Where do words Hindu, “Hinduism”, “India” come from? The Hare Krsna's are NOT Hindu

[Sarva gattah]

Where do the words "Hindu", “Hinduism” and “India” come from?

 

• Srila Prabhupada - “The Americans are very intelligent and qualified boys and girls so they understand the principles as genuine and thus they accept them. They understand that Krsna Consciousness Movement is neither Indian nor Hindu, but it is a cultural movement for the whole human society although of course because it is coming from India it has [an] Indian and Hindu touch.” Los Angeles, July 16th, 1970,

 

• Srila Prabhupada - “Regarding your questions: Hindu means the culture of the Indians. India happens to be situated on the other side of the Indus River, which is now in Pakistan, which is spelled Indus-in Sanskrit, it is called Sindhu”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

• Srila Prabhupada – “The Europeans misspelt the sindhu as Indus, and from Indus the word ‘Indian’ has come. Similarly, the Arabians used to pronounce sindhus as Hindus. This [thus] Hindus is spoken as Hindus. It is neither a Sanskrit word nor is it found in the Vedic literatures. But the culture of the Indians or the Hindus is Vedic and beginning with the four varnas and four ashramas”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

• Srila Prabhupada – “So, these varnas and four ashramas are meant for really civilized human race. Therefore, the conclusion is actually, when a human being is civilized in the true sense of the term he follows the system of varna and ashrama and then he can be called a ‘Hindu’”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

• Srila Prabhupada – “Our Krishna Consciousness Movement is preaching these four varnas and four ashramas, so naturally it has got some relationship with the Hindus. So, Hindus can be understood from the cultural point of view, not religious point of view. Culture is never religion. Religion is a faith, and culture is educational or advancement of knowledge”.” Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

Sri Nandanandana dasa ACBSP (Stephen Knapp) nicely further explains as follows -

 

“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. Many people do accept it to mean the same thing as Sanatana-dharma, which is a more accurate Sanskrit term for the Vedic path. 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?

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. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India. Neither are these words found in any Buddhist or Jain texts, nor any of the official 23 languages of India. 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 called 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 spiritual 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 read 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.”

The location wherein the word "Hindu" occurs for what some people feel the first time is in the Avesta of the Iranians in its description of the country of India and its people. As their state religion of Zoroastrianism grew, the word seemed to take on a derogatory meaning.

 

And of course, as Islam spread in India, the words "Hindu" and "Hindustan" became even more disrespected and even hated in the Persian arena, and more prominent in the Persian and Arabic literature after the 11th century.

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 (Part 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, as given by those who dominated over them, and accepted its use. So is it any wonder that some Indian acharyas and Vedic organizations do not care to use the term?

The real confusion started when the name “Hinduism” was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. 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 Sindhu 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. The name Bharata-varsha certainly helps capture the roots and glorious past of the country and its people.

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

Tham 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, Bharata 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 “ha”. 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. The conclusion of which is that 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 bodily and regional designation. The name “Hindu” refers to a location and its people and originally had nothing to do with the philosophies, religion, or culture 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".

[Sarva gattah]

Sri Nandanandana dasa ACBSP (Stephen Knapp) continues - "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 or Vedic dharma. 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 the location of a people.

It seems that only with the Vedic kings of the Vijayanagara empire in 1352 was the word "Hindu" used with pride by Bukkal who described himself as "Hinduraya suratrana".

 

Whereas the main Sanskrit texts, and even the rituals that have been performed in the temples from millennia ago, used the word "Bharata in reference to the area of present-day India. Thus, it is traditionally and technically more accurate to refer to the land of India as "Bharata" or "Bharat varsha".

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 precisely 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 to 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 spiritual identity and relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge and its system of self-realization.

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 or region 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 Hinduism (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 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 those who consider themselves to be Hindus begin to use this term Sanatana-dharmist, which 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.

However, for political and legal purposes it may be convenient to continue using the name Hindu for the time being. Until the terms Sanatana-dharmaor Vedic dharma become more recognized by international law and society in general, “Hindu” may remain the term behind which to rally for Vedic culture.

But over the long term, it is a name that is bound to change in meaning to the varying views of it due to its lack of a real linguistic foundation. Being based merely on the values people place in it, its meaning and purpose will vary from person to person, culture to culture, and certainly from generation to generation.

We can see how this took place with the British in India. So there will be the perpetuation of the problems with the name and why some people and groups will not want to accept it.

Yet, by the continued and increased use of the terms Vedic dharma or Sanatana-dharma, at least by those who are more aware of the definitive Sanskrit basis of these terms, they will gain recognition as being the more correct terminology. It merely takes some time to make the proper adjustments.

This is the way to help cure the misinterpretation or misunderstandings that may come from using the name "Hindu," and also end the reasons why some groups do not care to identify themselves under that name. After all, most Vedic groups, regardless of their orientation and the specific path they follow, can certainly unite behind the term Vedic dharma.

APPENDIX:

Srila Prabhupada, founder of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, has said different things at different times or to different people regarding the use of the name “Hindu”. Many times members of ISKCON seem to think that the name Hindu should be avoided at all costs.

"And on numerous occasions, Srila Prabhupada did say that ISKCON members are not Hindus and Krsna is not Indian".

However, he succinctly explains to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970 that there is a connection between Hinduism and Krishna Consciousness:

Srila Prabhupada - “Regarding your questions: Hindu means the culture of the Indians. India happens to be situated on the other side of the Indus River, which is now in Pakistan, which is spelled Indus-in Sanskrit, it is called Sindhu. The Europeans misspelt the sindhu as Indus, and from Indus the word ‘Indian’ has come.

Similarly, the Arabians used to pronounce sindhus as Hindus. This [thus] Hindus is spoken as Hindus. It is neither a Sanskrit word nor is it found in the Vedic literatures. But the culture of the Indians or the Hindus is Vedic and beginning with the four varnas and four ashramas.

So, these varnas and four ashramas are meant for really civilized human race. Therefore, the conclusion is actually, when a human being is civilized in the true sense of the term he follows the system of varna and ashrama and then he can be called a ‘Hindu’. Our Krishna Consciousness Movement is preaching these four varnas and four ashramas, so naturally it has got some relationship with the Hindus. So, Hindus can be understood from the cultural point of view, not religious point of view. Culture is never religion. Religion is a faith, and culture is educational or advancement of knowledge.” Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

He further says in a letter from Los Angeles, July 16th, 1970, wherein he answers questions for a Nevatiaji: 9.

 

• Srila Prabhupada - “The Americans are very intelligent and qualified boys and girls so they understand the principles as genuine and thus they accept them. They understand that Krsna Consciousness Movement is neither Indian nor Hindu, but it is a cultural movement for the whole human society although of course because it is coming from India it has [an] Indian and Hindu touch.” Los Angeles, July 16th, 1970,

In this way, Srila Prabhupada differentiated Krishna Consciousness as a universal, cultural and spiritual movement that could stand on its own, apart from any particular religious and cultural distinction.

Yet, he still relates how there is certainly an Indian and Hindu relationship with what is being presented within his movement. And this does not have to be nor should it be completely ignored or avoided.

 

We can certainly work together for the preservation and promotion of Vedic culture without difficulty with those who may prefer to call themselves Hindu, knowing our connection with the Vedic traditions".

[realist]

 

Where do the words "Hindu", “Hinduism” and “India” come from?

 

• Srila Prabhupada - “The Americans are very intelligent and qualified boys and girls so they understand the principles as genuine and thus they accept them. They understand that Krsna Consciousness Movement is neither Indian nor Hindu, but it is a cultural movement for the whole human society although of course because it is coming from India it has [an] Indian and Hindu touch.” Los Angeles, July 16th, 1970,

 

• Srila Prabhupada - “Regarding your questions: Hindu means the culture of the Indians. India happens to be situated on the other side of the Indus River, which is now in Pakistan, which is spelled Indus-in Sanskrit, it is called Sindhu”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

• Srila Prabhupada – “The Europeans misspelt the sindhu as Indus, and from Indus the word ‘Indian’ has come. Similarly, the Arabians used to pronounce sindhus as Hindus. This [thus] Hindus is spoken as Hindus. It is neither a Sanskrit word nor is it found in the Vedic literatures. But the culture of the Indians or the Hindus is Vedic and beginning with the four varnas and four ashramas”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

• Srila Prabhupada – “So, these varnas and four ashramas are meant for really civilized human race. Therefore, the conclusion is actually, when a human being is civilized in the true sense of the term he follows the system of varna and ashrama and then he can be called a ‘Hindu’”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

• Srila Prabhupada – “Our Krishna Consciousness Movement is preaching these four varnas and four ashramas, so naturally it has got some relationship with the Hindus. So, Hindus can be understood from the cultural point of view, not religious point of view. Culture is never religion. Religion is a faith, and culture is educational or advancement of knowledge”.” Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

These a very important points that tell us that the Hare Krishna Movement is not Hindu and Krishna is not Indian

[theist]

Sarva, I didn't see this thread before and I started a new one with a link to this very nice article by Nanadanandana das. Sorry about the duplication.

 

But it is a point that can't be stressed enough during thse times. It is painful to watch Srila Prabhupada's transcendental teachings being confused with Hinduism because of some cultural similarities.

 

Nice quotes also. I will save them to file.

[jaswant]

Scriptural Authority

In general, what determines whether a person is a follower of any particular religion is whether or not they accept, and attempt to live by, the scriptural authority of that religion. This is no less true of Hinduism than it is of any other religion on earth. Thus, the question of what is a Hindu is similarly very easily answered.

The Definition

By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God's divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures. Only If You Accept the Vedas

In keeping with this standard definition, all of the Hindu thinkers of the six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Shad-darshanas) insisted on the acceptance of the scriptural authority of the Vedas (shabda-pramana) as the primary criterion for distinguishing a Hindu from a non-Hindu, as well as distinguishing overtly Hindu philosophical positions from non-Hindu ones. It has been the historically accepted standard that, if you accept the Vedas (and by extension Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles of the Vedas, you are then a Hindu. Thus, an Indian who rejects the Veda is obviously not a Hindu. While an American, Russian, Indonesian or Indian who does accept the Veda obviously is a Hindu

 

From DR. , for About.com

 

 

jaswant

[jaswant]

Scriptural Authority

In general, what determines whether a person is a follower of any particular religion is whether or not they accept, and attempt to live by, the scriptural authority of that religion. This is no less true of Hinduism than it is of any other religion on earth. Thus, the question of what is a Hindu is similarly very easily answered.

The Definition

By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God's divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures. Only If You Accept the Vedas

In keeping with this standard definition, all of the Hindu thinkers of the six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Shad-darshanas) insisted on the acceptance of the scriptural authority of the Vedas (shabda-pramana) as the primary criterion for distinguishing a Hindu from a non-Hindu, as well as distinguishing overtly Hindu philosophical positions from non-Hindu ones. It has been the historically accepted standard that, if you accept the Vedas (and by extension Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles of the Vedas, you are then a Hindu. Thus, an Indian who rejects the Veda is obviously not a Hindu. While an American, Russian, Indonesian or Indian who does accept the Veda obviously is a Hindu

 

From DR. FRANK , for About.com

 

 

jaswant

[jaswant]

The last pst of mine was a copy & paste from

 

DR FRANK MORALES

 

Just like "GANGES" there is no such word in sanskrit

 

Its is " GANGA "

[theist]

The fact that there are criteria to distinquish a Hindu from a non-Hindu means the idea belongs to the world of false designations rather than the eternal Vaikuntha worlds or the plane of true identity.

 

Everyone is a spiritsoul. That includes Hindus Jews Christians Muslims and atheists, as well as microbes, animals, demons and demigods.

 

The humble sage sees with equal vision all living entities irregardless of their temporay designations which make them appear as different in nature.

 

Further spiritual insight reveals them all to be not only of the same nature but all eternal individuals with the same eternal dharma which is loving service to the Chief Eternal amongst all eternals, the Supreme Being.

 

Krishna consciousness is not a branch of Hinduism although Krishna consciousness is found within the religion called Hinduism, as well as other religions, only in many ways to a much higher degree.

 

Nevertheless Krishna consciousness remains untouched by any religious formulation in the material world just as the proverbial lotus flower remains untouched by the murky pond it has appeared in.

 

[bhaktajan]

also:

Indu --the moon?

 

Indu --the moon-god (aka chandra)?

 

-------

What about:

 

Judisthira [spelt: Yudisthira] ~ King Jude [Judaism]?

Brahminical ~ Rabbinical?

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Kc is not a branch of hinduism!, haha. HINDUS ALWAYS, believe Krishna. Stop twisting Prabhpadas words..

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Yes we are all Vaishnavas, not hindus, muslims, christians. Total sectarianism. ? Bhaktisiddhanta never thought Himself that, whom was He reffering to?

[Ganeshprasad]

"On all sides, Soma, thou art our life-giver: aim of all eyes, light-finder, come within us.

Indu, of one accord with thy protections both from behind and from before preserve us." RV (Book 8 - Hymn 48.15)

"Give us our portion (Soma) in the Sun through thine own mental power and aids;

And make us better than we are." RV (Book 9 - Hymn 4.5)

"The Tree whose praises never fail yields heavenly milk (juice) among our hymns,

Urging men's generations on." RV (Book 9 - Hymn 12.7)

"With stones they press the Soma forth, the Strong conducted by the strong:

They milk the liquor out with skill." RV (Book 9 - Hymn 34.3) "Whose coloured sap they drive with stones, the yellow meath-distilling juice,

Indu for Indra, for his drink." RV(Book 9 - Hymn 85.8)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

As to how and when the word Hindu came about makes no difference.

Taking a dip in Ganga or Ganges the result would be the same.

Following Dharma is important and the rest is just academic.

 

This Objection of Hare Krsna's, frankly speaking is wearing a bit thin.

If the Hindus knew half the truth of what went on and is still going on in Iskcon, i doubt very much if Hindus them self would want any thing to do with the Organisation.

To be honest Hare Krsna's should stop fleecing the Hindus and stop running to them every time they get in to legal problems.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[raghu]

 

The Hare Krsna's are NOT Hindu

 

Uh-huh. Except when they need rich donations from Hindu congregational members, or when they need to appeal for help from the world community when they are being persecuted.

 

from http://www.dandavats.com/?p=3723 (a Hare Krishna website regarding persecution of a Hare Krishna temple and its community):

 

 

Today’s attack virtually mirrored the government’s bulldozing of fourteen homes belonging to members of the Hindu minority group last winter. Both demolitions are part of what human rights advocates have characterized as blatant religious persecution.

 

[...]

 

Despite their claims to the contrary, Kazakh officials appear fueled by religious intolerance. When Forum 18 asked Serik Niyazbekov, a senior religious affairs official, the basis for the government’s conflict with the Hindus, he responded by asking “Why did they choose to move here? They’re from India.”

 

[...]

 

Kazakhstan’s past persecution of Hindus also elicited condemnation from the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It was one reason Kazakhstan was refused in its bid to chair the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2009. The latest attack, however, seems to indicate that local Kazakh officials are unfazed by a tarnished image. Human rights activist Yevgeny Zhovtis told Forum 18 that the local Hakim

(governor) “doesn’t care about the political damage to Kazakhstan’s reputation – or to its desire to chair the OSCE.”

 

In an ironic twist, a few hours before the demolition took place in Kazakhstan, at a Washington D.C. reception last night, representatives of the OSCE and human rights groups directly appealed to the Kazakh ambassador to protect the Hindu religious minority. Those appeals seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

 

For Hindu leader Govinda Swami, currently meeting with U.S. government agencies and human rights groups in Washington D.C., the need of the hour was to remind the Krishna devotees back in Kazakhstan to hold steadfast to their faith and take the moral highroad.

 

If Hare Krishnas are so insistent that they not be identified as Hindu, then why do they keep flocking to the term whenever they need help?

 

Maybe because, like the rest of Hindus, the word "Hindu" is a term of significance to denote people who practice a tradition that belongs to a shared cultural group. It is a term of convenience, nothing more. But for most iskconites it becomes a rallying point to establish why they are different from everyone else. Except of course, that they aren't different. Like other religious groups, they too have their share of hypocrisies, scandals, power-hungry leaders, brain-dead fanatical followers, etc.

 

Someone made the point as to why Hindus would care that Hare Krishnas don't want to be associated with them. I echo this sentiment. If most Hindus knew what went on in the Hare Krishna's upper echelons, or even observed some of the postings here by Hare Krishna followers like theist, cbrahma et. al., they would exercise good judgement and run away. It's small wonder that the more intelligent Hindus do eventually get scared away from the Hare Krishnas, usually after a brief period of mistaken belief that this represents an "authentic, bona fide, Vedic tradition" (which they quickly realize it is not, if they are able to pick up a book, read, an exert just a modicum of semi-intelligent thinking).

[Pankaja_Dasa]

To above person, now hare krishnas have become Hindu..

[Svarupa]

 

Srila Prabhupada - “Regarding your questions: Hindu means the culture of the Indians. India happens to be situated on the other side of the Indus River' date=' which is now in Pakistan, [b']which is spelled Indus-in Sanskrit, it is called Sindhu”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

Srila Prabhupada – “The Europeans misspelt the sindhu as Indus, and from Indus the word ‘Indian’ has come.Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

Srila Prabhupada – "The Arabians used to pronounce sindhus as Hindus. This [thus] Hindus is spoken as Hindus. It is neither a Sanskrit word nor is it found in the Vedic literatures. ”. Letter to to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970

 

Srila Prabhupada's explanation makes it clear Krsna is for everyone and is neither Hindu or Indian

[jaswant]

Srila Prabhupada's explanation makes it clear Krsna is for everyone and is neither Hindu or Indian"-----

 

Do the KRISHNA CON. people follow the VEDAS ?

 

Its not a question of is KRISHNA for the hindus ....Agree KRISHNA is the Lord of everyone.....

 

jaswant

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Raghu

Uh-huh. Except when they need rich donations from Hindu congregational members, or when they need to appeal for help from the world community when they are being persecuted.

from http://www.dandavats.com/?p=3723 (a Hare Krishna website regarding persecution of a Hare Krishna temple and its community):

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

.......................................................

I'd wish posters would state directly & explicitly what theirown position is without being vague.

 

Here is the post fron dandavats:

 

BUT WHEN YOU PASS BY YOUR LOCAL NEWS STAND SEE IF THEIR IS ANYTHING ABOUT HINDUS AND KRISHNA DEVOTEES TO BE FOUND--THE WORLD DOESN'T GIVE A FARTHING FOR ANY OF IT--UNLESS IT SELLS ADVERT SPACE!

 

Don't worry keep your cash to help Muslim Refugees in a town near you soon.

 

 

 

::::::::::::AND NOW THE NEW:::::::::::::

 

 

 

 

" That's Entertainment~ Not ! "

 

 

-----

 

 

 

Kazakhstan MEDIA RELEASE - ISKCON COMMUNICATIONS

 

Kazakhstan MEDIA RELEASE - ISKCON COMMUNICATIONS

By BB Govinda Swami

 

MEDIA RELEASE - ISKCON COMMUNICATIONS

KAZAKH GOVERNMENT DEMOLISHES HINDU HOMES

Persecution of Hindu minority continues despite international outcry, condemnation

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE; June 15, 2007

Almaty – The government of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kazakhstan</st1:place></st1:country-region> demolished twelve homes belonging to members of the Hare Krishna religion early this morning, leaving several families homeless.

 

Government officials and twenty police officers observed while two busloads of hired laborers used sledgehammers and crowbars to systematically dismantle the homes. Later, industrial mechanical diggers reduced what remained of the structures to rubble.

Today’s attack virtually mirrored the government’s bulldozing of fourteen homes belonging to members of the Hindu minority group last winter. Both demolitions are part of what human rights advocates have characterized as blatant religious persecution.

“The authorities are showing that they will do what they want, despite the international outrage at the earlier demolitions,” human rights activist Yevgeny Zhovtis told Forum 18.

 

According to Zhovtis, none of the other home owners in the village – many of whom have identical legal status as the Hindus – have had their homes destroyed. “Clearly they are attacking only the Hare Krishnas,” he said.

Despite their claims to the contrary, Kazakh officials appear fueled by religious intolerance. When Forum 18 asked Serik Niyazbekov, a senior religious affairs official, the basis for the government’s conflict with the Hindus, he responded by asking “Why did they choose to move here? They’re from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>.”

Witnesses to the demolition described a grisly scene, with laborers breaking windows and tearing down walls even while residents – including several women and children – cried and pleaded for them to stop. Officials present ordered workers to continue the attack and to throw the homeowners’ possessions into the street.

“The houses were literally crushed into dust,” said shaken community spokesperson Maxim Varfolomeyev, who witnessed the horrific demolition.

Incredulously, today’s attack came a few days after an open letter from Aaron Rhodes, executive director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, chided the Kazakh government for “discriminatory attitudes towards the religious minority” and beseeched the Deputy Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan to “ensure that no demolition of their homes be carried out.”

“New demolitions would mean that dozens of members of the community are rendered homeless,” Mr. Rhodes warned in his prophetic letter, dated June

8. “This would make Kazakh authorities liable for violations of international human rights provisions that guarantee the right to housing and protection against forced evictions.”

Kazakhstan’s past persecution of Hindus also elicited condemnation from the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

 

It was one reason <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kazakhstan</st1:place></st1:country-region> was refused in its bid to chair the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2009.

 

The latest attack, however, seems to indicate that local Kazakh officials are unfazed by a tarnished image. Human rights activist Yevgeny Zhovtis told Forum 18 that the local Hakim

(governor) “doesn’t care about the political damage to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kazakhstan</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s reputation – or to its desire to chair the OSCE.”

In an ironic twist, a few hours before the demolition took place in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Kazakhstan</st1:country-region>, at a <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Washington</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">D.C.</st1:State></st1:place> reception last night, representatives of the OSCE and human rights groups directly appealed to the Kazakh ambassador to protect the Hindu religious minority. Those appeals seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

For Hindu leader Govinda Swami, currently meeting with <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> government agencies and human rights groups in <st1:City w:st="on">Washington</st1:City> <st1:State w:st="on">D.C.</st1:State>, the need of the hour was to remind the Krishna devotees back in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kazakhstan</st1:place></st1:country-region> to hold steadfast to their faith and take the moral highroad.

“What is being done is cruel and certainly not fair but we still have our lives,” he counseled them over the phone, “and our consciousness should certainly not become like that of the people who are doing this.

 

We are witnessing a rude exhibition of material consciousness – never become like that. Pull together, even more than you did last November. Make sure the homeless devotees have shelter and try to gather together their belongings. And by this try to understand how special the power of community really is.”

For more information about the persecution of Hindus in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kazakhstan</st1:place></st1:country-region> visit: www.KazakhKrishna.com

[raghu]

 

I'd wish posters would state directly & explicitly what theirown position is without being vague.

 

Vague? Oh, I humbly apologize. I labored under the misconception that you could understand plain English. Let me see if I can break it down more for you:

 

1) Hare Krishnas strongly insist that they are not Hindu.

 

2) Nevertheless when they get into trouble and need help from others, they identify themselves as "Hindu,Hindu minority group," etc (see Hare Krishna posting previously linked).

 

3) Preaching one thing and practicing another is known as hypocrisy.

 

Was any of that unclear to you?

[bhaktajan]

Tomorrow's Saving Non-Hindus

 

Today's Subject:

 

Who cares about the source and use of the word hindu.

 

The only people who give a farthing for the source and use of the word hindu, are other Hindus.

 

Test to see if you give a farthing --by reading all these posts on this subject.

 

If you have been following along then you are a hindu.

 

If you can find a person or group of people who will take all the time required to explain the above explainations--then you have found a fellow Hindu. Hello Fellow Hindu, who do you do?

 

Bad news: No one else cares.

 

Good news: We all care and we're having a great time of it.

 

PS: No one knows Hare Krishnas are Hindu except peolple who study Hinduism and then find that the Hare Krishnas know more than the average Hindu immgrants' grandparents, whoa, that's a month full . . . wait there's more to explain . . .

 

<!-- / message -->

[raghu]

 

 

PS: No one knows Hare Krishnas are Hindu except peolple who study Hinduism and then find that the Hare Krishnas know more than the average Hindu immgrants' grandparents, whoa, that's a month full . . . wait there's more to explain . . .

 

<!-- / message -->

 

Wow, that's a bold claim. My experience with Hare Krishnas is that they are pretty ignorant of Vedic culture, up to and including the very scriptures (Gita, Bhagavata) they claim to follow. I also have observed that they often make claims like this about their knowledge base, yet are totally oblivious to logical discussion. They seem to think they know a lot about "Vedic" culture, but their perception of Vedic culture has nothing to do with the Vedas or even with traditional Vedic culture.

 

Arrogance is bad enough, but arrogance combined with ignorance is just intolerable.

[bhaktajan]

 

Wow, that's a bold claim. My experience with Hare Krishnas is that they are pretty ignorant of Vedic culture, up to and including the very scriptures (Gita, Bhagavata) they claim to follow. I also have observed that they often make claims like this about their knowledge base, yet are totally oblivious to logical discussion. They seem to think they know a lot about "Vedic" culture, but their perception of Vedic culture has nothing to do with the Vedas or even with traditional Vedic culture.

 

Arrogance is bad enough, but arrogance combined with ignorance is just intolerable.

 

 

Au Contraire, My experience with Hindus is that they are pretty ignorant of Vedic culture.

 

My experience with Hindus also includes meeting emmigrant Hindus who love to see me tell them about Krishna--because it is so unique and fortuitous that I [a westerner] would know Gita verses by heart etc etc etc.

 

But those Hindus are never young College girls. That's my loss.

 

Well, you are aware that among the NEW-AGE Movements Hare Krishnas are seen as the most strict and othodox followers of othodox "Hinduism".

 

But the NEW-AGE Movements only know that Hinduism is a way to make money from rich people with an attaction for the exotic asian orient.

[shvu]

 

Tomorrow's Saving Non-Hindus

 

Today's Subject:

 

Who cares about the source and use of the word hindu.

 

The only people who give a farthing for the source and use of the word hindu, are other Hindus.

 

Funny then, that the topic of Hindu definition was posted here by Hare Krishnas, especially theist who is particularly fond of shouting from roof tops that he is not a Hindu.

 

That should be enough to dismiss the rest of your post as ignorant babble.

 

Cheers

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Bhaktijan, maybe yr right, im sure your teaching the 'ignorant' hindus to read Prabhupada books. Although I dont think its a good selling technique!

[bhaktajan]

 

Bhaktijan, maybe yr right, im sure your teaching the 'ignorant' hindus to read Prabhupada books. Although I dont think its a good selling technique!

 

Au Contraire, My experience with Hindus is that they are pretty enthusiastic to "receive" copies of sastra that are done so scholarly by a maha-Bhagavata from their homeland. I always reply that they should remember that this Swami is delivering sastra "as it is"--as found in their 'old-country'; that such knowledge was difficult to acquire in India, yet, By "the good of the God" it has found them.

 

Those [emmigrant Hindus] will examine and report their approval of Srila Prabhupada's work. They will acknowledge that any bonefide Sadhu/Swami/ Sannyasi who can/has created "Hindu Vaishnavas" out of melechas must be applauded for his 'Un-precidented' success.

 

Just keep in mind: That the best of the best Paintings depicting ancient India & Vedic Histories [albeit, western style realism ala Renaissance painters] are used by 'Hindu' media [book/Print/Film]-- 'Hindu' media loves to use ISKCON Painters, whose Paintings fill all of ISKCON's books.

 

For example B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata Uses ISKCON paintings in its opening credits and also shows an acknowledgement of Thanks to A.C. Bhaktivedanta's "BBT International" [The Bhaktivedanta Boot Trust] for the Paintings shown in B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata Film Serial.