I dont take it personally, my friend. Due to our different backgrounds and the different sources that we are exposed to, we view things differently. Thats all. When studying Sikh history I have tried not to limit myself to Indian/Sikh authors like Khushwant Singh, who is considered a respected authority on Sikh affairs. I have read western historians like , Jean-Marie Lafont, Gough and Innes, JH Gordon and JD Cunningham. I would especially recommend the latter's "History of the Sikhs". Apart from being a very accurate description of the Sikh kingdoms, it is also a very good account of the Punjab in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I still think rig vedic aryans were not idol worshipers because thats what the professors are saying and it makes sense too, i send those hymns which oppose idol worshiping to ajtr and i think he has blocked me, he is not brave enough to hear the truth
Not exactly. The term hinduism was coined around that period. Hinduism refers to those who followed vedic practises along with the local beliefs. That is the very basic defination of hinduism. Pre Islamic arabs are not considered hindus for the same reason as they did not practised vedas. Though there is mention of arabia as something like "land of horses"(i have forgotten the actual sanskrit name.)
Atually the question here arises is what you actually consider hinduism? Hinduism today is not what we call hinduism of historic times. Hinduism is just a word coined to diffrentiate in religons. In fact there is no proper translation of religon in sanskrit. Today we loosely translate it to dharma which is not actually proper translation. Even within hindus practises vary from household to household. So it cannot be claimed that what was hinduism and what was not. Even today the chief deities which are for north indians differ from south indians including many tales. Hope you are getting my point
problem with u is that u depend on translations of wester world and we depend on original source which are still kept with great care.secondly u r quoting from rig vedas selectively.so u ve this confusion.ur position is like Dr.zakir naik he to quotes selectively fron hindu texts to prove his islamic point but has been proved wrong many times by people who care to dwell into the texts.
see 99% essence of hinduism is not what 99% people percieve including hindus. When we say idol worship it has all together diffrent meaning then what is actually percieved. i can even look at you and pray as per hinduism.
As far as temples are concerned see you get such a impression because of the names. Like i said rudra, who is currently called shiva was previously called rudra (his fearsome aspect of personality), was also called pashupati. You can find the pashupati seal in the mohanja daro which signifies shiva. Recently a traces of town have been discovered in the sea in gujrat part of india which has remains of an ancient city which pre dates the rig vedas and is supposed to the be dwarka of ancient times. But there are lot of technical problems in excavating that place.
there is mention of shiva as rudra in the vedas. Rudra is another name for the shiva. In vedas he is mentioned as shiva and vishnu as narayana which are other names for the mentioned gods.
The name Rudra is still used as a name for Shiva. In RV 2.33, he is described as the "Father of the Maruts", a group of storm gods.Furthermore, the Rudram, one of the most sacred hymns of Hinduism found both in the Rig and the Yajur Vedas and addressed to Rudra, invokes him as Shiva in several instances, but the term Shiva is used as a epithet for Indra, Mitra and Agni many times.