On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

by Seva Lamberdar Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:51 am

The reason 'Hindu' as a word referring to people (adherents of some particular religious faith, specifically Hinduism) is not found in the Vedas is because there was no need for the Vedas to do that, i.e. distinguish and differentiate some people from others in terms of their religious faith (perhaps due to the Vedic religious or 'Hindu' practices being the oldest).

As for the etymological roots of the word 'Hindu', these appear to be as 'h + indu', implying a person propitiated by the use of Indu (Soma or Vedic libation), and not because some foreigners called people living near or beyond the river Sindhu as Hindu or they mispronounced Sindhu as Hindu (http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html).

by garam_kuta Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:23 am

by truthbetold Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:29 pm

Sevaji,

Why is it that word hindu did not appear in literature till persians , greeks and later muslims came to invade India?

You have no proof of your opinion.

Sadguru's explanation is similar to historians explanation.

Current Hinduism is a collection of several local faiths dominated by vaishnav rituals. It coopted local traditions. It never had a central authority and it survived invasions because of its decentralization.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:04 am

G_K & TBT,
Many Indians, including famous historians, intellectuals and religionists (swamis and gurus etc.), believe in things which in reality can be put in the category of weird, for example the Shivalinga (even though a fire symbol) thought by many as meant for penis worship. Similarly, many people mistakenly think that secularism in India is a real thing even though there are several religious laws officially in use in the country which make the idea of secularism an oxymoron. The same thing can be said about people linking the word ‘Hindu’ with Sindhu even though it makes no sense (more details in http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html)

by garam_kuta Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:31 am

truthbetold wrote:Sevaji,

Why is it that word hindu did not appear in literature till persians , greeks and later muslims came to invade India?

You have no proof of your opinion.

Sadguru's explanation is similar to historians explanation.

Current Hinduism is a collection of several local faiths dominated by vaishnav rituals. It coopted local traditions. It never had a central authority and it survived invasions because of its decentralization.

+1 explanation - as Naipaul put it once, india is probably the only land that could not be conquered and converted by the invader's religion.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:14 pm

garam_kuta wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Sevaji,

Why is it that word hindu did not appear in literature till persians , greeks and later muslims came to invade India?

You have no proof of your opinion.

Sadguru's explanation is similar to historians explanation.

Current Hinduism is a collection of several local faiths dominated by vaishnav rituals. It coopted local traditions. It never had a central authority and it survived invasions because of its decentralization.

+1 explanation - as Naipaul put it once, india is probably the only land that could not be conquered and converted by the invader's religion.

Naipaul and Sadguru seem to imply as if Hinduism merely reflects a loose collection of various / separate religious beliefs, rituals and practices. But that does not tell the whole story, because all the seemingly separate beliefs, rituals and practices in Hinduism are due to one God (Brahman) in Hinduism who has numerous names and representations which can be worshiped and believed by people legitimately (without any theological conflict or violation) in their own separate / unique ways and according to their own capabilities. That's hardly a loose collection.

by truthbetold Sat Oct 22, 2016 6:58 pm

Sevaji,

History of India has many recorded stories of intense rivalries and wars between the believers of different hindu gods. Narasimha, Rama and Krishna were born to kill the disciples of Shiva. There were wars between shivites and Vaishnavaites till few hundred years ago. Literature also shows a transition of preeminent position among gods from Indra to Brahma to Vishnu.

While there is one hindu thought of all gods being one, it is not understood by all hindus as there are no official tenets of hinduism.

Coming back to your opinion about the word Hindu, you have not provided any argument to back it up.

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:01 pm

truthbetold wrote:Sevaji,

History of India has many recorded stories of intense rivalries and wars between the believers of different hindu gods. Narasimha, Rama and Krishna were born to kill the disciples of Shiva. There were wars between shivites and Vaishnavaites till few hundred years ago. Literature also shows a transition of preeminent position among gods from Indra to Brahma to Vishnu.

While there is one hindu thought of all gods being one, it is not understood by all hindus as there are no official tenets of hinduism.

Coming back to your opinion about the word Hindu, you have not provided any argument to back it up.

TBT,
Obviously, the fault for this misunderstanding and confusion among public lies with preachers and pandits in Hinduism who mindlessly keep on talking to their listeners / devotees about many separate faiths and deities in their religion without any unifying basis and the Hinduism being even a loose collection of different groups which according to these religionists follow different gods as having no identification / relation with one God (Brahman -- http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/brahman.html). Btw, look also around and you will find other religions too (supposedly not as loosely connected) as having many different groups and cults in them and at odds with one another and even involving fights among themselves in the past and even now. So, Hinduism is/was not unique in that respect (with different groups and religiouis personalities at odds with another).
As for the origin of the word 'Hindu', what makes more sense about its roots -- 'h + indu' (someone propitiated by the use of Indu or soma or Vedic libation, or even the 'charnamrit' offered to devotees in Hindu temples these days following the ancient tradition), or some foreigner(s) long ago mispronouncing etc. the name of river Sindhu as Hindu leading to the creation of the word 'Hindu'? Naturally, the former ('h+indu'), as explained in http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html

by truthbetold Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:50 pm

Sevaji,
Complete agreement on the failure of all religions to get their basic tenets across to their followers. Islam says Islamic terrorism is carried out by Muslims who do not understand Koran. Jesus would lose elections in most Christian countries. All these religions had 1400 plus years of opportunity. There was never a single time in history, any religion said it basic tenets were well understood by. Its followers. Not a single point in time. Such overwhelming evidence may provide clues to the causes behind the failure of all religions. Think about it.

Greek, Persian and Indian literature date it back to few hundred years before Christ. You have a theory and you may be right. As someone once said "only the guy upstairs ( meaning God) gets to have an opinion. Rest of you get data ".

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:30 am

truthbetold wrote:Sevaji,
Complete agreement on the failure of all religions to get their basic tenets across to their followers. Islam says Islamic terrorism is carried out by Muslims who do not understand Koran. Jesus would lose elections in most Christian countries. All these religions had 1400 plus years of opportunity. There was never a single time in history, any religion said it basic tenets were well understood by. Its followers. Not a single point in time. Such overwhelming evidence may provide clues to the causes behind the failure of all religions. Think about it.

Greek, Persian and Indian literature date it back to few hundred years before Christ. You have a theory and you may be right. As someone once said "only the guy upstairs ( meaning God) gets to have an opinion. Rest of you get data ".

And as long as "the guy upstairs" does not tell about his opinion, people here better choose logical / sensible answers (explanations) to their questions / problems, like the word 'Hindu' for the followers of a certain religion (in India since ancient times) having its roots logically in the Vedic libation Indu, rather than someone new upon arrival in India, e.g. foreigner(s), mispronouncing the name of river Sindhu.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:13 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Sevaji,

History of India has many recorded stories of intense rivalries and wars between the believers of different hindu gods. Narasimha, Rama and Krishna were born to kill the disciples of Shiva. There were wars between shivites and Vaishnavaites till few hundred years ago. Literature also shows a transition of preeminent position among gods from Indra to Brahma to Vishnu.

While there is one hindu thought of all gods being one, it is not understood by all hindus as there are no official tenets of hinduism.

Coming back to your opinion about the word Hindu, you have not provided any argument to back it up.
TBT,
Obviously, the fault for this misunderstanding and confusion among public lies with preachers and pandits in Hinduism who mindlessly keep on talking to their listeners / devotees about many separate faiths and deities in their religion without any unifying basis and the Hinduism being even a loose collection of different groups which according to these religionists follow different gods as having no identification / relation with one God (Brahman -- http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/brahman.html). Btw, look also around and you will find other religions too (supposedly not as loosely connected) as having many different groups and cults in them and at odds with one another and even involving fights among themselves in the past and even now. So, Hinduism is/was not unique in that respect (with different groups and religiouis personalities at odds with another).
As for the origin of the word 'Hindu', what makes more sense about its roots -- 'h + indu' (someone propitiated by the use of Indu or soma or Vedic libation, or even the 'charnamrit' offered to devotees in Hindu temples these days following the ancient tradition), or some foreigner(s) long ago mispronouncing etc. the name of river Sindhu as Hindu leading to the creation of the word 'Hindu'? Naturally, the former ('h+indu'), as explained in http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html

btw, another name for 'charnamrit' (holy liquid / libation) mentioned in above is 'panchamrit'.

by Sponsored content

On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)

Re: On the origin of the word 'Hindu' (my comment recently to a Sulekha blog)