Coffeehouse for desis
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Revisiting the old debate on 'Hindu' and Atharva Veda one more time

Go down

Revisiting the old debate on 'Hindu' and Atharva Veda one more time  Empty Revisiting the old debate on 'Hindu' and Atharva Veda one more time

Post by Seva Lamberdar Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:33 pm

"First there is no religion called Hindu as Persians coined the word Hindu to designate people living the other side of Sindu River. Persians have no letter “S” instead they use “H”. Thus Sindu becomes Hindu. So Hindu has only geographical meaning. Please see this link: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm"  (a comment to a Sulekha blog 'Contradiction Everywhere' ... http://creative.sulekha.com/contradiction-everywhere_625496_blog?c=2381049)


my response:  

"Kamakoti" reference is not a valid support for the word "Hindu" arising form "Sindhu", because "Persians" did not have the letter "S" in their alphabet.

Btw "Kamakoti" also wrongly considers Atharva Veda as a genuine Veda (part of the "four" Vedas -- http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap27.htm), even though the Bhagavad Gita and other ancient texts, along with the great acharyas (ancient Sankara et al.), never even mention the name of the Atharva Veda, and they consider only three (Rik, Yajur and Sam) as the genuine Vedas.

Regarding the word Hindu, it probably arose from Indu (meaning the propitious libation, Soma); Hindu (H+Indu) meaning / signifying the partaker of Indu (person / devotee taking and benefiting from Indu) ... http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/hindu_hinduism.html
Seva Lamberdar
Seva Lamberdar

Posts : 6572
Join date : 2012-11-29

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bYp0igbxHcmg1G1J-qw0VUBSn7Fu

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum