← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · arya
Thread ID: 10371 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-10-09
2003-10-09 15:44 | User Profile
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." The fact is that true "Hinduism" is based on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary designations. So am I calling the name "Hindu" a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term "hindu" is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for "Hinduism."
Most scholars feel that the name "Hindu" was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning "S", thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and Persia, they 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 use it out of convenience.
So it is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that was called "Hinduism" until the Indian people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.
The real confusion started when the name "Hinduism" was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism" was 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, claimed 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 have the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. "Bhoomi" (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan.
Another couple of references that are used, though the exact location of which I am not sure, includes the following:
Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
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, Bharat is referred to as the country of "Sapta Sindhu", i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, they 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 why some scholars came to believe that the word "Hindu" had its origin in Persia.
Another theory is that the name "Hindu" does not even come from the name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. "This [Sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners." He cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this verse:
himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah
Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing, but Kumar translates it as: "The country lying between the Himalayan mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter 'hi' of 'Himalaya' and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word 'Bindu.'"
This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name "Hindu", indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this area are thus known as "Hindus".
So again, in any way these theories may present their information, and in any way you look at it, the name "Hindu" started simply as a bodily and regional designation. The name "Hindu" refers to a location and its people and not to the philosophies or religion of the people, which could certainly change from one thing to another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians. Sure, that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already object to calling themselves by that name. So "Hindu" is not the most appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians and their early history is Vedic culture. So it is more appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses the location of a people.
Unfortunately, the word "Hindu" has gradually been adopted by most everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general way, so much so, in fact, that now "Hinduism" is often used to describe anything from religious activities to even Indian social or nationalistic events. Some of these so-called "Hindu" events are not endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a "Hindu" and still be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be considered a part of the true Vedic culture.
Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Following the principles of sanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining our forgotten relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all Vedic literature, such as Lord Krishna's message in Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only "Hindus" who are restricted to certain region of the planet, but are actually meant for the whole world. It 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 in this book to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part of everyone's vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label of "Hindu" and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus begin to use this term sanatana-dharmist, 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.
2003-10-11 00:46 | User Profile
The poor benighted Hindoo;
He does the best he kindoo.
He sticks to his caste;
From first to last;
And for clothes he uses his skindoo!
From an old US "tell me another joke" book, circa early 1960s
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!!
2003-10-11 01:11 | User Profile
WHO GIVES A RAT'S #$%$#@&&!!? WHAT A HINDU IS!
2003-10-11 01:40 | User Profile
Are Hindus the "superior master race", Arya?
2003-10-12 16:05 | User Profile
i am really suprised by the reactions on the article.ru guys mad r what?
the article was meant to clear the doubts regarding the use of the term "hindu".since most in this forum do not know the difference between hindus and indians,i want to clear the doubt for them.
is there any reason to be nasty.u may have ur opinions,but where is the reason to be nasty.it only shows what kind of culture ur brought up in.
it is clear people who posted replies have not read the article.even if they read they did not understand a bit.
hey franco,nobody asked u to come and see the article.if ur not interested thats fine.why post unnessary things,about which u dont understand.
and acorn,ur joke does not reflect the truth.since u do not know anything about hinduism,i take it as a compliment. if i were a muslim,and u posted ur jokes on islam,i guss i would somehow got ur address and would come to ur house and blow up u and ur family together.
sorry,i just could not resist.
no Eendracht maakt mag(which language is this?) hindus are not superior.they are just like everybody.according to vedas,all people who are born in this world are one and the same.it is only depending on ur actions u become good or bad.
hindus are not a race.hinduism is a way of life.thats what i am trying to say in the above article.
finally i think people in this forum should learn to be tolerant towards other views.it will enhance ur knowledge and gives u a broader perspective.