu in

> > the Persian label of the people of India.

> > So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term

> that

> > became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can

> > understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have

> > anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual

> path.

> > No religion ever existed that was called "Hinduism" until the Indian

> > people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.

> > The real confusion started when the name "Hinduism" was used to

> > indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the

> words "Hindu"

> > and "Hinduism" were used frequently by the British with the effect

> of

> > focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the

> people

> > who became known as "Hindus". This was done with the rather

> successful

> > intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was

> in

> > accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier

> for

> > their continued dominion over the country.

> > However, we should mention that others who try to justify the

> word

> > "Hindu" present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years

> ago,

> > also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there

> > Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana,

> Padma

> > Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am

> still

> > waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:

> >

> > Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah

> > MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

> >

> > Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sin dhu maha

> samudhram

> > vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru

> > bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.

> Both of

> > these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land

> of

> > Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or

> her

> > motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also

> have

> > the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata

> Bhoomi.

> > "Bhoomi" (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of

> > Bharata or Bharata- varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous

> > Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts,

> the

> > area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of

> Bharata

> > and not as Hindustan.

> > Another couple of references that are used, though the exact

> > location of which I am not sure, includes the following:

> >

> > Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram

> > Tha m Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

> >

> > Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla devanirmmithamaya

> > deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

> >

> >

> > These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and

> the

> > Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is

> that

> > all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of

> > course, not everyone is going to agree with that.

> > Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as the

> > country of "Sapta Sindhu", i.e. the country of seven great rivers.

> This

> > is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter

> this

> > verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that

> the

> > word "Sindhu" refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the

> specific

> > river called "Sindhu". Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic

> Sanskrit,

> > according to ancient dictionaries, "sa" was pronounced as "h a".

> Thus

> > "Sapta Sindhu" was pronounced as "Hapta Hindu". So this is how the

> word

> > "Hindu" is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that

> the

> > ancient Persians referred to Bharat as "Hapta Hind", as recorded in

> > their ancient classic "Bem Riyadh". So this is another reason why

> some

> > scholars came to believe that the word "Hindu" had its origin in

> Persia.

> > Another theory is that the name "Hindu" does not even come

> from the

> > name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India

> explains. "This

> > [sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably

> > ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth

> would

> > not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines

> > waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners."

> He

> > cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B.

> > Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and

> > Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as

> > Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained

> this

> > verse:

> >

> > himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram

> > hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

> >

> > Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is

> missing,

> > but Kumar translates it as: "The country lying between the Himalayan

> > mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as

> Hindusthan

> > by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the last

> > compound letter 'ndu' of the word 'Bindu.'"

> > This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name

> > "Hindu", indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this

> area

> > are thus known as "Hindus".

> > So again, in any way these theories may present their

> information,

> > and in any way you look at it, the name "Hindu" started simply as a

> b

> > odily and regional designation. The name "Hindu" refers to a

> location

> > and its people and originally had nothing to do with the

> philosophies or

> > religion of the people, which could certainly change from one thing

> to

> > another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians.

> Sure,

> > that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about

> > their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous

> names

> > according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not

> all

> > Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already

> object

> > to calling themselves by that name. So "Hindu" is not the most

> > appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of

> > sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient

> > Indians and their early history is Vedic culture. So it is more

> > appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those

> who

> > follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses t he location

> of a

> > people.

> > Unfortunately, the word "Hindu" has gradually been adopted by

> most

> > everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very

> general

> > way, so much so, in fact, that now "Hinduism" is often used to

> describe

> > anything from religious activities to even Indian social or

> > nationalistic events. Some of these so-called "Hindu" events are not

> > endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered

> > non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a "Hindu" and

> still

> > be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity

> > casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be

> considered

> > a part of the true Vedic culture.

> > Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called

> > sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of

> the

> > soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of

> sugar

> > is t o be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then

> it

> > is not sugar. Or the dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If

> it

> > does not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a

> > particular dharma or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or

> eternal.

> > It does not change. So there is the state of dharma and the path of

> > dharma. Following the principles of sanatana-dharma can bring us to

> the

> > pure state of regaining our forgotten relationship with God. This

> is the

> > goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all

> Vedic

> > literature, such as Lord Krishna's message in Bhagavad-gita, as

> well as

> > the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only

> > "Hindus" who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or

> family

> > of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As

> > everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as

> > described according to the principles of sanatana-dharma, then

> everyone

> > should be given the right and privilege to understand this

> knowledge. It

> > cannot be held for an exclusive group of people.

> > Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual

> philosophy

> > that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less

> > philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul

> is a

> > "universal spiritual truth" which can be applied by all people, in

> any

> > part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It

> is

> > eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond

> all

> > time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence

> of

> > Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name "Hindu" implies,

> especially

> > after understanding from where the name comes.

> > Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga

> > after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even

> Hindui

> > sm (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth,

> there

> > will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and

> > universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be

> > re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt

> then

> > that He will use the name "Hindu." He certainly said nothing of the

> sort

> > when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

> > Thus, although I do not feel that "Hindu" is a proper term to

> > represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the

> word

> > from time to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is

> > already so much a part of everyone's vocabulary. Otherwise, since I

> > follow the Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a

> > sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label

> of "Hindu" and

> > also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path.

> Therefore, I

> > propose that all Hindus begin to use this term sanatana-dharmist,

> whic h

> > not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also more

> > accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of the

> > Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even

> dharmists,

> > both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.

[Guest guest]

Dear VRN Parker,

 

I have also one suggestion to make.When you are working with

educational institutions please stress the importance of yoga and

meditation at school level.When kids are young and if they are

introduced to spirituality,many evils in the society can be

reduced.Another important thing we need to recreate our epics with

moral stories in animation format .Iam sure that small kids will

enjoy them in cartoon format.Even Jataka tales and panchtantra could

be in such format.In India I have seen some cartoons about krishna

and also about ramayana but they are few.If we need to counter the

influence of violent and sexual video games and cartoons then we

should see how can we make our excellent heritage into the same

format without losing their importance.

 

Long time back Chanakya had said that when women mingle with

careless men unwanted population arise,which later becomes major

menace to society.When we see the world around us this is 100 percent

correct.Whether it is mafia,terrorism or problematic adults who have

had a very bad childhood.The problem with todays education is it has

stopped looking inward and it is more against the nature.The

education makes each individual a money making machine which does not

think about his fellow human beings.Compassion for others is a bad

thing in todays world and success means being aggressive and

ruthless.Corporates are more concerned with their quarter to quarter

performance than their long term goals.The ceo knows that it doesnt

matter if the organisation sinks,he can always join another firm and

make his millions.The whole system is against the nature of the

world.Unless and until we have an education which is more spiritual

and creates men and women of character the world will be a miserable

place to live.

I dont want to be a pessimist,there are institutions in India like

chinmaya mission and bhartiya vidya bhavan which has always tried to

inculcate good values among children,but when you have such a huge

population it is not enough.Let us also not forget that many parents

cannot afford the fees of such schools.Therefore it has to be

affordable so that it reaches majority of the population.

 

Efforts of institutions like VFA will be more appreciated in India

because you are coming across the atlantic and pacific.Let us also

admit the fact that many Indians in India will listen and accept

about purpose of vedas if it is coming from the west.When Yoga became

popular in india,suddenly indians in india got awakened and decided

to take up yoga.Indians have a major colonial hangover and god knows

when we will come out of it.Maybe through the efforts of VFA that can

also be achieved.VFA should also state that there is no point in

doing yoga and after that going to a pub or discotheque have drinks

and non veg to indians.

 

I seriously feel the major way for developing the VFA will be to

do it area wise in a city.For any mission to be accomplished it has

to be at grass root level which involve people.For e.g if a person is

living in raleigh NC,have a small association in morrisville.Later

on this could be made into colony wise where there are large number

of apartments.There can also be small vfa clubs which will give a

platform for the residents to practise and also express their views

about their activities for VFA.

 

Dear VRN Parker,I hope Iam not boring you with my views.But I do get

concerned about different things happening in society when I read

them on newspapers.I dont know whether you are aware of the fact that

India is the country which has got maximum suicide rates among school

children and college going teenagers due to parental pressures to

perform well during exams.

 

vediculture, "vrnparker" <vrnparker>

wrote:

> Dear Sreeramwji,

> Thanks for yr excellent response to the topic. I fully agree with

you.

> The truth is a majority of societies ills would be solved by good

> education.

> Chanakya Pandit I belive said that to plan for the next year, build

> roads, to plan for the next 10 years, plant trees.

> To plan for the next 100 years, invest in education. (not exact

quote)

> Sincerely Vrndavan

> PS I didnt write the info in the message 'all about the name hindu'

it

> is a discussion from the VFA egroup that i forwarded to vediculture.

> http://www.vedicfriends.org

>

>

> vediculture, "sreeramw" <sreeramw>

wrote:

> > Dear VRN Parker,

> >

> > According to me VFA needs to reach a large audience.You had

pointed

> > out about American corporate power ,entertainment etc.I would

like to

> > inform you that India is getting americanised in a major way

> > especially the metro cities like bombay,Delhi etc.Shopping

> > malls,Multiplexes,Mc donalds,Sub way,Pepsi,Spiderman I guess the

> > americanisation is getting completed over here.Lets examine the

side

> > effects of all this.Due to the influence of hollywood and also

> > porn,juvenile crime is increasing in bombay.Moral values are

coming

> > down and many men and women think that having affairs or extra

> > marital relationship is modern life.I guess people are not

> > realising the side effects of all this.Due to discotheques,drug

usage

> > among college students and urban indians are on the rise.In olden

> > days there were grandparents to look after kids,but now due to

> > nuclear families kids do not have any role models.Grandparents

are

> > being send to old age homes like in USA and parents are having

their

> > affairs.Kids who are looked after by servants do not inherit any

kind

> > of moral values or culture.The rishis of ancient india must have

seen

> > all this long back.I seriously feel VFA should address all this

> > because if an institution in India tries to do this,everybody

makes

> > them quiet by shouting they are part of hindutva or hindu

> > fundamentalism.Therefore I seriously feel VFA needs to do play a

> > constructive role right from school level.

> >

> >

> > vediculture, "vrnparker" <vrnparker>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear Pilgrims,

> > >

> > > It's fine be aligned with Hinduism and definitely opens many

> > doors. I

> > > like

> > > when doors open up easily enough. It certainly helps for the

sake

> > of

> > > clarity

> > > to be referred to as "Hindu." There's safety in numbers. The

terms

> > > Vaisnava,

> > > sanatana dharma, and vedic are more obscure and the subtlety

will be

> > > lost on

> > > most people. And there's nothing wrong with being a Hindu. Some

of

> > my best

> > > friends are Hindus. In my own field, many Hindus appreciate and

> > > support my work

> > > in presenting Vedic teachings through storytelling. I often

define

> > > myself as a

> > > Vaisnava/Hindu.

> > >

> > > Besides delving into linguistics, I think the real discussion

is

> > VFA's

> > > positioning with Hinduism. In a sense, we are talking

Hinduism as

> > > the medium for

> > > the message of VFA. But Hinduism itself is not the message,

and

> > the

> > > medium

> > > should not obstruct the message. The analogy that Vrn gave is

very

> > > appropriate. We are Americans (those of us in the USA), but

although

> > > we have American

> > > passports and are functioning within American society, we're

not

> > eager

> > > to promote

> > > the corporate power, consumerism, and the entertainment

industry

> > that

> > > America

> > > stands for. Of course, there are American ideals of liberty

and

> > justice

> > > which are important. In the same way, VFA is extracting the

ideals

> > > and essence

> > > of what is termed as "Hinduism" and making them relevant and

> > > meaningful for

> > > people in general. I think that this is the trick.

> > >

> > > In some cases, to play the Hindu card would be beneficial. But

> > there are

> > > other instances where it would prevent our message from

properly

> > being

> > > heard and

> > > understood. Vaisnavism and Vedic knowledge does not describe a

> > particular

> > > type of faith as does Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, but

is the

> > > essential

> > > components of all spiritual teachings. If we are making

> > presentations to

> > > academia or Hindus then the Hindu card is fine. But to broaden

our

> > > sphere, we are

> > > asking people in general to consider the Vedic wisdom in the

> > context

> > > of their

> > > own lifestyles and/or religious systems. They might not be

> > interested in

> > > Hinduism and all the baggage that comes with it. So it would be

> > > beneficial to have

> > > the softer profile of Vaisnava, sanatana dharma, Vedic. In

this way

> > > we can

> > > connect with spiritual tradition and present the universality

of

> > these

> > > terms,

> > > and not limiting it in the context of Hinduism. Of course,

all

> > this

> > > can be

> > > brokered individually.

> > >

> > > So the question for VFA is are we positioning ourselves with

> > Hinduism

> > > and

> > > Hindu causes or do we want to reach a larger audience. Can we

do

> > both?

> > >

> > > Just a few thoughts for your consideration,

> > > Later,

> > > Andy

> > > www.sacredvoices.com

> > >

> >

======================================================================

> > =

> > > "universalyoga" <Universalyoga@n...> Add to Address

Book

> > > Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:39:15 -0400

> > > RE: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

> > > I was under the impression that the word "Hindu" came from the

word

> > > Sindhu. Which is derived from the Sindhu/Indus river. I

believe

> > the

> > > term is credited to the Persians referring to the people of

that

> > region.

> > > The word undergone modification from the Greeks to other

invading

> > > cultures. The Persians were considered part of the early Vedic

> > culture,

> > > eventually moving more westward.

> > >

> > > From the teachings of Srila Prabhupada

> > >

> > > They gave the name, Indian people, as "Hindu.Hindu" means...

> > There is

> > > one river, Sindhu. (This is reference to Muslim neighbors

giving the

> > > name.) http://www.salagram.net/hindu-ism-origin.html

> > >

> > > Harinam Baba Prem

> > > A quick follow-up, I would agree that the people of the region

did

> > not

> > > refer to themselves as "Hindu" and that it does not appear in

any

> > sacred

> > > texts as such. So it was a term used to refer to the Aryans by

> > others.

> > >

> > > Harinam Baba Prem

> > > My window did not include Sri Nandanandana dasa's article in

the

> > window.

> > > I thought it covered most of the relevant views quite well.

> > >

> > > It is interesting regarding the Persian connection though. I

> > believe I

> > > also read that the word "Hindu" can be found in the Avestha,

the

> > sacred

> > > book of the Zoroastrians. Can anyone confirm this? Though the

> > > Zoroastrian period was much later than the earlier Persian

> > religion. I

> > > believe conservative Zoroastrians date the founding of the

religion

> > to

> > > 6000 BCE, other followers to a period much closer to the common

era

> > and

> > > of course that famed 1000-1500 BCE date appears as well.

> > >

> > > The Persian God Ahura Mazda is a later representation of

Varuna, if

> > my

> > > memory serves me correctly. Though Vamadeva could clarify

this.

> > The

> > > Persian Mithra could be a little reference to the Vedic Mitra,

> > though

> > > the Mithras role has changed from the Vedic Mitra, it is

> > interesting

> > > that they remain connected to some degree even in the

Zoroastrian

> > > religion. This along with Sri Nandanandana dasa's information

on

> > the

> > > Persian interpretation of "Hindu" could illustrate the gradual

> > decline

> > > of the Persians Vedic connection and could represent the

changes in

> > > their own religion growing in a different direction. Just as

> > various

> > > Vedic peoples might refer to other Vedic peoples in times of

> > conflict,

> > > with derogatory terms as appeared with the Angirasa and

Bhrighu's,

> > they

> > > still belonged to the greater Vedic culture. I would like to

submit

> > > that the later Persian interpretation could reflect a similar

> > process at

> > > work especially when we are looking at time periods going back

8-10

> > > thousand years and coming forward in time.

> > >

> > > Vamadeva connected the Persians with the Yadus under the name

> > Parshus

> > > and had a reference in the Rg Veda pertaining to this.

> > >

> > > Harinam Baba Prem

> > >

> >

======================================================================

> > ==

> > >

> > >

> > > --Original Message-----

> > > victorgarg@d...

> > > [victorgarg@d...]

> > > Friday, September 10, 2004 3:40 PM

> > > VFA-members

> > > Re: [VFA-members] About the Name "Hindu"

> > >

> > > Since the name 'Hindu' was given by foreign invaders out of

hatred,

> > > which means 'Kafir', 'coward' etc. we now know what that means

and

> > how

> > > we got it. Who want to be called as one of those words. Vedic

> > religion

> > > being the most logical, scientific, natural; its about time to

> > correct

> > > our name. Probably, the world is looking for one word name, like

> > > Christianity, Muslims, Buddhist etc., in that case we can

> > call 'Vedic

> > > Religion'. The followers of Vedic Dharma are 'Aryas', Arya

means

> > noble,

> > > nice person. Throughout Mahabharata and Ramayana Arya word is

used.

> > > Even the visitors from China 800 years ago called the residents

of

> > > Bharat as Aryas. Hitler gave bad name to the word Arya. How

about

> > Vedic

> > > Religion and the followers are 'Vedic Aryas'.

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Vidya Sagar

> > >

> >

======================================================================

> > =

> > > For me, the use of the name "Hindu" is not an accurate name

in

> > > referring to the real purpose and meaning behind the philosophy

of

> > Vedic

> > > culture. However, many people already use the name to mean

> > > Sanatana-dharma. Therefore, in our upcoming conference the use

of

> > the

> > > name "Hindu" is a matter of ease of conversation in a way that

most

> > of

> > > those who will be attending the conference are already

familiar.

> > Those

> > > the issues that are meant to be discussed are also described in

this

> > > context. It is a closed conference, invitation only, so the

matter

> > > should not subject to the misinterpretation of those who may not

> > > understand our purpose. If it was an open forum, or anyone was

> > invited

> > > to attend, a change of language or description may then be

> > necessary.

> > > As far as the word "Hindu" relates with other members or

groups

> > who

> > > follow the process of Sanatana-dharma, there are many who do

not

> > use the

> > > word "Hindu" nor do they identify themselves with being Hindus.

This

> > > includes some Vaishnava groups, some Kashmiri Pandits,

followers of

> > > Swami Narayana, the RamaKrishna mission, and others. So there

must

> > be a

> > > banner under which all Hindus and followers of the Vedic system

can

> > > unite, and that is positively the banner of Sanatana-dharma.

> > > In this regard, I have already posted my thought and

research in

> > > this matter on my website in an article that is enclosed below.

I

> > hope

> > > you find it informative and interestiing.

> > >

> > > ABOUT THE NAME "HINDU"

> > >

> > > By Stephen Knapp

> > >

> > > I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use

of

> > the

> > > words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." The fact is that true "Hinduism"

is

> > based

> > > on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity.

> > Such an

> > > identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim,

> > Buddhist,

> > > or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as

belonging

> > to

> > > any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a

> > Muslim

> > > God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual

> > masters

> > > from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus.

The

> > Vedic

> > > path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary

> > designations.

> > > So am I calling the name "Hindu" a temporary designation?

> > > &nb sp; We must remember that the term "hindu" is not even

> > Sanskrit.

> > > Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic

> > literature. So

> > > how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture?

And

> > > without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for "Hinduism."

> > > Most scholars feel that the name "Hindu" was developed by

> > > outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the

Sindhu

> > River

> > > properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great

who

> > first

> > > renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the

beginning "S",

> > thus

> > > making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known

as

> > the

> > > Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His

> > > Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus

as

> > India,

> > > a name used especially during the British regime.

> > > Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as

> > > Afghanistan and Persia, they ca lled the Sindhu River the Hindu

> > River.

> > > Thereafter, the name "Hindu" was used to describe the

inhabitants

> > from

> > > that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where

the

> > > Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was

> > called "Hindustan."

> > > Because the Sanskrit sound of "S" converts to "H" in the Parsee

> > > language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as "hindu," even

though

> > at

> > > the time the people of the area did not use the name "hindu"

> > themselves.

> > > This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the

people

> > and

> > > the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even

the

> > > Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power

and

> > used

> > > the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no

meaning

> > except

> > > for those who place value on it or now use it out of

convenience.

> > > Another view of the name "Hindu" shows the confusing

nature it

> > > causes for understanding the true essence of the spir itual

paths of

> > > India. As written be R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal

> > Religion

> > > (p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), "The political situation

of

> > our

> > > country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it

very

> > > difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its

religion.

> > The

> > > western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the

true

> > > name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and

> > therefore,

> > > they have contented themselves by calling it by that

meaningless

> > term

> > > 'Hindu'. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made

use

> > by

> > > any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their

works. It

> > > seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon

> > continuous

> > > use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in

> > Persian

> > > literature. Hindu-e-falak means 'the black of the sky'

> > and 'Saturn'. In

> > > the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful

and

> > > ridiculous to have r ead all along in history that the name

Hindu

> > was

> > > given by the Persians to the people of our country when they

landed

> > on

> > > the sacred soil of Sindhu."

> > > Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a

> > > derogatory meaning. It is said that, "Moreover, it is correct

that

> > this

> > > name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the

> > region by

> > > Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author,

the

> > word

> > > means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not

embrace

> > Islam

> > > were termed as slaves." (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur

Unka

> > > Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in

the

> > > Introduction)

> > > Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,

> > > published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word

Hindu as

> > > "chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam

> > [slave]."

> > > In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (P art One, p.

> > > 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described

as

> > barda

> > > (obedient servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black).

So

> > these

> > > are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term

> > hindu in

> > > the Persian label of the people of India.

> > > So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim

term

> > that

> > > became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we

can

> > > understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it

have

> > > anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic

spiritual

> > path.

> > > No religion ever existed that was called "Hinduism" until the

Indian

> > > people in general placed value on that name and accepted its

use.

> > > The real confusion started when the name "Hinduism" was

used to

> > > indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the

> > words "Hindu"

> > > and "Hinduism" were used frequently by the British with the

effect

> > of

> > > focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and

the

> > people

> > > who became known as "Hindus". This was done with the rather

> > successful

> > > intention of creating friction among the people of India. This

was

> > in

> > > accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it

easier

> > for

> > > their continued dominion over the country.

> > > However, we should mention that others who try to justify

the

> > word

> > > "Hindu" present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand

years

> > ago,

> > > also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived

there

> > > Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana,

> > Padma

> > > Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I

am

> > still

> > > waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this

verse:

> > >

> > > Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah

> > > MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

> > >

> > > Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sin dhu maha

> > samudhram

> > > vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru

> > > bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.

> > Both of

> > > these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the

land

> > of

> > > Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his

or

> > her

> > > motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we

also

> > have

> > > the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata

> > Bhoomi.

> > > "Bhoomi" (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land

of

> > > Bharata or Bharata- varsha, which is the land of India. In

numerous

> > > Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic

texts,

> > the

> > > area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of

> > Bharata

> > > and not as Hindustan.

> > > Another couple of references that are used, though the

exact

> > > location of which I am not sure, includes the following:

> > >

> > > Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram

> > > Tha m Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

> > >

> > > Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla

devanirmmithamaya

> > > deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

> > >

> > >

> > > These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas

and

> > the

> > > Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this

is

> > that

> > > all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion.

Of

> > > course, not everyone is going to agree with that.

> > > Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as

the

> > > country of "Sapta Sindhu", i.e. the country of seven great

rivers.

> > This

> > > is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and

chapter

> > this

> > > verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say

that

> > the

> > > word "Sindhu" refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the

> > specific

> > > river called "Sindhu". Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic

> > Sanskrit,

> > > according to ancient dictionaries, "sa" was pronounced as "h

a".

> > Thus

> > > "Sapta Sindhu" was pronounced as "Hapta Hindu". So this is how

the

> > word

> > > "Hindu" is supposed to have come into being. It is also said

that

> > the

> > > ancient Persians referred to Bharat as "Hapta Hind", as

recorded in

> > > their ancient classic "Bem Riyadh". So this is another reason

why

> > some

> > > scholars came to believe that the word "Hindu" had its origin

in

> > Persia.

> > > Another theory is that the name "Hindu" does not even come

> > from the

> > > name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India

> > explains. "This

> > > [sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time

enviably

> > > ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth

> > would

> > > not have been without a name. They were not the unknown

aborigines

> > > waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by

foreigners."

> > He

> > > cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N.

B.

> > > Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and

> > > Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana

known as

> > > Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It

contained

> > this

> > > verse:

> > >

> > > himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram

> > > hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

> > >

> > > Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is

> > missing,

> > > but Kumar translates it as: "The country lying between the

Himalayan

> > > mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as

> > Hindusthan

> > > by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the

last

> > > compound letter 'ndu' of the word 'Bindu.'"

> > > This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name

> > > "Hindu", indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in

this

> > area

> > > are thus known as "Hindus".

> > > So again, in any way these theories may present their

> > information,

> > > and in any way you look at it, the name "Hindu" started simply

as a

> > b

> > > odily and regional designation. The name "Hindu" refers to a

> > location

> > > and its people and originally had nothing to do with the

> > philosophies or

> > > religion of the people, which could certainly change from one

thing

> > to

> > > another. It is like saying that all people from India are

Indians.

> > Sure,

> > > that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what

about

> > > their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by

numerous

> > names

> > > according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are

not

> > all

> > > Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system

already

> > object

> > > to calling themselves by that name. So "Hindu" is not the most

> > > appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of

> > > sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the

ancient

> > > Indians and their early history is Vedic culture. So it is more

> > > appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for

those

> > who

> > > follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses t he

location

> > of a

> > > people.

> > > Unfortunately, the word "Hindu" has gradually been adopted

by

> > most

> > > everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very

> > general

> > > way, so much so, in fact, that now "Hinduism" is often used to

> > describe

> > > anything from religious activities to even Indian social or

> > > nationalistic events. Some of these so-called "Hindu" events

are not

> > > endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be

considered

> > > non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a "Hindu"

and

> > still

> > > be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity

> > > casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be

> > considered

> > > a part of the true Vedic culture.

> > > Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately

called

> > > sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation

of

> > the

> > > soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma

of

> > sugar

> > > is t o be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet,

then

> > it

> > > is not sugar. Or the dharma of fire is to give warmth and

light. If

> > it

> > > does not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there

is a

> > > particular dharma or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or

> > eternal.

> > > It does not change. So there is the state of dharma and the

path of

> > > dharma. Following the principles of sanatana-dharma can bring

us to

> > the

> > > pure state of regaining our forgotten relationship with God.

This

> > is the

> > > goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and

all

> > Vedic

> > > literature, such as Lord Krishna's message in Bhagavad-gita, as

> > well as

> > > the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to

only

> > > "Hindus" who are restricted to a certain region of the planet

or

> > family

> > > of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world.

As

> > > everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual

essence as

> > > described according to the principles of sanatana-dharma, then

> > everyone

> > > should be given the right and privilege to understand this

> > knowledge. It

> > > cannot be held for an exclusive group of people.

> > > Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual

> > philosophy

> > > that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other

less

> > > philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the

soul

> > is a

> > > "universal spiritual truth" which can be applied by all people,

in

> > any

> > > part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion.

It

> > is

> > > eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is

beyond

> > all

> > > time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the

essence

> > of

> > > Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name "Hindu" implies,

> > especially

> > > after understanding from where the name comes.

> > > Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-

yuga

> > > after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and

even

> > Hindui

> > > sm (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the

earth,

> > there

> > > will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and

> > > universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must

be

> > > re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I

doubt

> > then

> > > that He will use the name "Hindu." He certainly said nothing of

the

> > sort

> > > when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

> > > Thus, although I do not feel that "Hindu" is a proper term

to

> > > represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use

the

> > word

> > > from time to time in this book to mean the same thing since it

is

> > > already so much a part of everyone's vocabulary. Otherwise,

since I

> > > follow the Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a

> > > sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label

> > of "Hindu" and

> > > also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path.

> > Therefore, I

> > > propose that all Hindus begin to use this term sanatana-

dharmist,

> > whic h

> > > not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also

more

> > > accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention

of the

> > > Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even

> > dharmists,

> > > both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic

culture.