Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Indischer]

Just a beginner's question. Isn't Gayatri Mantra starts with "Om" ?

After the word AUM and it's qualities were described by the Upanishads, it was considered auspicious to begin most mantras by uttering the OM.

 

[Vinod2070]

Can you show some facts. Just because you write it, does not mean that it is true.

I assume you are talking of the non Muslim population of West Pakistan pre partition.

Based on facts. This is only for West Pakistan.

Some patterns are clear from this analysis. West Pakistan shows prima facie evidence for ethnic cleansing. The proportions of minorities reduced from over 1/5th of the population in 1941 to a negligible level in 1951.

The Hindu population in West Pakistan, that is today Pakistan, was 20% in 1941. That came down to 1.5% in 1951.

Percentage Composition of selected Punjab District Populations of Hindus and Sikhs : 1941 that became part of Pakistan.

District Hindu Sikh
Attock 6.4 3.0
Dera Ghazi Khan 10.9 0.2
Gujranwala 11.8 10.9
Gujrat 7.7 5.4
Jhang 15.9 5.5
Jhelum 7.7 6.4
Lahore 16.3 18.4
Faisalabad 7.2 19.8
Mianwali 20.3 1.2
Sahiwal 14.4 13.2
Multan 20.5 5.2
Muzaffargarh 12.7 0.8
Rawalpindi 10.5 8.2
Shahpur/Sargodha 10.1 4.8
Sheikhupura 9.1 18.9
Sialkot 19.4 11.7

 

[Black Widow]

1. The Pashupati only shows a seated figure near a few animals. It's not positively identified as Shiva by anyone. It could be a spirit worshipped to keep the animals safe. The mother goddess is a symbol of fertility found in all ancient civilizations.

2. The RigVeda had already been composed by the time the tribe that composed it came to the plains of india. As previously stated here, their language, the absence of them describing any cities, it's mention of horses while there were none in IVC, it's usage of bronze-all of this support this theory. Now, the RigVeda has both a mother goddess as well as it mentions animal sacrifice! Both these concepts are seen in RigVeda itself, not in the subsequent texts.

3. The Swastika is found in all the ancient Indo-European civilizations. It was a symbol of Central Asian tribes who've taken it to Europe as well. The people of IVC are unlikely to have taken this symbol to Europe. The Nazis chose this symbol for this reason. OM is first mentioned only in the Upanishads. Except the RigVeda, the other 3 vedas were composed on Indian soil. If it was borrowed from IVC, OM might have found it's way into these Vedas. But it hasn't. The Upanishads themselves aren't older than 500BC. Hence, it's highly unlikely to have been borrowed from IVC.

4. Do you consider Atheists as Hindus? If not, then the Nastikas too are NOT Hindus. They were Atheists. The Charvaka, Ajivika, Jains and Buddhists together comprised the Nastika school of thought. The Jains and Buddhists have survived to this day and are seen as seperate religions while the Charvaka and Ajivika have unfortunately not survived. But had they survived, they wouldn't be seen as Hindus either.



I never said Hinduism is not old! I said Hinduism isn't older than 5500-6000 years old. the names you cite- Aryavrat, Bharatvarsh etc are all names provided in Sanskrit language, which itself isn't older than 5500 years. The Iranians call themselves Aryan too. The name Iran comes from Airyana, meaning the Land of Aryans.

1. If there is no proof that Pashupathi is Shiva, there is no proof as well that it is not Shiva..

2. Before Rigveda was compiled it was oral, It was passed from generation to next generation. The teaching of vedas was not confined to planes, Even southern Indians too learnt it. The Vedas is not made/formed by one rishi, It is knowledge (Research) of many rishis (from all over India).

3. Swastika can be Indian origin, Only because it is found in other culture as well We cannot say it is not Indian. Lol, Gaytri Mantra is part of Rigveda and OM is mentioned here.. Facepalm

4. Yes Aethism/Nature-worship/ monoethism/polyethism etc, all are part of Hinduism. Hinduism is amalgamation of many such ism.. Boudh, Jains are considered as Hindu and we Hindu have all kind of relation with Baudh, Jains, Sikhs (including marriage)

5. Lol! Hinduism as religion may be 5000 year old, but Hinduism as culture, society, thought process is 15000 to 30000 year old..

 

[Indischer]

1. Agree. But how did the concept of Shiva came from? There is no equivalent in Indo-European religion at that time. Either he was dreamt up or assimilated from IVC. Or there any third option? Also, Horse was not know to IVC but elephant were not know to central asians which are in RigVeda. Only scenario that can explain this is mixture of IVC and central asian traditions.

2. Conjunction without shred of evidence that it was completely composed. River Saraswati was mentioned, right? Also, how can one come to Indian plains without first crossing IVC?

3. Dead wrong. Go over the catalog of the IVC seals. It is the only and earliest Om symbol from any of the ancient world. Swastikas are in question, but since IVC is lot older than central asian tribes and there is clear seals with swastika in IVC, one can't imagine other way around.

4. Atheist ARE hindus (including me). Meemamsa school of thought was very much alive during late vedic period which was nastika sect. THis proves that your definition of hinduism is simply wrong.

5. What are the criteria laid down in vedas to be called as hindu? I mean, slam has clear criteria of who is a muslim and who is not. Same with jains, buddhists, christians, parsis and so on.... all defined by their founders and/or sacred texts. Where it is laid down for Hindus? If it is not there, why should your definition of Hindu is to be accepted?

Dude, why don't you do a cursory search yourself before asking me or making stupid comments here?
1. The first mention of Shiva is in the Krishna Yajurveda. The qualities of Rudra, a RigVedic God are also embodied in the Shiva that we worship today.
2. There is enough doubt amongst scholars about the location of RigVedic Saraswati, given it's importance. many point to the Helmand River in modern day Afghanistan, which during Avestan times was called the Haraxvaiti, cognate with our Saraswati. The Helmand River too is lavishly praised in Avesta like the Saraswati in RigVeda.
3. Have you even bothered to see the so-called OM seal of IVC?? It looks nothing like the OM symbol we use and most scholars have trashed this idea. First, go see yourself what some pseudo-scholars are claiming to be OM on an IVC seal. The Aryans haven't moved out of India once they came in. Hence, the migrating tribes had to know about Swastika much before they set out to Europe, Armenia etc. And FYI, the earliest swastika symbol is seen in the Vinca, a South West European neolithic culture.
4. As I've said before, it's because the mimamsa school itself states that they're an astika school of thought interested in examination of the nature of Dharma as elucidated in the Vedas. They were actually started to counter the rising influence of the Nastika school of thought.

I am not here to define what constitutes Hinduism and what doesn't. I'm simply stating what eminent scholars have already told about IVC and it's contribution to Hinduism. I have presented my side of the argument taking their opinion into count. What to interpret from this and what not is best left to you.

 

[Indischer]

1. If there is no proof that Pashupathi is Shiva, there is no proof as well that it is not Shiva..

2. Before Rigveda was compiled it was oral, It was passed from generation to next generation. The teaching of vedas was not confined to planes, Even southern Indians too learnt it. The Vedas is not made/formed by one rishi, It is knowledge (Research) of many rishis (from all over India).

3. Swastika can be Indian origin, Only because it is found in other culture as well We cannot say it is not Indian. Lol, Gaytri Mantra is part of Rigveda and OM is mentioned here.. Facepalm

4. Yes Aethism/Nature-worship/ monoethism/polyethism etc, all are part of Hinduism. Hinduism is amalgamation of many such ism.. Boudh, Jains are considered as Hindu and we Hindu have all kind of relation with Baudh, Jains, Sikhs (including marriage)

5. Lol! Hinduism as religion may be 5000 year old, but Hinduism as culture, society, thought process is 15000 to 30000 year old..

1. Only that we neither know the name of the guy shown sitting in that seal nor do we know about his divine attributes. Pashupati is a name given by today's excavators to that seal, not by IVC culture. One can also call him the Pied piper of Hamlyn for all I care. The Shiva of today has not only the epithet of the Vedic God Rudra, but also his divine attributes. That is evidence enough to me.

2. No Rishi has changed any mantra in the Vedas nor added any of his own. How do you think their consistency was preserved across India?? Pretty stupid assumption.

3. Swastika may be Indian. But with nobody migrating out of India, how do you think it spread from India to other parts of the World? Nobody proselytised about Vedic culture either. First read about OM and then get back here.

4. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are seperate Religions inspired by Hinduism. Hindus also marry Muslims and Christians, what's your point?

5. Why just 15000- 30000 years? Since you're shooting blanks from your backside, why not add a few more zeroes to those numbers?

 

[Black Widow]

1. Only that we neither know the name of the guy shown sitting in that seal nor do we know about his divine attributes. Pashupati is a name given by today's excavators to that seal, not by IVC culture. One can also call him the Pied piper of Hamlyn for all I care. The Shiva of today has not only the epithet of the Vedic God Rudra, but also his divine attributes. That is evidence enough to me.

2. No Rishi has changed any mantra in the Vedas nor added any of his own. How do you think their consistency was preserved across India?? Pretty stupid assumption.

3. Swastika may be Indian. But with nobody migrating out of India, how do you think it spread from India to other parts of the World? Nobody proselytised about Vedic culture either. irst read about OM and then get back here.

4. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are seperate Religions inspired by Hinduism. Hindus also marry Muslims and Christians, what's your point?

5. Why just 15000- 30000 years? Since you're shooting blanks from your backside, why not add a few more zeroes to those numbers?

1. Agree with you, But what's in name?? Does it make any change what He was called till he is the part of Indian culture?

2. U are wrong, The Vedas are collection of cumulative knowledge gather by many rishi.. Later the knowldge was devided in 4 Vedas.. Its like "Encyclopedia" with 4 volumes. Don't think like Muslim..

3. Are u crazy? Who are Australians ? Who are chinese? Who are Native American. Look like you don't know about Human Migration Chart.. Recently who are Romas?? Indian knowledge went to greek many years ago. Indian number went to Europe through Arabs.. You are talking about last 2000 years ago (when foriegn trip was prohibited), I am talking about last 30,000-40,000 years.

4. Hindu may marry, and Hindu do marry, there is diffenece between both.

5. Because Dwarka is presumed to be 15000 to 30000 years old, If I get an evidence of 60,000 year I will talk about 60,000 years.. Afterall I am proud of my civilization.. We Hindus are living fossils..

 

[Fireurimagination]

1. Only that we neither know the name of the guy shown sitting in that seal nor do we know about his divine attributes. Pashupati is a name given by today's excavators to that seal, not by IVC culture. One can also call him the Pied piper of Hamlyn for all I care. The Shiva of today has not only the epithet of the Vedic God Rudra, but also his divine attributes. That is evidence enough to me.

2. No Rishi has changed any mantra in the Vedas nor added any of his own. How do you think their consistency was preserved across India?? Pretty stupid assumption.

3. Swastika may be Indian. But with nobody migrating out of India, how do you think it spread from India to other parts of the World? Nobody proselytised about Vedic culture either. First read about OM and then get back here.

4. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are seperate Religions inspired by Hinduism. Hindus also marry Muslims and Christians, what's your point?

5. Why just 15000- 30000 years? Since you're shooting blanks from your backside, why not add a few more zeroes to those numbers?

LOL you have a mental block that the Rig Veda is beginning of Hinduism, which defies both logic and common sense. Surely somebody someday doesn't just got and penned the Rig Veda. It has evolved from somewhere and most probably from something that predates Vedas.

The IVC guys may have called their God Pashupatinath or Pied piper of Hamlyn but worshipping God and Goddesses in human form in from where Hinduism came from. Worshipping Male and Female energies is typical Hindu. You believes that the Vedas form the core of Hinduism is not shared by all Hindus. You know how Hinduism works rights. Vedas for Hindus are not like Quran for Muslims that there can be no Islam without Quran.

 

[Indischer]

1. Agree with you, But what's in name?? Does it make any change what He was called till he is the part of Indian culture?

2. U are wrong, The Vedas are collection of cumulative knowledge gather by many rishi.. Later the knowldge was devided in 4 Vedas.. Its like "Encyclopedia" with 4 volumes. Don't think like Muslim..

3. Are u crazy? Who are Australians ? Who are chinese? Who are Native American. Look like you don't know about Human Migration Chart.. Recently who are Romas?? Indian knowledge went to greek many years ago. Indian number went to Europe through Arabs.. You are talking about last 2000 years ago (when foriegn trip was prohibited), I am talking about last 30,000-40,000 years.

4. Hindu may marry, and Hindu do marry, there is diffenece between both.

5. Because Dwarka is presumed to be 15000 to 30000 years old, If I get an evidence of 60,000 year I will talk about 60,000 years.. Afterall I am proud of my civilization.. We Hindus are living fossils..

Regarding point 2. I don't know if you've read about any lingual study of Sanskrit. I've already repeated them on this thread before. Read them if interested. Basically, the Sanskrit of the RigVeda is older than the Sanskrit of the other three. It's older and has greater similarities to Avestan, the Iranian language(In fact, it's the closest language to RigVedic sanskrit).

Regarding point 3. You are confusing cultures with genetics. Australians may be genetically extensions of South Indians, but they're very distant culturally. And how on Earth did Greek borrow Indian knowledge? Care to elaborate? The Roma have migated from today's Rajastan area only about a 1000 years back. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of an Indian identity forming 10,000 years back, forget 30,000....

Regarding 4. I'm better served following Brahmacharya

LOL you have a mental block that the Rig Veda is beginning of Hinduism, which defies both logic and common sense. Surely somebody someday doesn't just got and penned the Rig Veda. It has evolved from somewhere and most probably from something that predates Vedas.

The IVC guys may have called their God Pashupatinath or Pied piper of Hamlyn but worshipping God and Goddesses in human form in from where Hinduism came from. Worshipping Male and Female energies is typical Hindu. You believes that the Vedas form the core of Hinduism is not shared by all Hindus. You know how Hinduism works rights. Vedas for Hindus are not like Quran for Muslims that there can be no Islam without Quran.

The RigVeda is a collection of hymns. Obviously, such a vast collection would have taken time to compose. But the point is, the earliest Hindus poured everything they knew/thought important into this collection. Since it was orally conveyed, if there was anything else other than the RigVeda, it would've been orally conveyed too. Your speculation is quite unnecessary.

Every archaic human civilization has worshipped Humanoid Gods. Megalithic monuments and rock art around the globe are testimony to this. I never said only the Vedas are to be followed or that Vedas alone constitute Hinduism. I am stating that the Vedas are the core of the faith, around which so much more has developed.

 

[bronxbull]

is any lingual study the same as carbon dating?

Carbon dating gives certain results about the age of the metrial,does lingual study do so?

They find 2 pieces of evidence and try to make an empirical conclusion which is as good as trash.

 

[Indischer]

is any lingual study the same as carbon dating?

Carbon dating gives certain results about the age of the metrial,does lingual study do so?

They find 2 pieces of evidence and try to make an empirical conclusion which is as good as trash.

Fairly accurate.
The easiest example I can cite is my mothertongue Kannada. Like all languages, it has evolved over time. The evolution is not only in terms of vocabulary, but also in terms of grammer and the script used itself. Thus, based on the differences observed, one can easily discern 3 phases in it. Now, given a piece of text, one can at least make a safe assumption of it's antiquity quite simply by comparing the text for it's vocabulary, grammer and script utilized.

 

[Fireurimagination]

The RigVeda is a collection of hymns. Obviously, such a vast collection would have taken time to compose. But the point is, the earliest Hindus poured everything they knew/thought important into this collection. Since it was orally conveyed, if there was anything else other than the RigVeda, it would've been orally conveyed too. Your speculation is quite unnecessary.

Every archaic human civilization has worshipped Humanoid Gods. Megalithic monuments and rock art around the globe are testimony to this. I never said only the Vedas are to be followed or that Vedas alone constitute Hinduism. I am stating that the Vedas are the core of the faith, around which so much more has developed.

But how can you prove that RigVeda was composed by the 'earliest' Hindus? RigVeda was passed down orally for many a generation that means there was Hinduism which pre dates penning down of the RigVeda. How much of it got lost or modified before getting penned down nobody knows. How can you prove that there was no Hinduism before the RigVeda? Where as all the indications are that Dwarka or IVC had a similar religion to Hinduism, it may not be Hinduism as per say but that is where Hinduism came from. Even if you remove the Vedas from Hinduism, it has a established chain that pre dates the vedas.

 

[Indischer]

But how can you prove that RigVeda was composed by the 'earliest' Hindus? RigVeda was passed down orally for many a generation that means there was Hinduism which pre dates penning down of the RigVeda. How much of it got lost or modified before getting penned down nobody knows. How can you prove that there was no Hinduism before the RigVeda? Where as all the indications are that Dwarka or IVC had a similar religion to Hinduism, it may not be Hinduism as per say but that is where Hinduism came from. Even if you remove the Vedas from Hinduism, it has a established chain that pre dates the vedas.

Dude, how many times should I tell you it's based on lingual study of RigVedic Sanskrit? Although conventional estimates have put it at 2500BC, I've even taken the most liberal estimate which adds a further 1000 years as the most likely timespan. And how many times should I repeat here that without even a modest collection of hymns, what speculative Hinduism are you going on about here? The oral tradition is strong even today from where I come from. I've no reason to suspect anything was lost before the RigVeda was written down. Please elaborate what "established chain" you're talking about predating the Vedas?

 

[bronxbull]

Fairly accurate.
The easiest example I can cite is my mothertongue Kannada. Like all languages, it has evolved over time. The evolution is not only in terms of vocabulary, but also in terms of grammer and the script used itself. Thus, based on the differences observed, one can easily discern 3 phases in it. Now, given a piece of text, one can at least make a safe assumption of it's antiquity quite simply by comparing the text for it's vocabulary, grammer and script utilized.

My question is isn't lingual studies empirical?

 

[Nassr]

And that is fine. Whatever we may think of such heroes and such followers and their ideology, that is your prerogative.

But I am amazed that you don't see the contradictions between these heroes (and all that it implies) and the premise of this thread and your obsession with Dharmic religions and our country.

You don't really want to know that.

Look at how the Persians converted wholesale to Shiaism from Sunnism to get a clue.

West Pakistan had ~20% Hindu/Sikh population before partition.

The universe is complex.

Anyway, why the 100s of sects in your final and perfect religion? Things didn't seem to have turned out exactly as expected!

It is primarily related to how you interpret history. 1857 was war of independence for you but for the British it was a mutiny. Religions like Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism etc etc are considered separate religions all over the world except in India. In India these are taken as part of Dharmic format and thus part of Hinduism which even the followers of Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism etc do not agree with.

What I have stated here is not a result of an obsession. I have highlighted historical facts. Some of these historical facts apparently come in conflict with your beliefs and that is probably the reason that your reaction is so offensive.

Shia and Sunni followers, both consider themselves to be Muslims and is largely accepted by both sects in the manner accept by a small disenchanted faction. In case of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism, it is the Hindus only who state that these religions are part of Hinduism, whereas Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists vehemently reject such a characterization.

You are wrong when you state that West Pakistan had 20 % Hindu population. Here is the correct percentage of Hindu population just before the partition:

W. Punjab: 9% Hindu, 11% Sikh

Sindh: 10% Hindu, 5% Sikh

NWFP: 2.5% Hindu, 2.5% Sikh

Baluchistan: 3% Hindu

According to UN estimates, 50% or more of the above migrated to India after the announcement of partition of British India.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Dude, how many times should I tell you it's based on lingual study of RigVedic Sanskrit? Although conventional estimates have put it at 2500BC, I've even taken the most liberal estimate which adds a further 1000 years as the most likely timespan. And how many times should I repeat here that without even a modest collection of hymns, what speculative Hinduism are you going on about here? The oral tradition is strong even today from where I come from. I've no reason to suspect anything was lost before the RigVeda was written down. Please elaborate what "established chain" you're talking about predating the Vedas?

LOL is it this hard to understand? Did the so called 'lingual study of RigVedic Sanskrit' state that there was no Hinduism before RigVeda or religions followed in Dwarka or IVC were not Hinduism?