Dharm of Bharat

[Guest guest]

Bharat's decline began with a Psychological confusion as to who Bharatiya's were

Bharatiya's accepted the word " Hindu " to describe them

The word " Hindu " does not mean anything in any language

So when a person said " I am a Hindu " in Bharat, it did not mean anything to him

The decline began with a loss of identity

The loss of identity caused - a loss of association with her past, ethos,

greatness, teachings etc.

Not being clear of who you are can be a big disadvantage

It allows other people to confuse you further with concepts like secularism etc.

The religions of India are the only truly secular religions

The proper word for the Bharatiya religion is Dharm.

The word Dharm is inclusive of the word " Sanatan " .

To bring India back, the original confusion of " Hinduism " has to be removed

To bring Dharm back you have to start calling it " Dharm "

I will say " I am Dharmik " and that " I follow Dharm " from now on.

Also remember that Dharm is not a religion. It is much larger wider and

encompasses everything concerned with human life, humanness and reaching god.

[Guest guest]

Very good post!

 

I read in the past, a long time ago, that " Hindu " was a mispronounciation of

" Sindhu " , which was, from my limited knowledge, meant to describe the people

in the India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. area in ancient times. Then it

was used by the Persians at first and then later the colonials when they

took over India... and after being called a " Hindu " so much, the people in

India more or less just accepted being called this (unless they are of a

non-Dharmic faith or a Buddhist, Sikh, etc.).

 

A former room mate of mine have often used the term " Dharmic religion " to

describe Hinduism, Buddhism, and all of the other religions originated from

the Vedic traditions (some traditions argued to be even pre-Vedic). He also

liked considering himself Dharmic because he does not believe his system to

be restricted to merely religious beliefs.

 

Hindu was always a somewhat ambiguous term for me. Most people I know will

use it to describe the religion now, but I have also known some who will

call themselves a Hindu just because they were born into a family of Hindus

from India and they have absolutely no belief in their religion otherwise.

When someone asks me about my religion, I tell them I am partial to the

Hindu religion but I do not say much more because I am not yet initiated so

I do not want to introduce confusion. A good friend of mine actually was

part of one of the less religious/spiritual families who considered

themselves Hindu and she said it was part of why she ended up finding

another religion. Her family did not teach her anything about their faith

and it was hard for her to find a local community who would help her

understand her own roots.

 

Again, good post.

 

Namaste.

 

Jai Maa.

 

 

Sincerely,

Arya/Christina

 

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:06 PM, abc abc <uninterruptedpeacewrote:

 

> The proper word for the Bharatiya religion is Dharm.

> The word Dharm is inclusive of the word " Sanatan " .

> To bring India back, the original confusion of " Hinduism " has to be removed

[Guest guest]

Thank you. Sindu was the name of the river Indus. You notice that the S from the

beginning of Sindu was added to the end to call it the Indus. I believe India

then got her name from the Indus. When the Greeks came to Bharat they

mispronounced Sindu as Hindu and called the people here Hindus. Ram, Krishna etc

were not Hindus but followers of Dharm.

 

Warm Regards

 

, Amaya Kalarathri

<theilluminatedcelestial wrote:

>

> Very good post!

>

> I read in the past, a long time ago, that " Hindu " was a mispronounciation of

> " Sindhu " , which was, from my limited knowledge, meant to describe the people

> in the India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. area in ancient times. Then it

> was used by the Persians at first and then later the colonials when they

> took over India... [....]

[Guest guest]

Friends, yes it is quite interesting to see how Sindu become Indus , same way

one can find Abraham to become Brahama>Brahma; Sarah to become Sarah_wati (wati

is feminine in India , like Bhagawati)> Saraswati.

 

Do you find any similarites?

 

--- On Sat, 24/10/09, uninterruptedpeace <uninterruptedpeace wrote:

 

uninterruptedpeace <uninterruptedpeace

 

Thank you. Sindu was the name of the river Indus. You notice

that the S from the beginning of Sindu was added to the end to call it the

Indus. I believe India then got her name from the Indus. When the Greeks came to

Bharat they mispronounced Sindu as Hindu and called the people here Hindus. Ram,

Krishna etc were not Hindus but followers of Dharm.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

The Sindu and Indus are both rivers at the same place and there was a change in

pronounciation. Abraham, Sarah are separated from Brahma Saraswati in

time/space/dimension and in many other ways. Often people use similarities in

words/names/sounds to link history/historical characters but usually the results

are fallacious.

 

--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92 wrote:

 

Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92

 

Friends, yes it is quite interesting to see how Sindu become

Indus , same way one can find Abraham to become Brahama>Brahma; Sarah to become

Sarah_wati (wati is feminine in India , like Bhagawati)> Saraswati.

 

Do you find any similarites?

[Guest guest]

I appreciate your writing., I do agree with you. I just mentioned those that by

simply twisting here and there  confusion can be created nothing else.

 

Thanks

 

--- On Sat, 24/10/09, abc abc <uninterruptedpeace wrote:

 

abc abc <uninterruptedpeace

Re: Re: Dharm of Bharat

 

Saturday, 24 October, 2009, 2:24 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi,

 

 

 

The Sindu and Indus are both rivers at the same place and there was a change in

pronounciation. Abraham, Sarah are separated from Brahma Saraswati in

time/space/dimensio n and in many other ways. Often people use similarities in

words/names/ sounds to link history/historical characters but usually the

results are fallacious.

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 10/24/09, Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92@ .in> wrote:

 

 

 

Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92@ .in>

 

 

 

Friends, yes it is quite interesting to see how Sindu become

Indus , same way one can find Abraham to become Brahama>Brahma; Sarah to become

Sarah_wati (wati is feminine in India , like Bhagawati)> Saraswati.

 

 

 

Do you find any similarites?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try the new India Homepage. http://in./trynew

 

 

[Guest guest]

Some etymology of terms:

 

Sindhu = Sanskrit

Hind/Hindu = Persian

Indos = Greek

India = Latin/Greek > Old English > [Ynde/Inde = French/Middle English] >

Spanish/Portuguese > Modern English

 

Sindhu was the name of the river later called Hind by the Persians, and the

Indos by the Greeks (which became Indus in Latin and later, of course,

English). This was in the famed region of Harappa & Mohenjo-Daro, the

ancient " Indus Valley " civilizations which were in modern-day Pakistan. The

Persians called this the Hind or Hindu river, due to pronunciation

differences, and the people around it were called Hindus. The word " Hindu "

as we use it today began to be used in the mid 17th century, and the word

" Hinduism " in the early 19th century.

 

There have been, of course, many rivers in India - the Nadistuti Sukta of

the Rg Veda refers to over 20 distinct rivers. But there are also seven

sacred (that is, primary) feminine rivers that are commonly referred to

during the course of puja, not all of them are still flowing today (for

instance, the Saraswati has long since dried up). The Sindhu is one of these

rivers. It's the largest river in Pakistan today. The word originally was a

generic term for " river " (it also referred to other bodies of water), but

became specifically linked to the Sindhu river itself.

 

The thing about " Hinduism " is that the idea of it being a unified religion

is fairly recent. It has always been a healthy heterodoxy of lots of various

communities centered in the home and in varying temples. The multiplicity of

scriptures and lack of central authority have made it a religion tied to

social structure and individual spiritual belief linked to communal

agreements and ideas of praxis. It has evolved over millenia and looks

different wherever you go. Sanatana Dharma (the eternal

law/philosophy/order) is traditionally used as an alternative to " Hinduism "

- but regardless of the origin of the term " Hindu, " it is still a meaningful

word because it has been given meaning over hundreds or thousands of years.

One may choose to politicize it as a non-indigenous term (I even routinely

say " 'Hinduism' doesn't exist - the term is a construct " ) or as a

constructed collective term that describes what was traditionally a fairly

diverse religious system, but to tell somebody they don't know who they are

or that their religious sense of self is meaningless because they call

themselves a " Hindu " seems a little dangerous to me. It's making a political

assumption about a very personal, spiritual matter. And it's a slippery

slope - the same logic that says non-Indians can't belong to this religion.

How can you know someone's soul? You can't. So for yourself, make whatever

decision you like. But perhaps it's best to let others choose for

themselves.

 

jai MAA Kamesvari

-kulasundari

 

Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir

www.kamakhyamandir.org

 

 

 

 

> abc abc <uninterruptedpeace<uninterruptedpeace%40>

> >

> Re: Re: Dharm of Bharat

> <%40>

> Saturday, 24 October, 2009, 2:24 PM

>

>

>

> Hi,

>

> The Sindu and Indus are both rivers at the same place and there was a

> change in pronounciation. Abraham, Sarah are separated from Brahma Saraswati

> in time/space/dimensio n and in many other ways. Often people use

> similarities in words/names/ sounds to link history/historical characters

> but usually the results are fallacious.

>

> --- On Sat, 10/24/09, Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92@ .in>

> wrote:

>

> Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92@ .in>

>

> Friends, yes it is quite interesting to see how Sindu become Indus , same

> way one can find Abraham to become Brahama>Brahma; Sarah to become

> Sarah_wati (wati is feminine in India , like Bhagawati)> Saraswati.

>

> Do you find any similarites?

>

>

>

>

>

Try the new India Homepage. http://in./trynew

>

>

[Guest guest]

One may choose to politicize it as a non-indigenous term (I even routinely

say " 'Hinduism' doesn't exist - the term is a construct " )

 

What I said is the word Hindu is the incorrect term. In the Dharmik way/sounds

are very important and so are words. Since Hindu does not mean anything at all

in any Indian language and does not have an intrinsic meaning in any other

language, I felt that the proper way to describe the philosophy of Bharat is

Dharm.

 

I never implied that people did not know who they are - that is a complete

misstatement. People who follow Dharm routinely refer to themselves as Dharmik

people and followers of Dharma. All the Dharmik scriptures talk about the

importance of following your Dharm so it is very basic.

 

The Native Americans were mistaken to be Indians by explorers who thought they

had arrived in India and are still called Red Indians by some. None of them are

comfortable with a term (Red Indian) that does not describe who they are.

 

There is no Politics in referring to yourself by a word that describes you

better. I think it is a right.

 

" the same logic that says non-Indians can't belong to this religion. "

 

Once again Dharm is not a religion. The closest English word to it is

Humanity/Humanness. By definition anyone can practice Dharm. Dharm also has

positive aspects of athiesm in it - termed " Anatma. " There was no meaningful

logic in your above statement since anyone on this planet can be a follower of

Dharm - even if he/she follows another religion. The criteria is that they live

ethically.

 

" How can you know someone's soul? "

Is that connected with anything I said. This statement is completely

disconnected from the earlier email.

 

" You can't. So for yourself, make whatever

decision you like. But perhaps it's best to let others choose for

themselves. "

 

 

The passage was a philosophical belief on a subject. In the spirit of Dharm it

was not meant in an offensive way and certainly did not convey offensiveness. It

did criticize the distortion of " Secularism " by politicians, certainly and it is

my right to speak the naked truth about it. It is also my duty to set the truth

in order that Dharm is inclusive of " Secularism " and far above it since it does

not distinguish between religions and is not man made.

 

In Sum - You said - Hinduism does not exist - I say a way of life does and the

correct word for it is Dharm.

You said - I said that a persons religious sense of self was meaningless since

they call themselves a Hindu - I say a persons sense of self arises from correct

living and concepts. I certainly did not make the assertion you made.

You said - I said that a Non-Hindu cannot belong to this Religion. I say I never

made this statement - In fact I said the complete opposite.

You said - How can I know someones soul. I say I do not understand that

statement, its relevance and I know I never implied that.

You said - So for yourself, make whatever decision you like. I say certainly I

do not need your permission for that. In fact everyone has a duty to choose for

themselves and everyone has a right to express their opinion.

You said something about making a political assumption - I say to tell the truth

cannot be politics. To distort the truth by distorting words and statements

certainly can be. National and international politics thrives on it.

 

BTW - Ram, Krishn and all the ideals of Dharm never used the term Hindu to

describe themselves and never would have. They knew Sanskrit and used their

language perfectly.

 

P.S. I sincerely hope I was not offensive and that was certainly not the

intention. I realized that people around the world can be easily confused with

words by Politicians and this is their main tool - in fact it does happen

everywhere. That is the only reason I sent this email. It was not meant with any

negativity but perhaps had bitterness towards how politicians confuse people

with words for attaining power. If you make your understanding/discrimination of

words clearer then there is little scope for confusion. That was what I meant. I

was also a little angry when I first read your mail, I just saw your website and

now I understand that you misunderstood what I said and the spirit in which I

said it.

 

Warm Regards and all the best.

 

 

 

________________________________

Kulasundari Devi <sundari

 

The thing about " Hinduism " is that the idea of it being a unified religion

is fairly recent. It has always been a healthy heterodoxy of lots of various

communities centered in the home and in varying temples. The multiplicity of

scriptures and lack of central authority have made it a religion tied to

social structure and individual spiritual belief linked to communal

agreements and ideas of praxis. It has evolved over millenia and looks

different wherever you go. Sanatana Dharma (the eternal

law/philosophy/ order) is traditionally used as an alternative to " Hinduism "

- but regardless of the origin of the term " Hindu, " it is still a meaningful

word because it has been given meaning over hundreds or thousands of years.

One may choose to politicize it as a non-indigenous term (I even routinely

say " 'Hinduism' doesn't exist - the term is a construct " ) or as a

constructed collective term that describes what was traditionally a fairly

diverse religious system, but to tell somebody they don't know who they are

or that their religious sense of self is meaningless because they call

themselves a " Hindu " seems a little dangerous to me. It's making a political

assumption about a very personal, spiritual matter. And it's a slippery

slope - the same logic that says non-Indians can't belong to this religion.

How can you know someone's soul? You can't. So for yourself, make whatever

decision you like. But perhaps it's best to let others choose for

themselves.

 

jai MAA Kamesvari

-kulasundari

 

Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir

www.kamakhyamandir. org