Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[WAR-rior]

Why the hell are pakistanis so confused? I mean, its as simple as it can get. We all were one culture with hindu gods in defferent region. References in epic poem Mahabharata uses the words Sindhu Desh, Madra Desh, Gandhara. all these regions fall in current pakistan or ancient meluhan region. All these were different staes but all forming part of Bharat Desh. If you see even the marriages use to happen only in this region. Why Bharat Desh? coz all these regions were decendents of 1 king/rishi MANU. Do research bout MANU to know further. So you see 'Bharat Varsh' was never a country but proof of decendency and references of this word were found in texts of Greek, Chinese Traders.

Now what people here claim about Meluha is just another sect which worshipped Lord Shiva. On the current Indian region we mostly had Vishnu worshipers. So if you see the difference was only of worshipping Gods which again end of the day were part of Sanatan Dharma which has the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar(Shiva).

So again, we talk bout some thing of 5k yrs before civilisation and timejump to todays date and claim things. Dont you think its hilarious as we are completely ignoring 5 millenia in between.

Do see the 7 states in the east are not part of Ancient India but Pakistan is. Some reason why you guyz are not like Arabs but like Indians. Coz you guyz are part of Ancient Bharat Varsha.

This map talks bout all teh regions of the kings included in the epic poen of Mahabharat.

For Reference:

 

[Indischer]

This goes on to show how little hindus know about their oldest holy book.

Indra, varuna, agni are not deities or devas they are just names of almighty Ishwar.

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

Rig Veda 1.164.46

The Vedas refer to not 33 crore Devatas(Deities) but 33 types (Koti in Sanskrit) of Devatas. They are explained in Shatpath Brahman very clearly. These include -
8 Vasus (Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Sky, Moon, Sun, Stars/ Planets) that form components of universe where we live,
10 Life Forces in our body or Prana (Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana, Samaana, Naga, Kurma, Kukala, Devadatta) and 1 Soul called Rudra,
12 Aditya or months of year,
1 Vidyut or Electromagnetic force that is of tremendous use to us
1 Yajna or constant noble selfless deeds done by humans

The master of these 33 Devatas is the Mahadeva or Ishwar who alone is to be worshipped as per 14th Kanda of Shatpath Brahman.

Heard of the Nasadiya Sukta in the RigVeda?

"Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?"

RV, 10:129-6

This is often cited as evidence of skeptical enquiry and agnosticism within Hinduism. As I have stated before, the Vedas are an esoteric body of knowledge. The Vedas allow you to infer and arrive at your perception of the Universe around you. You can either choose to worship elemental gods, or a single all-encompassing deity or refrain from worship altogether. But to call it monotheistic would be too simplistic and distort it's well-rounded character of enquiry and flexibility.

Plus, I don't know from where you've arrived at the inference that Rudra denotes the soul. Rudra is the Vedic God of Storms. The Soul is called as Prana. Also, nowhere in the RigVeda is it mentioned that Ishwara or Mahadeva is the Lord of all Lords. These are later epithets that started circulating with the advent of Shaivism.

 

[Nassr]

Ok beta, now take this cookie

Sorry that was incorrectly posted in response to your comment.

And how old are you.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

I would agree with his basis for making such comments, that the people of India and Pakistan are different set of peoples. They do not have the same culture, they have not followed the same religion since thousands of years, their genetic admix is different, their land is different since thousands of years and they have remained separate political entities for large part of known history. It is the Indians who have remained segregated for most part of their history except during the times of Mauryans, Muslims and the British. Please look towards seeking your own history rather than commenting about everything else.

Pakistan blend of history is like their politics. Best left to them to fantasize about and recreate in their heads. If you get that feel good moment by recreating proven history then I guess that like my 4 year old kid who believes in Peter Pan and Batman as reality beyond question, I would prefer leaving you to your Ali Baba delusions. Enjoy

 

[Indischer]

Indians continuously and incessantly talk about an Indian civilization. Can some one tell me which civilization are they talking about as Indus Valley Civilization is not even closely related to anything Indian and is not Indian in any capacity. 

You're right. IVC is closest to the Arab and Central Asian civilizations. I believe IVC is was just an Arab outpost/colony. The seals which depict a man seated in a lotus-mudra position are actually how the Arabs sit daily during potty. The IVC script, which is yet to be deciphered, resembles Nastaliq so closely that the scholars are convinced 100% that IVC was a heavily Arabized culture. The absence of horses either in art or in skeletal remains suggest that the people of IVC could also have come from Central Asia. Scientists have also uncovered a stone barrier towards the east of Harappa which they believe ensured that nobody ever crossed into or out of IVC from the East. They believe this was the original Radcliffe line.

 

[utraash]

There are many factors behind it

1) Hindus are cowards and they cannot stand up and fights for their rights and gave up easily especially in ares where they are in minority

2) In 1947 pakistan consist of bangldesh which had plenty of hindus and they still have them. Your idiot historian compare total hindu population of east and west pakistan in 1947 with present hindu population of only west pakistan to make point that hindu ran away or we ate them

Gud to know that hindus are not martial race like urs..... u must thnx ur martial race of jihadists to prove that we are always weak...... allah bless more mullah jihadist in the name of martial race.

 

[Nassr]

Why the hell are pakistanis so confused? I mean, its as simple as it can get. We all were one culture with hindu gods in defferent region. References in epic poem Mahabharata uses the words Sindhu Desh, Madra Desh, Gandhara. all these regions fall in current pakistan or ancient meluhan region. All these were different staes but all forming part of Bharat Desh. If you see even the marriages use to happen only in this region. Why Bharat Desh? coz all these regions were decendents of 1 king/rishi MANU. Do research bout MANU to know further. So you see 'Bharat Varsh' was never a country but proof of decendency and references of this word were found in texts of Greek, Chinese Traders.

Now what people here claim about Meluha is just another sect which worshipped Lord Shiva. On the current Indian region we mostly had Vishnu worshipers. So if you see the difference was only of worshipping Gods which again end of the day were part of Sanatan Dharma which has the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shankar(Shiva).

So again, we talk bout some thing of 5k yrs before civilisation and timejump to todays date and claim things. Dont you think its hilarious as we are completely ignoring 5 millenia in between.

Do see the 7 states in the east are not part of Ancient India but Pakistan is. Some reason why you guyz are not like Arabs but like Indians. Coz you guyz are part of Ancient Bharat Varsha.

This map talks bout all teh regions of the kings included in the epic poen of Mahabharat.

For Reference:

The Pakistanis present the correct historical perspective. It is astounding that the Indian historians and the people at large have been so blatantly misled by their own into believing something which goes against the historical and archeological evidence.

You are highlighting the references from Mahabharata which even the Indians know that it is an epic story and not a reality. A story which was narrated by someone a long time ago has somehow been converted into a popular belief, which is indeed surprising.

You are talking about the King Bharata. Lets see the references of Bharatas in Rig Veda and see its importance.

Total number of hyms 1028
Mention of Bharatas 19 times or 1.85% only.

Total number of Arya hyms 34
Mention of Bharatas 3 times or 8.82% only.

When mention of Bharatas is compared with mention of other families, all others are mentioned much more number of times than Bharatas. Please do not quote references from old stories.

No one mentioned here that Meluhha was another Indian Hindu sect. Infact the religion of Meluhhas has not even been deciphered so far. However, it is now being increasingly proclaimed that whatever they followed was monotheistic in nature. Even renowned Indian historians also acknowledge such a possibility.

The historical and archeological facts can not be decied through emotions and blatant denials. The fact remains that Indus Valley Civilization is a Pakistani heritage and not Indian. And the landmass of Pakistan always remained a separate political entity since thousands of years except during the eras of Mauryans, Muslims and British. In 1947 history repeated itself and Meluhha reincarnated as Pakistan and this is a fact.

 

[kingkobra]

Heard of the Nasadiya Sukta in the RigVeda?

"Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?"

RV, 10:129-6

This is often cited as evidence of skeptical enquiry and agnosticism within Hinduism. As I have stated before, the Vedas are an esoteric body of knowledge. The Vedas allow you to infer and arrive at your perception of the Universe around you. You can either choose to worship elemental gods, or a single all-encompassing deity or refrain from worship altogether. But to call it monotheistic would be too simplistic and distort it's well-rounded character of enquiry and flexibility.

Plus, I don't know from where you've arrived at the inference that Rudra denotes the soul. Rudra is the Vedic God of Storms. The Soul is called as Prana. Also, nowhere in the RigVeda is it mentioned that Ishwara or Mahadeva is the Lord of all Lords. These are later epithets that started circulating with the advent of Shaivism.

कॊ ।आद्धा वॆद क‌।इह प्रवॊचत् कुत ।आअजाता कुत ।इयं विसृष्टि: ।
अर्वाग्दॆवा ।आस्य विसर्जनॆनाथाकॊ वॆद यत ।आबभूव ॥६॥

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।
यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

Please read above to hymnas carefully...

Nowhere it suggests that Rig veda is polytheist..You people have habit of translating sanskrit word deva as god but in reality it is not a synonym of god or ishwara...I have mentioned what devas are in my previous post...Yes this sukta gives us a hint of agnostic/skeptic beliefs during rig vedic period but that does not prove any of your points.

Rudra does not denote the soul but rudra is a soul. Out of 11 life forces 10 are prann and 1 is Rudra which are said to be residing in our body...Sanskrit does not guarantee that a particular word means just one thing.. Many meaning can be inferred from one sanskrit word.


Your points against vedas being monotheists do not refute Rig Veda 1.164.46 which shows that rig veda is monotheist in nature and those who choose to believe otherwise ignore many such hymnas in rigveda.

There is no mention of Elephant headed deity in vedas but still ganesha, ganapti of vedas are wrongly attributed to Gajanan, just like this mahadev is wrongly attributed to Shankara(the one we see today as deity with snake around his neck)..In vedas shankar is a name of god meaning He who gives peace to all who worship Him.

 

[Nassr]

You're right. IVC is closest to the Arab and Central Asian civilizations. I believe IVC is was just an Arab outpost/colony. The seals which depict a man seated in a lotus-mudra position are actually how the Arabs sit daily during potty. The IVC script, which is yet to be deciphered, resembles Nastaliq so closely that the scholars are convinced 100% that IVC was a heavily Arabized culture. The absence of horses either in art or in skeletal remains suggest that the people of IVC could also have come from Central Asia. Scientists have also uncovered a stone barrier towards the east of Harappa which they believe ensured that nobody ever crossed into or out of IVC from the East. They believe this was the original Radcliffe line.

Sarcastic - yes, factual - not even close.
IVC had nothing to do with Arabs. I do not understand why do the Indians use sarcasm when they try and misleadingly link Arabs and the people of Pakistan. However, IVC does have similarities with Persian and Central Asian civilizations. The Central Asian finds of Bactrian and Andronon civilizations do have similarities with IVC and there is archeological and historical evidences to support these facts.

 

[Indischer]

कॊ ।आद्धा वॆद क‌।इह प्रवॊचत् कुत ।आअजाता कुत ।इयं विसृष्टि: ।
अर्वाग्दॆवा ।आस्य विसर्जनॆनाथाकॊ वॆद यत ।आबभूव ॥६॥

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।
यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

Please read above to hymnas carefully...

Nowhere it suggests that Rig veda is polytheist..You people have habit of translating sanskrit word deva as god but in reality it is not a synonym of god or ishwara...I have mentioned what devas are in my previous post...Yes this sukta gives us a hint of agnostic/skeptic beliefs during rig vedic period but that does not prove any of your points.

Your points against vedas being monotheists do not refute Rig Veda 1.164.46 which shows that rig veda is monotheist in nature and those who choose to believe otherwise ignore many such hymnas in rigveda.

Dude, the fact that Deva meant God is indisputable(Deva is descended from Proto Indo European *diev or celestial. Also the root of the word divine). Why are you trying to stir controversy where none exist? The fact that many Devas and their divine powers are mentioned in the RigVeda suggest a polytheistic outlook while the hymns that you and I quoted earlier suggest a monothistic as well as Agnostic outlook. Hence, I said that their interpretation and compliance are left as a personal choice rather than as a dogmatic rule. Btw, I am restricting myself to the RigVeda alone. Please don't suggest body of texts outside this to prove that Ishwara was the supreme diety and Hinduism is monotheistic.

 

[Nassr]

Pakistan blend of history is like their politics. Best left to them to fantasize about and recreate in their heads. If you get that feel good moment by recreating proven history then I guess that like my 4 year old kid who believes in Peter Pan and Batman as reality beyond question, I would prefer leaving you to your Ali Baba delusions. Enjoy

When you do not have facts to respond, it would be appropriate to join your 4 year old and read Peter Pan and Batman. You may learn something new.

 

[Indischer]

Sarcastic - yes, factual - not even close.
IVC had nothing to do with Arabs. I do not understand why do the Indians use sarcasm when they try and misleadingly link Arabs and the people of Pakistan. However, IVC does have similarities with Persian and Central Asian civilizations. The Central Asian finds of Bactrian and Andronon civilizations do have similarities with IVC and there is archeological and historical evidences to support these facts.

It was never intended to be factual. Sarcastic-Yes, very much so. I was trying to make you feel good about yourself.
There is nothing found from the Indus Valley Civilization that connects it with either the Iranians or the Arabs. Lack of knowledge about Horses indicate that they had very little to do with Iranian and Central Asian civilizations, to whom Horses were very important. The language is speculated to be an earlier version of Dravidian, not Arabic or Avestan. The symbology found on Harappan seals indicate nature worship while symbols like the swastika have also been found. But facts like these would burst your bubble and you wouldn't like it. Hence, I thought that you might like it if I somehow linked IVC also as a great achievement of the Arabs, from whom so many Pakistanis are descended that they profess they're not from the Indian subcontinent anymore.

 

[WAR-rior]

The Pakistanis present the correct historical perspective. It is astounding that the Indian historians and the people at large have been so blatantly misled by their own into believing something which goes against the historical and archeological evidence.

Archeological Evidence? Then I think you are thinking more like a jaundice eye. You see what u want to. I only wish you can prove convincingly how ur pakistanis are right and the world is wrong. neways....

You are highlighting the references from Mahabharata which even the Indians know that it is an epic story and not a reality. A story which was narrated by someone a long time ago has somehow been converted into a popular belief, which is indeed surprising.

Well if you are able to comprehend things then you shudnt be explained. Mahabharata is a poem and due to so called'poetic effect', the the facts in the book related to strength, stature, etc of individuals can be debated. But the places in that cannot be. Mahabharat "archeologically" took place just before establishment of MAHAJANPADAS. atleast if you trust in this word's historicity, then you will see the regions and states in mahajanpadas were exactly similar to that mentioned in the epic poem. End of the day anyone who narrated a story dint create cities and places out of nowhere. right?

You are talking about the King Bharata. Lets see the references of Bharatas in Rig Veda and see its importance.

Total number of hyms 1028
Mention of Bharatas 19 times or 1.85% only.

Total number of Arya hyms 34
Mention of Bharatas 3 times or 8.82% only.

When mention of Bharatas is compared with mention of other families, all others are mentioned much more number of times than Bharatas. Please do not quote references from old stories.

Now please care to explain how does number to times and percentage prove anything? Even if a word is taken once in any story, it wud mean its existence. Or you mean that name of a region or state taken 10 times means its more real than name of a region taken only twice? If i take name of pakistan in my store 2 times means pakistan dint exist and if i take 20 times means it existed. Wierd Logic. isnt it?

No one mentioned here that Meluhha was another Indian Hindu sect. Infact the religion of Meluhhas has not even been deciphered so far. However, it is now being increasingly proclaimed that whatever they followed was monotheistic in nature. Even renowned Indian historians also acknowledge such a possibility.

Monothestic can be explained in numerous ways. Well, you can twist it for your ease. Even worshipping Mahadeva means you dont worship any other god as prevelant in mainland India. Also, you dint worship idol of mahadeva but a round stone circled by a broken circle. ie. SHIV LING. Worshipping shiv ling is also monothestic in nature. isnt it?

The historical and archeological facts can not be decied through emotions and blatant denials. The fact remains that Indus Valley Civilization is a Pakistani heritage and not Indian. And the landmass of Pakistan always remained a separate political entity since thousands of years except during the eras of Mauryans, Muslims and British. In 1947 history repeated itself and Meluhha reincarnated as Pakistan and this is a fact.

OK. go shout it in international conferences and you will see why Pakistanis arent taken seriously globally. he he

 

[Hulk]

There are many factors behind it

1) Hindus are cowards and they cannot stand up and fights for their rights and gave up easily especially in ares where they are in minority

2) In 1947 pakistan consist of bangldesh which had plenty of hindus and they still have them. Your idiot historian compare total hindu population of east and west pakistan in 1947 with present hindu population of only west pakistan to make point that hindu ran away or we ate them

Yes, you are right the cowards Hindus converted to Islam and became brave Muslims. Makes sense. 

Pakistan has pre-islamic history which will be mention in history books always just like many arabs has pagan and pre-islamic history but its not something we are proud off . Pakistani people are not followers of Hinduism and we came out of ignorance; superstitions and cowardice beliefs

From one superstition to other, depends on perspective. All the religions are pretty much described by someone, what if he lying/fooling? In those days there was no good way to corroborate what was said. I can go deeper but most religious people have appetite for logic.

 

[INDIC]

It was never intended to be factual. Sarcastic-Yes, very much so. I was trying to make you feel good about yourself.
There is nothing found from the Indus Valley Civilization that connects it with either the Iranians or the Arabs. Lack of knowledge about Horses indicate that they had very little to do with Iranian and Central Asian civilizations, to whom Horses were very important. The language is speculated to be an earlier version of Dravidian, not Arabic or Avestan. The symbology found on Harappan seals indicate nature worship while symbols like the swastika have also been found. But facts like these would burst your bubble and you wouldn't like it. Hence, I thought that you might like it if I somehow linked IVC also as a great achievement of the Arabs, from whom so many Pakistanis are descended that they profess they're not from the Indian subcontinent anymore.

The vedic culture is continuation of Indus Valley civilization. If you will study the mature Harappan period, it shares a lot similarity with vedic, a terracota shivalinga was found in Haryana of Mature Harappan period. In cemetery H area of Harappa there are proofs of cremation, Rigveda mentions about custom of burying done by ancestors of Rigvedic Indians. All the ancient Harappan sites are westward in Pakistan while later or mature Harappan period are mainly inside India.