Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Indischer]

If the religion of IVC was Hinduism then surely Hinduism predates Vedas what you are stating

It's not me making this claim. It's you!
The oldest liturgical link to Sanatana Dharma i.e the RgVeda, comes from outside India.
The artifacts that you cite are not older than the RV(circa 3000-2500 BC). Hence they are not pre-vedic as you say. Rather, they might have been independent but parallel efforts which merged once the Aryans started entering the Punjab.
It's possible that either the IVC influenced Sanatana Dharma or vice versa, but there are no definite proofs for this. Hence, I do not claim any links.
I merely contest those who claim that the obscurity of Hinduism somehow means it's 9K, 10K years old or "from time immemorial" etc. It's clearly a religion whose founding principles aren't more than 5500 years old.

 

[Fireurimagination]

It's not me making this claim. It's you!
The oldest liturgical link to Sanatana Dharma i.e the RgVeda, comes from outside India.
The artifacts that you cite are not older than the RV(circa 3000-2500 BC). Hence they are not pre-vedic as you say. Rather, they might have been independent but parallel efforts which merged once the Aryans started entering the Punjab.
It's possible that either the IVC influenced Sanatana Dharma or vice versa, but there are no definite proofs for this. Hence, I do not claim any links.
I merely contest those who claim that the obscurity of Hinduism somehow means it's 9K, 10K years old or "from time immemorial" etc. It's clearly a religion whose founding principles aren't more than 5500 years old.

Independent but parallel efforts which merged once the Aryans started entering the Punjab Now you are shooting from your hips, proof?. I am not the one making claims, it's you who is making the claims that the Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is 2500 years old and Vedas are the beginning of Hinduism. I am saying the origins of Hinduism (along with BBC, Wikipedia and elsewhere) are unknown. What if religion of IVC was Hinduism (which many researchers believe and what evidence points to) then your Vedas theory is nothing but your limited knowledge and imagination.

 

[Indischer]

Independent but parallel efforts which merged once the Aryans started entering the Punjab Now you are shooting from your hips, proof?. I am not the one making claims, it's you who is making the claims that the Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is 2500 years old and Vedas are the beginning of Hinduism. I am saying the origins of Hinduism (along with BBC, Wikipedia and elsewhere) are unknown. What if religion of IVC was Hinduism (which many researchers believe and what evidence points to) then your Vedas theory is nothing but your limited knowledge and imagination.

I gave you enough answers dude. I can't help it if you don't want to believe in them. The Shivlinga, swastika symbol etc are not older than the RgVeda. I postulated that as the most plausible scenario that might accomodate your theory that these are somehow "Pre-Vedic". I can cite lots of sources to back me up. We've already discussed them, if you have the patience to go through this whole thread once. You haven't given one source yet to support your claims.

I too admit the origins are unknown. But they're not older than 5500 years. The origins of our Human species i.e Homo Sapiens, is unknown. But we can't say we have inhabited Earth for 1 billion years, can we? By dating the discovery of similar hominids and tracing back the genetic ancestry of us and our closest primate species, haven't we accepted that we're not older than 3 million years?

 

[Fireurimagination]

I gave you enough answers dude. I can't help it if you don't want to believe in them. The Shivlinga, swastika symbol etc are not older than the RgVeda. I postulated that as the most plausible scenario that might accomodate your theory that these are somehow "Pre-Vedic". I can cite lots of sources to back me up. We've already discussed them, if you have the patience to go through this whole thread once. You haven't given one source yet to support your claims.

I too admit the origins are unknown. But they're not older than 5500 years. The origins of our Human species i.e Homo Sapiens, is unknown. But we can't say we have inhabited Earth for 1 billion years, can we? By dating the discovery of similar hominids and tracing back the genetic ancestry of us and our closest primate species, haven't we accepted that we're not older than 3 million years?

Atleast we have agreed that the origins are unknown, it can 2500 or 5500 or 10000 or God knows when. I agree that the artifacts found in the IVC can be post Rig Veda, but if the religion of IVC was Hinduism then Hinduism predates the Vedas, but nobody can be sure about it. Infact the debate that how old are the Vedas is itself not conclusive. So let just say that the origins are unknown. You can believe not older than 5500 years I can believe time immemorial.

 

[Indischer]

Atleast we have agreed that the origins are unknown, it can 2500 or 5500 or 10000 or God knows when. I agree that the artifacts found in the IVC can be post Rig Veda, but if the religion of IVC was Hinduism then Hinduism predates the Vedas, but nobody can be sure about it. Infact the debate that how old are the Vedas is itself not conclusive. So let just say that the origins are unknown. You can believe not older than 5500 years I can believe time immemorial.

I began by saying obscurity does not translate to antiquity, didn't I? My argument rested on the fact that comparative lingual analysis of the Sanskrit used in RgVeda had placed it as not more than 5500 years old(many have argued it's even lesser than that). If this is the oldest evidence of Sanatana Dharma, I choose to go by it. Inconclusive origin, but conclusive era.

The problem with such phrases as time immemorial are that they confuse people into drawing their own inferences about it's antiquity. If not contested, it's taken to be true in most cases. I think we ought to know better than to parrot the line of our religious figureheads.

 

[Fireurimagination]

I began by saying obscurity does not translate to antiquity, didn't I? My argument rested on the fact that comparative lingual analysis of the Sanskrit used in RgVeda had placed it as not more than 5500 years old(many have argued it's even lesser than that). If this is the oldest evidence of Sanatana Dharma, I choose to go by it. Inconclusive origin, but conclusive era.

The problem with such phrases as time immemorial are that they confuse people into drawing their own inferences about it's antiquity. If not contested, it's taken to be true in most cases. I think we ought to know better than to parrot the line of our religious figureheads.

The RigVeda which you say is the oldest evidence of Sanatana Dharma may not be more than 5500 years old. So yes I agree that Sanatana Dharma is atleast 5500 years old but it doesn't mean that it is 5500 years old. In fact it can be the religion of IVC whose language has not even been deciphered yet or probably IVC didn't even have a language, nobody knows, hence origins unknown and not xyx years old.

 

[Indischer]

The RigVeda which you say is the oldest evidence of Sanatana Dharma may not be more than 5500 years old. So yes I agree that Sanatana Dharma is atleast 5500 years old but it doesn't mean that it is 5500 years old. In fact it can be the religion of IVC whose language has not even been deciphered yet or probably IVC didn't even have a language, nobody knows, hence origins unknown and not xyx years old.

Dude, are you low on comprehension? I said lingual studies and reference to bronze confirm it's age. It's at most, 5500 years old, not at least. By popular estimates it's only 3500- 4000 years old (most scholars cite it as from around 2000-1500 BC).

 

[Fireurimagination]

Dude, are you low on comprehension? I said lingual studies and reference to bronze confirm it's age. It's at most, 5500 years old, not at least. By popular estimates it's only 3500- 4000 years old (most scholars cite it as from around 2000-1500 BC).

Dude, are you low on comprehension? I am not talking about the Rig Veda, read again slowly. I am talking about Hinduism. Rig Veda can be 2500/3500/5500 yeas old that doesn't make Hinduism that old it makes it atleast that old. Got it? You are assuming that the Rig Veda is beginning of Hinduism and I am telling you it is from when Hinduism is documented, it well can be older or not. Forget Sanskrit of the Vedas it can be the religion of IVC whose language has not even been deciphered.

 

[Indischer]

Dude, are you low on comprehension? I am not talking about the Rig Veda, read again slowly. I am talking about Hinduism. Rig Veda can be 2500/3500/5500 that doesn't make Hinduism that old it makes it atleast that old. Got it? You are assuming that the Rig Veda is beginning of Hinduism and I am telling you it is from when Hinduism is documented, it well can be older or not. Forget Sanskrit of the Vedas it can be the religion of IVC whose language has not even been deciphered.

To everyone, the definitive proof of Hinduism begins with RigVeda, not before that. IVC itself isn't older than 6000 years. With NO PROOF whatsoever, how can you say IVC followed Hinduism?? If some nut tomorrow says IVC followed Zoroashtrianism or Tangrism, are we supposed to believe it??

 

[Fireurimagination]

To everyone, the definitive proof of Hinduism begins with RigVeda, not before that. IVC itself isn't older than 6000 years. With NO PROOF whatsoever, how can you say IVC followed Hinduism?? If some nut tomorrow says IVC followed Zoroashtrianism or Tangrism, are we supposed to believe it??

Many researchers believe IVC followed Hinduism (remember the Swastika, Shiva, Goddess of reproduction, temples, worship of nature, animals etc etc). researches believe that beliefs of civilization such as that of IVC could not have vaporized in to thin air. Now so Hinduism may have been or it may not have been the religion of IVC but if Hinduism was the religion of IVC then Hinduism predates Rig Veda, so nobody can be sure about origins of Hinduism it can be as you say atleast 5500 years old with Rig Veda as the beginning or it can even older, nobody knows that.

 

[Indischer]

Many researchers believe IVC followed Hinduism (remember the Swastika, Shiva, Goddess of reproduction, temples, worship of nature, animals etc etc). researches believe that beliefs of civilization such as that of IVC could not have vaporized in to thin air. Now so Hinduism may have been or it may not have been the religion of IVC but if Hinduism was the religion of IVC then Hinduism predates Rig Veda, so nobody can be sure about origins of Hinduism it can be as you say atleast 5500 years old with Rig Veda as the beginning or it can even older, nobody knows that.

Dude, please cite at least one reliable source for this first. Then, we can take this discussion forward.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Dude, please cite at least one reliable source for this first. Then, we can take this discussion forward.

Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hinduism (religion) :: Other sources: the process of "Sanskritization" -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Foundations of Indian Religion

There are 100s more you can Google them yourself.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Indus Valley Civilization -- Ancient History Encyclopedia
Indus Valley Civilization - Society

 

[Indischer]

Indus Valley Civilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hinduism (religion) :: Other sources: the process of "Sanskritization" -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Foundations of Indian Religion

There are 100s more you can Google them yourself.

Good. Now read them yourself and find out if any of them state that IVC practiced Hinduism. No reliable scholar, I repeat, has gone on record to say that IVC practiced Sanatana Dharma beyond any doubt. All these sources will only say that Hinduism may have incorporated some beliefs from IVC(again with doubt), not that Hinduism itself was the religion of IVC.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Good. Now read them yourself and find out if any of them state that IVC practiced Hinduism. No reliable scholar, I repeat, has gone on record to say that IVC practiced Sanatana Dharma beyond any doubt. All these sources will only say that Hinduism may have incorporated some beliefs from IVC(again with doubt), not that Hinduism itself was the religion of IVC.

LOL have you even gone though the links, What was the religion of IVC according to you then?, according to the links Hinduism was the most likely religion of IVC (with similar beliefs, similar deities and similar symbols). Yes it can't be conclusively proved that Hinduism was the religion followed in IVC but it can't be conclusively proved that it wasn't the one either. That is why I say that origins of Hinduism are unknown, it can be 2500 BC with the Vedic period or it can be much earlier too, it's not known and it's not proved.