What's new

The Concept of Pakistan in the Vedas

Talwar e Pakistan

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 30, 2014
6,245
12
9,411
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
This adds an interesting Hindu based religious reality to our region.
I wouldn't really consider the early Vedism developed in the Indus region as "Hindu". The two were far too different.

The Vedic tribes of the Indus region sacrificed cows along the Indus, followed a tribal system identical to the Biradari/Qabeela social structure in Pakistan as opposed to the caste system in India, considered idolatry as taboo, primarily revered a completely different pantheon, did not believe in core Hindu doctrines such as reincarnation or avatars, etc...

I recommend reading up on this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18dl2f
Here are excerpts that may intrigue you:
The difference is huge. In fact, some scholars argue that modern-day Hinduism can barely be called a continuation of Vedic Hinduism at all.

An exception may be the cult of Shiva, which is theorised have developed from the cult of Rudra or another Vedic deity (there are several theories). Rudra is still used as an alternative name of Shiva.

Currently popular gods: Rama, Krishna, Kali, Ganesha, Hanuman, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi and Shakti.

Popular during Vedic times: Indra, Agni, Soma, the Ashvins, Varuna, the Rudras, Mitra.

A few other beliefs that differ:

Reincarnation: Reincarnation is not really attested in the Vedas, although they hind at life after death. This removes the very foundation of modern-day Hinduism.

The caste system: The Vedic era didn't have a rigid caste system, although some verses of the Rig Veda were later interpolated as giving religious sanction to the idea.

The taboo on cow slaughter: The Vedic scriptures contain descriptions of people both sacrificing and eating cows.

The doctrine of avatara: The concept of divine avatars, important to modern Hinduism, is not to be found in the Vedas.

The Bhagavadgita, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Puranas: These scriptures and the doctrines they contain all postdate the Vedas, and by far outweigh them in importance today.

The term 'hindu' itself: The people Vedic people did not call themselves Hindus. The term is commonly applied by non-Islamic sources only from the 15th century.

So, basically, you have two religions with pretty much nothing in common except veneration for the Vedas. They are much more distinct than, for instance, Judaism and Islam.
 

Talwar e Pakistan

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 30, 2014
6,245
12
9,411
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I will write my take on this end of the year...But let this be my final contribution till then..The author is Belgian Hindutva sympathozer Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst

(my personal thesis is the permanent seperation in looks between those west of Ravi and those east of Ravi ca.400 AD onwards)

The Concept of Pakistan in the Vedas

The Concept of Pakistan in the Vedas
Many northwestern tribes were are at war with Vedic kingdoms from the rest of India, similar to Pakistan's position in today's time.

by Koenraad Elst








Posted On: 09 Jan 2019



Koenraad Elst (°Leuven 1959) distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and to dissent. After a few hippie years, he studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University, he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998. As an independent researcher, he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi's legacy. He also published on the interface of religion and politics, correlative cosmologies, the dark side of Buddhism, the reinvention of Hinduism, technical points of Indian and Chinese philosophies, various language policy issues, Maoism, the renewed relevance of Confucius in conservatism, the increasing Asian stamp on integrating world civilization, direct democracy, the defence of threatened freedoms, and the Belgian question. Regarding religion, he combines human sympathy with substantive skepticism.


1647 words


Share



Subscribe to our monthly newsletter
More from Author:

Excerpt
Ban this Book
Excerpt
Islam and birth control
Excerpt
The Muslim birth rate
Excerpt
Immigration from Bangladesh



Write for us

Introduction
The three most famous sculptures from Mohenjo Daro, on the Sindhu/Indus river, seem ill-chosen to represent the Pakistani publicity campaign “5000 years of Pakistan”. The “king-priest” apparently is an officiant of a stellar cult, and at any rate of a cult other than Islam, so according to the Pakistani state ideology, raison d’être for Pakistan’s very existence, he was a leading figure in a false religion belonging to Jahiliyya, the “age of ignorance”. Like the seated yogi surrounded by animals, “Śiva Paśupati”, he must be burning in hell now. As for the “dancing girl”, stark naked and in a defying pose, in today’s Pakistan she would be stoned to death right away.



And yet, that Pakistani slogan does make sense. Bear with me, as I will take the reader through a convoluted array of scriptural and historical data, and you will see why this conclusion is anything but far-fetched. Indeed, it is inevitable.



Get monthly updates
from Pragyata

Are you following us
on Twitter yet?

You can follow us
on Facebook too

Foreign
The Northwest has always had a negative connotation in the Vedic tradition. Thus, R. Siddhantashastree (1978: History of the Pre-Kali-Yuga India, Delhi: Inter-India Publications, p.11) writes:

“The valley of the five tributaries of the Indus had always been held as an unholy region because of its occupation by a non-Aryan tribe antagonistic to the civilized Aryans until the time of Sambarana, (...) the king of Hastinapura belonging to the Lunar dynasty. He was the first Aryan to settle in the valley after driving away the aboriginal non-Aryans to a considerable distance.”

The latter sentence suggests a concession to the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) by positing an antagonism between “Aryans” and “aboriginals”, contrary to the Puranic narrative revaluated by the same author, which has the Aryans come from inner India to this peripheral zone and then to Central Asia. This simply exemplifies the confusion regarding Aryan origins. Then again, perhaps it is the reader who is misled by this received wisdom while the author has a different scenario in mind: the Aryans as natives of a part of India, who came as conquerors to subdue the natives of other parts of India, notably the Northwest.



As Shrikant Talageri (The Rigveda, an Historical Analysis, and The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Analysis, Delhi: Aditya Prakashan 2000 c.q. 2008) has argued, the ancient Hindu suspicion towards the Northwest is a strong argument against the AIT. Knowing the Hindu veneration for origins, they should have treated the region of their provenance far more positively. Anyway, we note that Siddhantashastree situates this anti-Northwest attitude already in the pre-Vedic age, in the very beginning of Aryan history.



Battle of the Ten Kings
By the time the Vedic seers start composing their hymns, though, the Northwest is already populated by cognate tribes speaking an Indo-European dialect: first, the Druhyu tribe, still remembered in the Rg-Veda as a defeated enemy of the Vedic Pūru tribe, but largely already emigrated to Afghanistan and beyond; then the Anu tribe, the direct enemy confronted by the Vedic people themselves at the time the hymns were being composed. Though speaking related dialects, then probably still mutually understandable, they come into the Vedic horizon as enemies, as harbingers of evil. They add to the region’s negative aura.



Both the successive enemies, from the Druhyu and the Anu tribe, attack the Vedic Pūru tribe from the Northwest. A confederacy led by the Anu tribe comes to confront the Vedic king Sudās in the Battle of the Ten Kings, the foremost historical event in the Ṛg-Veda (7:18-33-83). Unexpectedly, they suffer complete defeat and relocate to Afghanistan. In the names of the tribes and kings, we recognize Iranian (and not Dravidian) names, and in their religion, we recognize the main traits of Mazdeism. The enemies are said to be “without Indra” and “without the Devas”, who were indeed demonized in Mazdeism; and “without fire-sacrifice”, because in Mazdeism, fire is so sacred that one shouldn’t pollute it by throwing things into it. It seems that then already, near the beginning of Vedic history, Mazdeism had its distinctive features.



This is all the more remarkable because this was even before Zarathuštra, the supposed reformer who brought these traits into being. Some three generations later, another battle confirms the division of power and territory. In that more even battle, Ṛjāśva, descendant of Vṛṣagira (hence the “Vārṣāgira battle”), and Sahadeva, descendent of Sudās, face the Iranian king who is remembered in history through the mentions and praise he receives in his court priest Zarathuštra’s own hymns: Kavi Vištāspa. Both parties are mentioned in the Veda 1:100, 1:122) and the Avestā.



The proverbial demons, the Asuras (comprehensively discussed in Hale, Wash Edward: Asura in Early Vedic Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1986, and in Krishna, Nanditha: The Book of Demons, Penguin, Delhi 2014 (2007)), originally indicate the class of gods preferentially worshipped by the Anu tribe, but also by the first Vedic seers. Varuṇa, god of the night sky with its orderly succession of constellations, hence god of the world order (ṛta/aša, seen in Persian names like Artaxerxes) is an Asura, a “lord” or “mighty one”. The Iranians, who often replaced /s/ with /h/, called him Ahura Mazda, “Lord Wisdom”. After the Iranians had demonized the Devas/Daēvas, the Indians started to demonize the Asuras, and Varuṇa gradually fell into disuse, even if by no means as steeply demonized as Indra by the Mazdeans. At any rate, Vedism and Mazdeism conceived of one another as antagonistic, much as Hinduism and Islam do today.



In theological respect, the Iranian religion Mazdeism has often been considered monotheistic, and in popular publications this account still persists. This was not entirely correct (SkjaervØ, Prods Oktor: “Zarathustra: a Revolutionary Monotheist?”, p. 317-350, in Pongratz-Leisten, Beate: Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake IN 2011), it remained a polytheism, and Zarathuštra with his hyperfocus on one god was strictly speaking a “henotheist”, and hardly representative for the common religion. But it was sufficiently close. The Persians became the saviours of the Israelites with their budding monotheism, their preferred god Varuṇa was the moralist in the Indo-Iranian pantheon (as is apparent from RV 7:86), a bit like the Christian god, and the idea of exalting a single god so much above the others shows a would-be monotheist urge. All this allows for the conclusion that Islamic monotheism is but a radicalization of Zarathuštra’s henotheism. His religion, and possibly his personal religious dissent, was at any rate sufficiently different from the Vedic religion to be thematized as a factor in the long-drawn-out conflict described in the Ṛg-Veda.



So, Pakistan, which has a Persianized form of Hindi as national language, can really be said to be the heir of the proto-Iranian tribes living in that same territory in the Vedic age, or at least to fulfil the same antagonistic role in the Hindu worldview.



Other considerations
The epics give even more flesh to this hostile attitude. In the epics, the troublesome characters typically come from the Northwest. The Rāmāyaṇa intrigue is caused by Kaikeyī, a co-wife of Rāma’s father coming from the northwestern Kaikeya tribe. Gāndhārī, mother of the enemy Kauravas, and her brother Śakuni, deceiver at dice and evil spirit behind the disrobing of Draupadī, come from Gandhāra in Afghanistan. Mādrī, who triggers the death of king Paṇḍu, cause of the whole war, belongs to the Iranian Madra tribe (apparently related to the Medes).



The first, to my knowledge, to become aware of this dislike’s relevance to the Aryan Homeland issue, was Shrikant Talageri. The negative aura of the Northwest was so consistent and unadulterated that this could not possibly be the venerated land of their ancestors. To the above and other considerations, he has added a fact he remembers from his own Saraswat Brahmin community. When it was time for religious fasting, rice was not eaten, but wheat products were. They did not consider wheat, which in the Vedic age came from the Northwest, as real food, and treated it on a par with foreign foods like potatoes. (Talageri 2008:102-106) The wheat-growing Northwest was a foreign country, as Pakistan now is to India.



For another consideration: a negative designation in Sanskrit is Mleccha, “barbarian”. The word is generally taken to come from Meluhha, the Mesopotamian name for Sindh, now in Pakistan. So, long before Pakistan existed, proto-Pakistanis were already called “barbarians” by orthodox Hindus.



Another Vedic fact, peripheral but symbolically significant, is this. An enemy of the Pauravas is called the Guṅgu tribe (RV 10:48:8). But Guṅgu in Vedic means the firstly-appearing moon, the crescent. And what country has the crescent in its flag?



Territorial claims
The ancient Ānavas lived in West Panjab where they confronted the Vedic king Sudās in the Battle of the Ten Kings, the first Indo-Pak war. (Then already, such wars typically ended in Pakistani defeat.) But where did they come from? Aha, as per Puranic tradition, they immigrated from Kashmir, after taking Panjab from their Druhyu cousins. Kashmir was known in the Mazdean Videvdād as the Airiiānām Vaējo, the “seed of the Iranians”, their intermediary Homeland. It was the place of their ethnogenesis after having migrated westwards from Prayāga as part of Yayāti’s branch of the Lunar Dynasty; much like in 1947, the Mohajirs migrated from the Ganga-Yamuna plain to Pakistan.



This proves, as proofs go in irredentism, that Kashmir belongs with Pakistan. So, if all else fails, Pakistan can justify its separate existence, its hostility to India and its territorial demands by invoking Vedic testimony.



A breakthrough slogan
The Pakistani government ought to highlight this long-standing Hindu hostility to the Northwest. It would prove that the negative attitude to the territories now constituting Afghanistan and Pakistan dates back to the Vedic or even pre-Vedic age. If that implies shedding the AIT, so much the better.



Moreover, all this would validate its slogan for attracting tourists to Mohenjo-Daro: “Five thousand years of Pakistan!”



(This paper was rejected by another Indian journal on the sole ground that defending the Pakistani claim on Kashmir is considered treason, and officialdom should not be deemed capable of understanding that this is only done tongue-in-cheek.)

I think the article is hogwash.

Sapta Sindhava (the Indus region) is well revered in the Rigveda and that is also where the core mandalas were first recited. The Rigveda is literally littered with many praises for the rivers of the Indus region; especially Sindhu (Indus). It was their homeland, how exactly could they "hate themselves"?

I also do not agree with the theory that the Dasa/Dasyus described in the Rigveda were actually the 'Iranic' Dahae people; doesn't make much sense since the first actual confirmed mention of the Dahae in historic texts are from the 6th century; nearly a millennium after the Indo-Aryan migrations. Mentions of conflict between Dasa/Dasyus and Aryas were primarily centered on the Northern Ravi; which also further casts doubt on this theory. I continue to believe in the mainstream consensus that the Dasa/Dasyus were most likely an aboriginal people encountered around North Ravi and beyond. The Dasa/Dasyus were described as Phallus worshipers (which sounds a lot like Linga worship), along with their physical descriptions; neither traits were ever associated to the later Dahae people.

Though in the scriptures composed in modern-day North India; there are clear signs of hostility towards the people of the Indus region; especially in the Mahabharata.
 

peagle

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
586
1
1,610
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
I wouldn't really consider the early Vedism developed in the Indus region as "Hindu". The two were far too different.

The Vedic tribes of the Indus region sacrificed cows along the Indus, followed a tribal system identical to the Biradari/Qabeela social structure in Pakistan as opposed to the caste system in India, considered idolatry as taboo, primarily revered a completely different pantheon, did not believe in core Hindu doctrines such as reincarnation or avatars, etc...

I recommend reading up on this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18dl2f
Here are excerpts that may intrigue you:
I think you may have misunderstood my comments,
I was merely referencing the claimed links by Hinduism and Hindus, and that is what I had stated.

I have no interest in the religious linkages to the Indus Valley Civilisation, the civilisational link belongs to the people who have resided in any given territory, and that was the gist of my argument, I would recommend you read it again.

But, thank you for your contribution, I shall read your link.
 

Talwar e Pakistan

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 30, 2014
6,245
12
9,411
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I think you may have misunderstood my comments,
I was merely referencing the claimed links by Hinduism and Hindus, and that is what I had stated.

I have no interest in the religious linkages to the Indus Valley Civilisation, the civilisational link belongs to the people who have resided in any given territory, and that was the gist of my argument, I would recommend you read it again.

But, thank you for your contribution, I shall read your link.
Apologies if I misunderstood you.
 

21st Century Vampire

FULL MEMBER
Jul 8, 2019
334
0
423
Country
Mauritius
Location
Mauritius
confirmed mention of the Dahae in historic texts are from the 6th century
Strabo mentions it around the 1st century

I wouldn't really consider the early Vedism developed in the Indus region as "Hindu". The two were far too different.
Correct, hindus are still debating in present days (at a small scale) about the legitimacy of puranic gods (shiva, durga, saraswati even krishna as an avatar and so on), it clearly shows a mutation happened for example compare Indra of the Vedas with Indra of the puranas

Sapta Sindhava (the Indus region) is well revered in the Rigveda and that is also where the core mandalas were first recited. The Rigveda is literally littered with many praises for the rivers of the Indus region; especially Sindhu (Indus). It was their homeland, how exactly could they "hate themselves"?
I don't think it's about geography as the article proposes but more about the northern/Northwestern people stretching from nothern pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly other countries (though i was skeptical of some geographical claims of @Agnihotra for factual reasons because they're totally unproven). For sure the enemy tribes were mainly from the upward area/direction of the Northwest
 

Joe Shearer

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 19, 2009
24,202
143
40,051
Country
India
Location
India
As Shrikant Talageri (The Rigveda, an Historical Analysis, and The Rigveda and the Avesta, the Final Analysis, Delhi: Aditya Prakashan 2000 c.q. 2008) has argued, the ancient Hindu suspicion towards the Northwest is a strong argument against the AIT. Knowing the Hindu veneration for origins, they should have treated the region of their provenance far more positively. Anyway, we note that Siddhantashastree situates this anti-Northwest attitude already in the pre-Vedic age, in the very beginning of Aryan history.
There was also ancient (and mediaeval, and modern) Hindu suspicion towards the east, everything east of Gaya, and of the south. What theories are brought down by these other suspicions?

Shrikant Talageri, the Sancho Panza to our hirsute Don, has the habit of sifting through a field full of facts, finding one variant that suits his pre-determined case, and displaying it as final and definitive proof. All the other facts, that do not fit, are discarded or ignored.

"Little Jack Horner
Sat in a corner
Eating his Christmas Pie.

He pulled out a plum,
As big as his thumb,
And said,"What a good boy am I!"
 

21st Century Vampire

FULL MEMBER
Jul 8, 2019
334
0
423
Country
Mauritius
Location
Mauritius
@masterchief_mirza @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

I guess you guys are having a late night chai (i recommend Yorkshire). Case in point my arguments are simple and was/has focused on two simple parts, 1)we're talking about the Vedas, 2) a survey of the vedic enemy tribes puts most (keyword) of them on the North west (backed by a few greek sources), Koenraad's other points notwithstanding and up to debate
 
Last edited:

Talwar e Pakistan

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 30, 2014
6,245
12
9,411
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Correct, hindus are still debating in present days (at a small scale) about the legitimacy of puranic gods (shiva, durga, saraswati even krishna as an avatar and so on), it clearly shows a mutation happened for example compare Indra of the Vedas with Indra of the puranas
I challenge the idea that it was a "mutation" and that the development of Vedism was linear. I instead postulate the theory of a "divergence" of culture and religious beliefs between the Indo-Aryans that stayed in Sapta Sindhava and some of the Indo-Aryan tribes that migrated Eastwards into the Gangetic plains birthing a new culture.

This is supported by the chronology of the 'texts' and how they significantly differ from older 'texts'.

You can see a plethora of new practices, deities, traditions, norms, taboos, etc... in later texts that were composed in modern-day North India; highlighting a sharp religio-cultural shift; most likely as a result of the meshing of ideas between the Indo-Aryan migrants of the Gangetic plains and the much more numerous native inhabitants. This period also saw the development of the caste system in the Gangetic plains, as a means of maintaining hierarchy over the natives.

Meanwhile the Indo-Aryans of the Sapta Sindhava retained the core religious/cultural elements highlighted in the Rigveda until it was supplanted by the rise of Buddhism. However remnants are seen in the Kalash religion, Jathera worship of Punjab, the now extinct Indus cult of Sindh (footprints of which still remain in Sindhi Sufism) and the extinct religious practices of the Kafiris of Afghanistan.

The divergence was so great that the two cultural groups considered each other to be contrasting and hostile; this is seen in the Hindu texts (nearly all of which were composed in modern-day North India) which mention the Indus region; especially the Mahabharata.

To quote some excerpts:

“that (region) where these five rivers, emerging from the mountains flow, this Aratta (country) is called Vahika where the Arya should not stay even for two days”.

"But on seeing the dharma practiced in the land of the five rivers, the grandfather cried, "Shame!". They are outcasts. They are born from servants. They are the performers of wicked deeds. That is the reason the grandfather condemned the dharma in the land of the five rivers. Though they followed their own dharma and that of their varna, he did not honour it."


Highlighting the lack of a caste system in the Indus region:

"Having gone to the Vahikas, I learnt the following. There, one first becomes a brahmana and then becomes a kshatriya. Thereafter, one becomes a vaishya, a shudra and finally a barber. Having become a barber, one once again becomes a brahmana. Having become a brahmana there, one is once again as a slave. In every family, there is only one virtuous brahmana. Everyone else follows one's desires. The Gandharas, the Madrakas and the Vahikas possess limited intelligence."

This excerpt mentions all of the major tribes of the Indus Valley:

"The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of Brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Sudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices."

"A foremost one among Brahmanas, venerable in years while reciting old histories, said these words, blaming the Vahikas and Madrakas, One should always avoid the Vahikas, those impure people that are out of the pail of virtue."

"In days of yore, when the eternal religion was reverenced in all countries, the Grandsire, observing the practices of the country of the five rivers, cried fie on them. Fie on the Arattas and the people of the country of the five rivers!"

"Beginning with the Matsyas, the residents of the Kuru and the Panchala countries, the Naimishas as well and the other respectable peoples, the pious among all races are conversant with the eternal truths of religion. This cannot be said of the Madrakas and the crooked-hearted race that resides in the country of the five rivers."


"There where forests of Pilus stand, and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the ravati, the Chandrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither."

There is much more, but this is enough to get the point across.
 

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,362
15
15,691
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
most likely as a result of the meshing of ideas between the Indo-Aryan migrants of the Gangetic plains and the much more numerous native inhabitants. This period also saw the development of the caste system in the Gangetic plains, as a means of maintaining hierarchy over the natives.
Is the implication here that this divergence in customs and doctrine emerged due to the differences in substrate that the protagonist groups found themselves invested within? The contexts of these nascent dharmic faiths were different in different locations, hence the different evolutions of each strand to the point that they became documented rivals of one another?

I would certainly agree if this was your inference.

By the way, I don't think describing this as a "mutation" is that different functionally speaking from using the term "divergence". Aesthetically, the latter term is probably favourable but notwithstanding this issue, they probably mean the same thing.
 

Chhatrapati

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 4, 2016
9,923
-9
8,149
Country
India
Location
Mauritius
Just to give an example of how some revisionists don't understand, lie, and misrepresent some concepts in texts.
Highlighting the lack of a caste system in the Indus region:

"Having gone to the Vahikas, I learnt the following. There, one first becomes a brahmana and then becomes a kshatriya. Thereafter, one becomes a vaishya, a shudra and finally a barber. Having become a barber, one once again becomes a brahmana. Having become a brahmana there, one is once again (BORN) as a slave. In every family, there is only one virtuous brahmana. Everyone else follows one's desires. The Gandharas, the Madrakas and the Vahikas possess limited intelligence."
This doesn't explain the lack of a caste system but the birth and rebirth cycle. A Brahmana does not become a Kshatriya in the same lifetime, but after his bad deeds while being a Brahman he is born again as a Kshatriya, who after his bad deeds, born as a Vaishya again as a Kshudra. This is a descending form, simply represents the situation of an absolutely pathetic state.

You knew this, in order to get legitimacy to your claim you carefully edited out the term BORN.

I wouldn't really consider the early Vedism developed in the Indus region as "Hindu". The two were far too different.

The Vedic tribes of the Indus region sacrificed cows along the Indus, followed a tribal system identical to the Biradari/Qabeela social structure in Pakistan as opposed to the caste system in India, considered idolatry as taboo, primarily revered a completely different pantheon, did not believe in core Hindu doctrines such as reincarnation or avatars, etc...

I recommend reading up on this:
Simpletons... Indic religions allow fluidity, there are theologies, philosophies, and concepts that directly contradict Vedas, even in Vedas itself. For example on one Hand Rig Vedas forbade the killing of cows, then allows it for rituals, consumption. Then there are Upanishads which strictly forbade killing any being who lives. Does this mean we shouldn't kill and eat anything that moves?
RV 7.56.17 : Far be your bolt (From Marut the God of storm) that slayeth men and cattle. Ye Vasus, turn yourselves to us with blessings.
Yajurveda completely forbade the killing of cows and attributed it to the same as killing a man.

To make it simple for you, there are 4 Vedas, 108 Upanishads questioning, interpolating and extrapolating these Vedas, to even simplify for people, there are Epics, it is 18 Puranas or stories about people who followed the Vedas and Upanishads how they lived for people to take examples. All these are part of Hinduism, there is no Vedic Hindus, or Puranic Hinduism (how stupid that may sound) and nothing was forbidden, it only accommodated different points of view, so saying idolatry is forbidden is another ignorant interpretation. There are specific schools of thought that advocated that there is no god, doesn't mean every Hindu must be an atheist. It only allowed such a concept to flourish.

Sapta Sindhava (the Indus region) is well revered in the Rigveda and that is also where the core mandalas were first recited. The Rigveda is literally littered with many praises for the rivers of the Indus region; especially Sindhu (Indus). It was their homeland, how exactly could they "hate themselves"?
Nobody is hating someone, the people who lived in those regions simply stopped moving forward, or must have stopped following the rituals. Hence they become outcastes, on one hand you say they followed Rig Veda, then you quote other texts saying they do not follow vedas. :) Confused much?
This excerpt mentions all of the major tribes of the Indus Valley:

"The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of Brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Sudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices."

"A foremost one among Brahmanas, venerable in years while reciting old histories, said these words, blaming the Vahikas and Madrakas, One should always avoid the Vahikas, those impure people that are out of the pail of virtue."

"In days of yore, when the eternal religion was reverenced in all countries, the Grandsire, observing the practices of the country of the five rivers, cried fie on them. Fie on the Arattas and the people of the country of the five rivers!"

"Beginning with the Matsyas, the residents of the Kuru and the Panchala countries, the Naimishas as well and the other respectable peoples, the pious among all races are conversant with the eternal truths of religion. This cannot be said of the Madrakas and the crooked-hearted race that resides in the country of the five rivers."


"There where forests of Pilus stand, and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the ravati, the Chandrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither."

There is much more, but this is enough to get the point across.
These are in no way connected to Indus Valley civilization if that's what you mentioned, not to forget Mahabharata which you sourced these from are based on events that unfolded after Vedas were revealed. Or recent events leading to the war.
 

21st Century Vampire

FULL MEMBER
Jul 8, 2019
334
0
423
Country
Mauritius
Location
Mauritius
By the way, I don't think describing this as a "mutation" is that different functionally speaking from using the term "divergence". Aesthetically, the latter term is probably favourable but notwithstanding this issue, they probably mean the same thing.
He thought i meant a linear mutation, i didn't mean it that way there were certainly external factors directly involved and included in the vicissitude/mutation/divergence

Puranic Hinduism (how stupid that may sound)
You're looking at things from a hindu's theological lens, from a Skeptical point of view the Puranas came later and clearly added things or showed signs of additions which already happened afore the Puranas such as new members in the Pantheon, you already admitted that different "points of views" were "accommodated" then logically hinduism as a whole was in a different form before the puranas (or the previous changes it alludes to) and the later additions, that's the whole point and saying "puranic hinduism" is just a form of temporal marking
 

Surya 1

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 6, 2016
2,998
-44
1,910
Country
India
Location
India
Will read it letter. It seems to a good historical reading for a History semi literate like me.
 

Chhatrapati

ELITE MEMBER
Aug 4, 2016
9,923
-9
8,149
Country
India
Location
Mauritius
You're looking at things from a hindu's theological lens, from a Skeptical point of view the Puranas came later and clearly added things or showed signs of additions which already happened afore the Puranas such as new members in the Pantheon, you already admitted that different "points of views" were "accommodated" then logically hinduism as a whole was in a different form before the puranas (or the previous changes it alludes to) and the later additions, that's the whole point and saying "puranic hinduism" is just a form of temporal marking
Then let's take an Abrahamic point of view if that helps you. Would you consider Hadees or Quoran Islamic, Old Testament or New Testament as Christian, Genesis or Deuteronomy as Jewish? Would you deconstruct these texts and attribute them to xyz Christianity or xyz Islam? Or are they all belonging to their respective religions written/revealed at different points in time. Puranas and pantheons came much later but all pantheons of Puranas came from Vedas. And the Major Vedic deities still play a prominent role in life, from birth, marriage, to death and beyond. Just because you don't see us going to the temple of Agni or Indra doesn't mean they are irrelevant now and we moved on to Puranas. Then again these are just a simpleton point of view.
 

21st Century Vampire

FULL MEMBER
Jul 8, 2019
334
0
423
Country
Mauritius
Location
Mauritius
Then let's take an Abrahamic point of view if that helps you. Would you consider Hadees or Quoran Islamic, Old Testament or New Testament as Christian, Genesis or Deuteronomy as Jewish? Would you deconstruct these texts and attribute them to xyz Christianity or xyz Islam? Or are they all belonging to their respective religions written/revealed at different points in time.
When exactly did i say they are not Hindu? They are part of the hindu scriptural corpus but we have internal differences within the corpus...it's simple logic..., you admitted that additions were made then clearly hinduism as a whole was in a different morphology before the additions

Hadees or Quoran Islamic
How exactly should the Quran be considered an addition when it's the primary source just like the vedas? you can't even recognize the difference, those aren't "additions" like you admitted for hinduism, unlike your additions the hadith works with a chain system going back to the primary source, even the Quran has it's own chain system going to the primary source ergo they aren't additions from a secular perspective

Old Testament or New Testament as Christian
Not the old testament but endorsement of the Old testament comes from the New Testament which is the primary scripture...again it's different

Genesis or Deuteronomy as Jewish?
Once again I apply a secular/rational perspective ergo anything is possible depending on the context, consider it the same as i'm doing with the puranas

Puranas and pantheons came much later but all pantheons of Puranas came from Vedas
That's exactly where we differ and that's your interpretation, many of the puranic gods aren't mentioned which opens the door to other possibilities

Just because you don't see us going to the temple of Agni or Indra doesn't mean they are irrelevant now
Never said they are nor they will ever be, they're the primary deities of the Vedas after all

we moved on to Puranas
Never implied you did, as i said a mutation took place ergo the puranas as well as the vedas are still relevant
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top