Hindu is a Vedic Term After All???

[Guest guest]

Note: Im sending this becasue it was sent to me as the moderator of vediculture egroup. As a person who grew up in Iskcon I am fully aware of the lock step approach to understanding reality. Yet to this day I do not see one organization anywhere that has the full package required to succeed in bringing about a new era of understanding. From what I see each one of these noble orgs has strengths and weaknesses. It is my belief that Krsna wants us to unite in order to bring about a new era of global understanding. Disassembling our unity is much more damaging then accepting the functional reality of a common identity.

Like it or not everytime there is an issue in which Iskcon needs legal protection they take shelter under the Hindu Umbrella. The points below also could be used to deny that we are Americans, Indians or even human beings. In an effort to separate themselves from a very small minority, it is important that the Vaishnavas recognize that within the Hindu tradition there are many variegated forms of practice. One of these authentic traditions is that which could be called Brahmavadis. It is an authentic understanding of the Supreme reality. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's warnings about the Mayavadis are no doubt taken seriously by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. However in the current era we see no attacks from any prominent Hindus against Gaudiya Vaishnavas. If anything its the other way around. Reality is an ever changing phenomenon.

It is our duty to remain rooted in our tradition yet be flexible in our interactions with the rest of the world. No Vaishnava that is rooted in faith can be swayed if he is genuinely rooted. So The benefit of unting under a common identity serves the cause of Dharma at this juncture of history. An effort to create more division based on ancient texts and differences is certainly more damaging than efforts to unite based on obvious commonalities. Even from Vaishnava understanding one who worships the devotee of Krsna is considered blessed. According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas every single Deva and Devi worshiper is worshiping a Vaishnava. Thus they are guaranteed to be protected and blessed with the highest prem. So why divide Indians along lines of Shaivite, Vaishnava, Shakta, Smarta, Brahmavadi, Advaitin, Bhaudik, Jaina, Sikh etc? It is only disempowering and serves the cause of Adharma.

Hindu culture is that unique and harmonious civilization that has mainatained the closest realtionship to ancient Vedic ways. Point out even one other culture that can claim this. This is obvious by the reflection of real life we see all around us. No where, absolutely no where do we see people, situations or life patterns that are exactly the same. Thus in Hindu culture we see that so many varied realities are reflected by those on the spiritual paths. Just as no set of children or parents have the exact same relationship or moods with each other, there is no exact divine formula that is set in concrete that must be followed or else you fail. Only Hindu Religion recognizes this and thus it is the only culture that can fulfill the cherished desires of all beings. And like it or not we are all here to manifest our desires. So in the Hindu tradition we can go from the Bhagavad Gita to the Kama Sutra, Vrndavan to Khujarao, Shiva center to Krnsa center, and never lose our

connectivity to the Supreme Reality.

We, just like our human anscestors of old, have full authority and capablity to discipher reality. We have the liscence to use the most appropriate methods to achieve our goals according to time, place and circumstance. All the books, Gurus, temples, traditions are simply guidelines to assist us, the living people of this era. They are not the most important reality but are the tool sby which we perform our duty correctly. We, the Awakened Arjunas of our time, are the ones who must pick up the bow and decide where to tell our Dear Friend and Lord , Sri Krsna to drive the chariot. He is waiting for us to decide what we want to do. Thats why we are all here.

V

indologia2000 <indologia (AT) latinmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:18:10 -0000

"indologia2000" <indologia (AT) latinmail (DOT) com>

vediculture-owner

Re: Hindu is a Vedic Term After All???

 

'Hindu' is not found in the Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, which are

written in Sanskrit

Why is this important? Although the task of defining Hinduism has

proved elusive, historically the acceptance of the Sanskrit Vedas as

sacred scripture has served as a bedrock standard for a true Hindu.

Buddhism and Jainism, though born on Indian soil, are not included

within the endless variety of Hindu doctrines and practices, chiefly

because both these traditions rejected the supreme authority of the

Vedas. Indeed, in the legal definition of Hinduism, given by the

Indian Supreme Court in 1966, the first criterion is 'Acceptance of

the Vedas with reverence as the highest authority in religious and

philosophic matters.' We thus have an unusual situation in which one

becomes a Hindu by accepting the authority of scriptures that do not

recognise the word 'Hindu'.

 

'Hindu' is not a Sanskrit word

It is of further significance that hindu is not a Sanskrit word.

Early Vedic literature often uses the term Arya to designate the true

and noble followers of Vedic culture. And as Halbfass points out:

 

' ... language is a central criterion for the definition of the

Aryan. It is essential for preserving his ritual power and identity

against the mlecchas [foreigners, barbarians]. The continuity of the

tradition, the identity and stability of the Aryan dharma, depends on

its linguistic vehicle, the Sanskrit language... . ' (p. 178)

 

Yet so totally absent is the word hindu from traditional Sanskrit

literature, that in his well-known work, A History of Sanskrit

Literature, the great Oxford Sanskritist A.A. Macdonell mentioned the

word hindu only once - and that was in order to give the standard,

geographic explanation of the term's origin:

 

'The Sindhu (now Sindh), which in Sanskrit simply means the 'river',

as the western boundary of the Aryan settlements, suggested to the

nations of antiquity which first came into contact with them in that

quarter, a name for the whole peninsula. Adopted in the form of

Indos, the word gave rise to the Greek appellation India as the

country of the Indus. It was borrowed by the ancient Persians as

hindu, which is used in the Avesta as a name of the country itself.

More accurate is the modern Persian designation Hindustan, 'Land of

the Indus', a name properly applying only to that part of the

peninsula which lies between the Himalaya and the Vindhya range

[roughly North to Central India]' (Munshirama, 1972, p. 142).

 

The term 'Hindu'in historical krsna-bhakti

The earliest canonical expressions of krsna-bhakti, devotion to

Krsna, are found in such literatures as the Mahabharata and its

appendixed Hari-vamsa, and in the Visnu Purana and the Bhagavata

Purana. The foundational scripture for devotion to the Lord as King

Rama is Valmiki's Ramayana. In none of these texts do we find the

word hindu. The language of all of the above texts is Sanskrit.

 

Even as late as the tenth and eleventh centuries of the common era,

we find this term entirely absent in essential Vaisnava devotional,

philosophical and apologetic writings. We shall illustrate this by

briefly considering the works of two great acaryas (spiritual

leaders/teachers) of the Sri Vaisnava tradition of Southeast India,

surely one of the most historically important

Vaisnava 'denominations'.

 

Yamunacarya, born around 916 ce, 'is the first Vaisnava acarya whose

works are extant' (Narayanan 59). This important figure wrote a

philosophical treatise called Agama-pramanyam, 'a fierce defense of

the agamic literature' (ibid. 60). Concerning the hard-fought debate

of that time between the Tamil Vaisnavas and the Smarta-

brahmanas, 'Yamuna, our source', says the late Professor van

Buitenen, referring to the Agama-pramanyam, 'is an unimpeachable

authority. Here we have not a sectarian text speaking in pious and

traditional platitudes about wicked adversaries, but a Bhagavata with

a fine mind who seeks to enumerate, and subsequently to invalidate,

very precisely the traditional arguments of the Smartas against the

less-than-respectable Bhagavatas.' (van Buitenen, pp. 26-27).

 

In this debate, neither the protagonist nor his theological adversary

ever use the term 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism'. What is perhaps more

remarkable is that in Dr Narayanan's authoritative history of the Sri

Vaisnava tradition, the word 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' does not even

appear in her index. In other words, it is possible for a

distinguished scholar to write the history of an important 'Hindu'

denomination without using the word 'Hindu' in her book.

 

In his own theological and philosophical struggles with the

Buddhists, Sankara seeks, along with the Mimamsakas, to demonstrate

the authority of the Vedas. And in his debates with the Mimamsakas,

the rhetorical goal is to demonstrate that one's own community is

vaidika, Vedic, and has best understood the message of the Vedas.

Later, the illustrious Ramanuja made powerful arguments against the

teachings of Sankara in favour of a personal God. Again, the

discourse aims to prove that one group is truly vaidika, and that the

members of one's soteriological group will actually achieve the

highest moksa, liberation. In all of these historically seminal,

intellectually sophisticated and religiously crucial debates, we do

not find the term hindu.

 

The middle stage of 'Hindu' discourse

As in earlier Sanskrit texts, so in the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sanskrit

texts of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries we do not find the

word 'Hindu.' In the Gaudiya-Vaisnava Bengali texts of the same

period, 'Hindu' does appear but only for, and usually by, the yavana-

mleccha, i.e. the Muslim, who is outside the sacred culture of the

Vedas. Joseph O'Connell introduces his article, The word 'Hindu' in

Gaudiya Vaisnava texts, as follows:

 

A survey of three Sanskrit and ten Bengali hagiographic texts from

early sixteenth to late eighteenth centuries discloses nearly fifty

passages (all in the Bengali texts) in which the word 'Hindu'

appears. Most occurrences are in episodes of strained relationships

between Hindus and yavanas or mlecchas, as the Muslims are called.

The strains are usually resolved satisfactorily. The word 'Hindu'

never appears in a purely intra-communal Hindu context and has no

significance in the central religious concerns of the texts, the

expositions of bhakti. (emphasis mine) ... there is to be found no

explicit discussion of what 'Hindu' or 'Hindu dharma' means in any of

the texts surveyed. ... there is no example of an abstract term which

might be translated as Hindu-ness or Hinduism (e.g. hindutva) ...

(pp. 340, 342)

 

'Furthermore, it is interesting to note how often it is in the mouth

of a non-Hindu that the word 'Hindu' is placed by the writers' (ibid.

p. 341).

 

O'Connell further observes:

 

'It was over against a group of people or type of people considered

both foreign and barbarous (and often violent, as expressions like

kala-jabana, "Death-Yavana", indicate) that the self-awareness of the

Vaisnavas as Hindus was fashioned' (p. 342).

 

About this same period and phenomenon, Halbfass writes, 'In this

climate of 'sectarian' strife and search for identity (i.e. the

Gaudiya Vaisnava and Vallabhiya 'proselytising'), the word 'Hindu',

which so far had been used by foreigners, specifically Muslims, was

first employed by the Hindus themselves' (p. 192).

 

Thus whereas in the early period, 'Hindu' is not a factor either

within internal Vaisnava discourse, nor in discourse with

the 'other', we find that in the middle period, and specifically in

tight contact with the governing Muslims, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, and

presumably other groups as well, employ the Muslim term 'Hindu' self-

referentially, but only in dialogue with or about the ruling, and

dangerous, Muslims.

 

The late or modern stage of 'Hindu' discourse

'The period around 1800, which saw the full establishment of European

power and presence in India, also saw the beginnings of modern

Indology, i.e. the scientific exploration and objectification of

India's past. The combination of these two events, which is more than

a temporal coincidence, had a fundamental impact upon Indian

attitudes towards themselves and the "other".' (Halbfass, p. 172)

 

One of the most striking and transparent changes in the 'modern'

period since around 1800, is the new use of 'Hindu' as an internal

self-identification. Enthusiasm for this development was never

unanimous. 'The Arya Samaj tried to replace the word "Hindu" with the

ancient term Arya.' R.N. Suryanarayana calls 'Hindu' a 'detestable

term ... of which we should be ashamed' (Halbfass, p. 515, fn. 97).

 

As one might expect, others went to the opposite extreme: 'Some

modern Indian nationalists, most notably M.S. Golwalkar and V.D.

Savarkar, have argued vehemently that the world 'Hindu' was not at

all adopted from the Muslims and was not originally used by non-

Hindus. Instead they claim that it is a genuinely Indian term,

reflecting 'the unity, the sublimity, and the specialty' of the

Indian people.' (Halbfass, p. 193)

 

P. Hacker has analysed modern Hinduism in terms of the overlapping

categories of 'neo-Hinduism' and 'surviving traditional Hinduism.'

Halbfass, who uses these categories, does so with a caveat: 'Hacker's

two categories are not mutually exclusive and not always clearly

distinguishable. ... it is also possible "that one and the same

person combines elements of both ways of thinking."'(Halbfass, p. 220)

 

For our purpose here, I shall focus on a few of the most

distinguished spokespersons of both neo-Hinduism and surviving

traditional Hinduism, and show how in each case their idiosyncratic

notions of a monolithic Hinduism create significant religious

problems for the Vaisnava community, which is, after all, supposed to

be a majority component of Hinduism. This will lead directly to

consideration of my question, 'For whom does Hinduism speak?' and

more specifically to the question, 'Can Hinduism speak for Vaisnavas?'

 

P. Hacker calls Vivekananda 'the most influential shaper and

propagandist of the neo-Hindu spirit' (Halbfass 228). Halbfass sees

him as 'one of the leading figures of modern Hindu thought and self-

awareness and an exemplary exponent of Hindu self-representation vis-

a-vis the West.' It was mentioned earlier that the great Vaisnava

theologians, Ramanuja and Madhva, in their Vedanta commentaries,

fought against the monistic, advaita, interpretation of Sankara. But

in the modern period, in the name of a generic 'Hinduism',

Vivekananda took up the banner of the advaita-vedanta:

 

'The sense of identity ... which [Vivekananda] tries to awaken in his

fellow Indians ... means, above all, the heritage of Advaita Vedanta,

the tradition of Sankara. Ethics, self-confidence, and brotherly love

find their true and binding foundation in Advaitic non-dualism'

(Halbfass, p. 234).

 

Or, in Vivekananda's own words,

 

'That is what we want, and that can only be created, established and

strengthened by understanding and realising the ideal of the Advaita,

that ideal of the oneness of all. ... to preach the Advaita aspect of

the Vedanta is necessary to rouse up the hearts of men, to show them

the glory of their souls. It is therefore, that I preach this

Advaita ... ' (From Vivekananda's four lectures in London,

titled 'Practical Vedanta', III, 190f., quoted by Halbfass, p. 234)

 

Halbfass adds in his footnote 75 to this quote: 'Vivekananda often

encouraged his listeners to see themselves "as God."' Those familiar

with Vaisnava thought will instantly understand that the claim to be

God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many

in the Abrahamic traditions.

 

But Vivekananda is not the only neo-Hindu superstar to promote

advaita-vedanta as the doctrine of Hinduism. Let us next consider the

eminent Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Oxford scholar and former President

of India.

 

According to P. Hacker, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan 'seems to be the

most typical ... neo-Hindu thinker.'(2) Halbfass adds, ' ... it is

evident that Radhakrishnan has been a most successful spokesman of

neo-Hinduism in the West, and that he has produced some of the most

memorable and persuasive formulations of neo-Vedantic thought.'

 

And what is Radhakrishnan's vision of applied 'Hindu philosophy'?

 

'Radhakrishnan's very first articles ... already articulate two

fundamental themes of his neo-Hindu apologetics: the importance of

philosophy for the identity and self-affirmation of modern India, and

the significance and potential application of Advaita Vedanta in the

area of ethics and social practice.' (3)

 

Thus for a Vaisnava, to jump on the neo-Hindu bandwagon often means

in practice to directly or indirectly be associated with, if not

endorse, a sectarian theological position totally antithetical to

Vaisnavism, i.e. the monistic doctrine of the absolute oneness of the

soul with an impersonal God. The greatest Vaisnava acaryas, Ramanuja,

Madhva, Caitanya Mahaprabhu, etc. dedicated significant portions of

their lives to to opposing this view. It is thus deeply troubling to

Vaisnavas that unity among 'Hindus' is often sought under the

monistic banner, while simultaneously minimising or denying the great

theological divide which for centuries has separated those seeking to

love, and those seeking to become, the Absolute Truth.

 

Having looked at two neo-Hindu thinkers, let us glance at some of the

prominent 'surviving, traditional' Hindus. Halbfass calls Vasudeva

Sastrin Abhyankara one 'of the greatest traditional pandits' in the

modern age, a learned man who used 'the standards of the

Dharmasastra', the sacred law-book, in his Dharma-tattva-nirnaya.

[Ascertaining the Truth of Dharma]. (4) Essentially, this work

stresses the birthright and the hereditary aspects of Hinduism, with

the author determining that Hinduism cannot be approached through

mere 'initiation' (diksa)(5). (Halbfass 260) Similarly,

 

' ... The Dharmapradipa, written by Anantakrsna Sastrin, Sitarama

Sastrin, and Srijiva Bhattacarya, three of the leading pandits of

their time (the preface is dated December 15, 1937), also bears

mention. In this work, questions of 'purification' (suddhi) and

rehabilitation of Hindus who have joined a 'mleccha religion'

(mleccha-dharma) or been coerced into giving up their ways of life

and belief are discussed in great detail. The conversion of persons

who were born into a foreign religion is not taken into consideration

at all.' (Halbfass 260)

 

The problems for Vaisnavas with these two versions of 'traditional'

Hinduism are as follows:

 

Several great Vaisnava acaryas have historically fought for the right

of any person to achieve salvation, and to acquire the status of a

spiritual teacher, simply on the basis of bhakti, or devotion to God.

(6) Indeed, they have fought precisely against the type of orthodox,

smarta, brahmanism exemplified by the work of Vasudeva Sastrin

Abhyankara.

 

In his article on the Bhagavata Purana, perhaps the single most

important scripture of the Vaisnavas, Thomas Hopkins points out that

one of the main points in 'the religion of the Bhagavata [is] the

absence of the qualifications based on birth and status that

restricted participation in orthodox ceremonies.' (Hopkins, pp. 11-12)

 

Hopkins goes on to say,

 

'The Bhagavata ... also repeatedly stresses the independence of

bhakti from all alternative means of salvation. Criticism of

orthodoxy does not stop at the theological level. ... Here the

primary objective is to refute the idea that a person's birth, social

status, or caste membership is of any significance with respect to

salvation by means of devotion.'

 

Equally troubling for Vaisnavas is the Dharmapradipa's indifference

to the issue of persons born in other religions that wish to take up

Hindu-dharma. Gaudiya-Vaisnava movements such as ISKCON are mainly

composed of devotees born outside of Hindu families. Much earlier,

Sri Caitanya himself installed as His namacarya, the 'teacher of the

Name', the Muslim-born Haridasa. It is not clear how the

Dharmapradipa would deal with such conversions. Halbfass is aware of

this problem:

 

'The commitment to the hereditary caste system may be less rigid in

the sects than in mainstream 'orthodoxy.' This affects their

xenological attitudes. The chosen membership in the religious or

soteriological community can be more significant than the hereditary

caste membership. Such openness and flexibility is occasionally

extended beyond the confines of the Indian world, and even the

mlecchas are at times recognised as potential members of the

soteriological community.' (Halbfass, p. 193)

 

Conclusion

I have argued that the modern transformation of the term 'Hindu' into

an internal, monistically tilted self-definition for the followers of

the Vedas, is problematic for Vaisnavas, and that 'Hinduism' cannot

in all respects speak for Vaisnavism.

 

In her comparative study, Veda and Torah [1], Barbara Holdredge notes:

 

The categories 'Hinduism' and 'Judaism' are themselves

problematic ... , for, like the category 'religion', they represent

theoretical constructs that attempt to impose unity on a myriad of

different religious systems. The complex amalgam termed 'Hinduism'

encompasses a variety of 'Hinduisms'. Beginning in the Vedic period

and throughout Indian history the orthodox brahminical tradition has

been continually challenged by competing traditions and movements -

local village traditions, ascetic groups, devotional (bhakti) sects,

tantric movements, and more recently, modern reform movements. While

the centripetal force of brahminical power structures has sought to

absorb and domesticate competing currents, the centrifugal force of

these countervailing centers of power has persisted, giving rise to

that uneasy conglomerate of heterogeneous tendencies which Western

scholars term 'Hinduism' (Holdredge, p. 1).

 

Questions instantly arise:

 

(1) Who speaks for this 'uneasy conglomerate of heterogeneous

tendencies?'

 

(2) For whom does this 'uneasy conglomerate of heterogeneous

tendencies' speak?

 

Where shall we find a simple 'Hindu' who is neither a Vaisnava, nor a

Saiva, nor a Sakta, nor a Tantrika, nor a member of a 'local village

tradition', nor a smarta-brahmana, etc.? If our 'Hindu' agrees not to

speak for her or his own tradition, and rather speak for 'Hinduism'

as a whole, what will the person say?

 

And yet, we saw that Caitanya himself, the founder of the Gaudiya-

Vaisnava movement, did accept the term 'Hindu' for ordinary dealings

with the Muslim rulers. We must keep in mind here the common,

contrasting Sanskrit philosophical terms: vyavaharika, 'relating to

ordinary or mundane affairs, usage or practice' and

paramarthika, 'relating to a spiritual object, or to supreme,

essential truth.' It seems fair to say that according to O'Connell's

survey of sixteenth to eighteen century Gaudiya Vaisnava literature,

the Vaisnava devotees considered themselves Hindu in a vyavaharika

sense, but never in a paramarthika sense. Indeed, from the

paramarthika viewpoint, 'Hindu' is simply another upadhi, or worldly

de-signation. After all, a Hindu may convert to another religion, but

on the spiritual platform, the pure soul, atman, can never become

anything else in an ontological sense, though the soul may forget its

true identity.

 

Thus two highly revered and canonical works of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas -

Rupa Goswami's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.1.12) and Krsndasa

Kaviraja's Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (2.19.170) - cite the following

verse from the Narada-pancaratra(7) :

 

'Bhakti (devotion) is said to be service, with the senses, to the

Lord of the senses (Hrsikesa, Krsna), which is freed of

all "designations" (upadhi), and immaculate through dedication to

Him.'

 

Monier-Williams gives these relevant meanings for upadhi: 'that which

is put in the place of another thing, a substitute ...; anything

which may be taken for or has the mere name or appearance of another

thing ... , phantom, disguise.' The sense in which the

upadhi, 'Hindu', is a vyavaharika identity for one engaged in self-

realisation along Vedantic lines, should be clear upon reflection.

Thus the progressive growth of 'Hindu' as a total identity can be

understood as the overwhelming of the paramarthika, the ultimate

spiritual, identity by the worldly, conventional identity. For the

spiritualist, this is a problem.

 

Perhaps one evidence that the term 'Hindu' is vyavaharika, an upadhi

of this world, and of the present body, is that it has often been

invoked and engaged to foster communal, even ethnic consciousness and

at times communal violence. Thus 'Hindu' transforms itself into an

ethnic, even a racial, marker, an engine for national pride, in a way

that one would not expect from an eternal, spiritual science that,

according to the Bhagavad-gita, would apply equally to all living

beings.

 

A historical example may serve to illumine this point. When Gaudiya

Vaisnavism was taken seriously in Bengal, it tended to counteract the

tendency toward communal conflict, as O'Connell has observed:

 

' ... the Vaisnavas in Bengal did not place their religious

commitment in the solidarity of the Hindu people, nor in the sacred

ideals, if there were such, common to Hindus. Their religious faith

was in Krishna, a mode of faith that in principle a non-Hindu could

share ... it would seem, then, either that religiously motivated

Hindu communalism is a relatively recent development in Bengal or

that the Gaudiya Vaisnavas are atypical. My own opinion is that so

long as the Gaudiya Vaisnavas remained the pace-setting religious and

literary group in Bengal, i.e. to the turn of the nineteenth century,

their point of view prevailed in Bengal well beyond their own

movement. With the partial breakdown of Gaudiya-Vaisnava faith, self-

assurance and influence in the nineteenth century, due in part to the

criticisms by reformers, this Vaisnava resistance to religiously

motivated communal consciousness by Hindus was eroded.' (JOC, p. 342)

 

Among the minimum beliefs one must have to be a legal Hindu in India,

the Supreme Court includes 'Acceptance of great world rhythm - vast

periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in

endless succession - by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.'

 

It is fair to say that within the 'vast periods of creation,

maintenance and dissolution', the existence of the term 'Hindu'

occupies but a geo-blip of time. Missing altogether in Vedic

discourse, as well as in later Sanskrit epic, Puranic, and Vedantic

disquisitions, the term comes to be used self-referentially in more

recent times in vernacular literatures. Even that limited use is

further limited to discourse with or for a hostile 'other'. Finally,

in modern times, in contact with the West, 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism', in

their various neo- and conservative shapes, emerge as quasi-ethnic,

exclusivistic self-references, with and for those believing that the

Vedic literature is sacred and authoritative.

 

This dramatic shift is troubling for those Vaisnavas who take

seriously the traditional teachings of the Bhagavad-gita, the

Bhagavata Purana and the devotional version of Vedanta, to the effect

that every living being is ultimately an eternal servant of a supreme

personal God. Vaisnavas are even more unhappy with the constant neo-

Hindu subordination of Krsna's personal form to the impersonal,

nirguna ideal of advaita-vedanta. On paramarthika issues, a serious

Vaisnava would not dream of appointing a generic 'Hindu' as a

spokesperson. Thus, in a purely spiritual context, for whom does

Hinduism speak?

 

vediculture, "Vrndavan Parker"

wrote:

>

> hinducivilization, "S. Kalyanaraman"

> wrote:

>

> The word Sindhu in Rigveda has the meaning 'natural ocean

frontier'.

> The cognate term, 'hindu' is thus, a geographical connotation for a

> rashtra. This makes the term, in spoken Saurashtri as: 'hindu' as

old

> as the vedic times. See Vaagaambhrinee sukta by Rishikaa

> vaagaambhrinee in Rigveda: aham rashtree sangamanee (I am

rashtra...)

>

> The article by MH Pahoja is lucid, precise and well-referenced.

>

> kalyan

>

> Antiquity and origin of the term 'Hindu' by Dr. Murlidhar H.

Pahoja

> (2007) http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

>

> Excerpts:

>

> The anti-Hindu historians like Romila Thapar 1 and D.N. Jha 2

have

> opined that the word 'Hindu' was given currency by the Arabs in the

> 8th century. They however, do not explain the basis of their

> conclusion nor do they cite any evidence in support of their claim.

> Even Arab Muslim writers do not make such an extravagant claim 3.

> Another theory propounded by European writers is that the

> word 'Hindu' is a Persian corruption of 'Sindhu' resulting from the

> Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. Even here, no evidence

is

> cited. In fact the word Persia itself contains 'S' which should

have

> become 'Perhia' if this theory was correct. The present paper

> examines the above two theories in the light of epigraphic and

> literary evidence available from Persian, Indian, Greek, Chinese

and

> Arabic sources. The evidence appears to support the conclusion

> that 'Hindu' like 'Sindhu', has been in use since the Vedic age and

> that although 'Hindu' is a modified form of 'Sindhu', its origin

> lies in the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing 'H' in place

of 'S'.

>

> 1. Epigraphic Evidence :

>

> The Hamadan, Persepolis and Naqsh-I-Rustam Inscriptions4 of

Persian

> monarch Darius mention a people 'Hidu' as included in his empire.

> These inscriptions are dated between 520-485 B.C.4 ..Xerexes,

> successor of Darius, in his inscriptios4 at Persepolis, gives names

> of countries under his rule. The list includes 'Hidu'. Xerexes was

> ruling between 485-465 B.C.4 On a tomb in Persepolis, another

> inscription assigned to Artaxerexes (404-395 B.C.)4, there are

three

> figures above which are inscribed 'iyam Qataguviya' (this is

> Satygidian), 'iyam Ga(n)dariya' (this is Gandhara) and 'iyam Hi(n)

> duviya' (this is Hi(n)du)...

>

> The Asokan inscriptions (3rd century B.C.)5, repeatedly use

> expressions like 'Hida' (fgn) for 'India' and 'Hida loka' (fgn

yksd)

> for 'Indian nation'. 'Hida' and its derivative forms are used more

> than 70 times in the Ashokan inscriptions. For instance in the

> Jaugadha, separate rock edict II, the lines 3 &4, read,

>

> sava munisaa me pajaa. atha pajaaye ichaami kinti me saven.aa

> hitasukhena yujeyu

> atha pajaaye ichami kinti me savena hitasukhena yujeyu hidalogika

> paalalokiken.a hevameva me icha savamunisesu

>

> (All men are my people. I desire for my people that they may be

> provided with all welfare and happiness. I desire for my people,

> including the people of Hind and beyond and I desire for all men.)

>

> The Edict further, says in lines 7 & 8,

>

> mama nimitam ca dhammam cale yoo ti hidalogam ca paalalogam ca

> aaladhaye yoo

>

> (Dhamma may be followed and and the people of Hind and beyond may

> be served.)..

>

> 2. Evidence from Pahlvi Avesta :

>

> In the Avesta, Hapta-Hindu is used for Sanskrit Sapta-Sindhu7,

the

> Avesta being dated variously between 5000-1000 B.C. This indicates

> that the term 'Hindu' is as old as the word 'Sindhu'. Sindhu is a

> Vedik term used in the Rigveda. And therefore, 'Hindu' is as

ancient

> as the Rigveda.

>

> 3. Greek Usage

>

> The Greek term 'Indoi' is a softened form of 'Hindu' where the

> initial 'H' was dropped as the Greek alphabet has no aspirate9.

This

> term 'Indoi' was used in Greek literature by Hekataeus (late 6th

> century B.C.) and Herodotus (early 5th century B.C.) 9, thus

> establishing that the Greeks were using this derivative of 'Hindu'

as

> early as 6th century B.C.

>

> 4. The Hebrew Bible :

>

> The Hebrew bible uses 'Hodu' 10 for India, which is a Judaic form

> of 'Hindu'. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is considered earlier

> than 300 B.C.10 Today's Hebrew spoken in Israel also uses Hodu for

> India.

>

> 5. The Chinese Testimony :

>

> The Chinese used the term 'Hien-tu' for 'Hindu' about 100 B.C.11

> While describing movements of the Sai-Wang (100 B.C.), the Chinese

> annals state that the Sai-Wang went towards the South and passing

> Hien-tu reached Ki-Pin11. Later Chinese travellers Fa-Hien (5th

> century A.D.) and Huen-Tsang (7th century A.D.) use a slightly

> modified term 'Yintu' 12 but the affinity to 'Hindu' is still

> retained. This term 'Yintu' continues to be used till today 13.

>

> 6. Pre-Islamic Arabic Literature :

>

> Sair-ul-Okul14 is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry available

> in the Turkish library Makhtab-e-Sultania in Istambul. In this

> anthology is included a poem by Prophet Mohammed's uncle Omar-bin-e-

> Hassham. The poem is in praise of Mahadev (Shiva), and uses 'Hind'

> for India and 'Hindu' for Indians. Some verses are quoted below:

>

> Wa Abaloha ajabu armeeman Mahadevo

> Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru

> (If but once one worships Mahadev with devotion,

> One will attain the ultimate salvation.)

> Wa sahabi Kay yam feema Kamil Hinda e Yauman,

> Wa Yakulam na latabahan foeennak Tawajjaru.

> ( Oh Lord grant me but one day's sojourn in Hind,

> Where one can attain spiritual bliss.)

> Massayare akhalakan hasanan Kullahum,

> Najumam aja at Summa gabul Hindu.

> ( But one pilgrimage there gets one all merit,

> And the company of great Hindu saints.)

>

> The same anthology has another poem by Labi-bin-e Akhtab bin-e

> Turfa who is dated 2300 before Mohammed i.e. 1700 B.C. This poem

also

> uses 'Hind' for India and 'Hindu' for Indian. The poem also

mentions

> the four Vedas Sama, Yajur, Rig and Athar...

>

> But it cannot be denied that Hindu is a form of Sindhu. It needs

to

> be realised that this change from S to H is common in Saurashtra

> where Sorath becomes Horath, Somnath becomes Homnath and so on. The

> form Hindu is therefore, likely to have come from Saurashtra.

>

> It should also be noted that as per Nirukta rules of grammar, in

> the Vedik language, replacement of S with H is permitted 17.

>

>

>

>

>

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

>

> --- End forwarded message ---

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with the Search movie showtime shortcut.