Ancient History not Appreciated by Pakistanis?

[Vinod2070]

I thought you wouldn't be able to answer it. That proves it all.

Sure it does for you. But then you were always convinced, so nothing new here!

I know AM has tried rationalizing with you, unsuccessfully, so I'm not about to.

I will say this though, even though I realize you'll choose to be in denial.

Obviously, I think the same for you. You are almost always in denial. Remember Kasab?

The Middle East has a history of hundreds of civilizations. Therefore the history of the Middle East is not that of a civilization. The history of the Middle East encompasses hundreds of civilizations. Therefore you can say "Ancient Indian civilizations" - Indian civilization is wrong, and it's been pointed out.

As I said and as all reputed historian agree, it is not wrong. You would find Indian civilization being referred to as such by almost everyone who matters.

This isn't my point. I don't care whether you want to call it a civilization or civilizations.

My point is to do with the term "India". This is where the Morrocco/Middle East comparison comes in.

I'll even adhere to your guidelines to draw an answer out of you.

Here goes.

In 50 years time, Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. Egypt was a Middle Eastern civilization in the past, so can we now say that the pyramids were designed/built by the Berbers of Morrocco? - this is where the attempted looting of Pakistan's history is occurring - go on Indian websites, and they talk of the IVC, even Gandhara as their own civilizations!!

It is irrelevant for the most part. Your example does not fit the case and will tie you in knots if you dwell too much on it.

I gave you the examples of Persian and Chinese civilizations whose influence was over a much bigger area than the current boundaries of Iran and China. You may take the example of the Roman empire again. Their extent was all over Europe and ME at a time. But modern Italy is much smaller than that. It is still rightly called the Roman empire. Italians (and other people who were a part of it) are definitely the inheritors of that legacy irrespective of the modern borders.

You are not able to see the simple fact that modern geography is not the sole basis for the nomenclature of an ancient civilization. You go to many East Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Cambodia etc. and you will find them heavily influenced by the same Indian civilization. They won't even dispute with the name. The Chinese were majorly influenced by the same civilization and they acknowledge that as such.

I know this will not help you get out of your denial, but hey, I did my bit!

 

[Vinod2070]

Sure, you're right, but the fact that the people of "Ancient India" followed the same religion, culture and social structure as the modern Indians, means that the modern day India is infact the inheritor of the ancient Indian civilization, even if the region now in Pakistan and Afghanistan has passed into the Middle-Eastern civilization.

Hardly. Nobody is claiming that Indian civilization was homogenous. Indian civilization's trademark is diversity. It is still one civilization, as real historians (not internet warriors) will agree.

Those are exactly my thoughts on the issue too.

The civilization was a common heritage.

We are the only ones that are carrying on with the legacy still. This fact is acknowledge by all.

 

[Flintlock]

Afghanistan followed Vedism and Buddhism, not Hinduism.

This is getting ridiculous. This "vedism" you talk about, I don't accept, which is basically an arbitrary line the you've drawn in the evolution of hinduism by citing a few verses from the Rig Veda.

Even if we do acept that distinction for discussion purposes, the "vedism" that you talk was sometime around 1100 BC. Here we are talking about 1100AD - i.e. 2000 years hence.

Shiva was a God, allbeit minor of the Rig Veda - Rudra.

That just shows your narow mentality and thinking. Shiva is a complex diety with many different roots, one of which is rudra of the Rig Veda.

Having said that, the inscription mentions "Shiva", not "Rudra", and hence it is the modern Shiva of Shaivism, which is practiced all over India.

Now Ganesh is definitely Gangetic. And finding a stature of Ganesh anywhere in the world is not uncommon given the trade links.

Except that this particular ganesh (if you bothered to read my post which you clearly haven't) has an inscription mentioning the name of the Hindu Shahi King on it.

You're trying to find Hinduism everywhere, when not even you intellectuals agree with you.

"It was not hinduism that existed in Afghanistan, it was Vedic culture."
Asian/Middle Eastern History: expanse of hinduism, muslim genocide, river chenab

God, stop embarassing yourself. Allexperts.com? Really?

And here I am needlessly citing REAL sources written by REAL historians.

Your double standards when it comes to sources is so bloody obvious. On one hand you claim that the BBC and a famous researcher at imperial college is promoting the "Hindutva agenda", and on the other hand you quote "allexperts.com" as a source for your claims.

-NB The guy is politicizing Kashmir. Kashmir was an influential Buddhist kingdom always.

Kashmir was a Hindu-Buddhist mixed kingdom. God, can't you do a simple google search? Here's the famous Martand temple in Kashmir:

The Sun Temple at Martand. Like the Sun Temple at Konark, the Martand temple was one of the greatest Indian temple structures. Kashmir had some of the most important temples in the early period in India.

Shiva Temple:

The Siva temple at Pandarethan, Srinagar, circa eighth to ninth century.


A Siva statue found at the great temple at Fatehgarh, Baramulla district.


Three-faced Siva. This large and magnificent sculpture, which shows three aspects of Siva and displays the typical Kashmiri style, is one of the finest depictions of the deity in the subcontinent.


Vishnu on Garuda, circa 12th century.

Parihaspura, In the eight century, it was one of the greatest Hindu and Buddhist religious centres in Kashmir, The remains of magnificent stupas and temples testify to the glory of Parihaspura.

Source: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2109/stories/20040507000106500.htm

Infact, Kashmir has a mixed Hindu-Buddhist past with many sites used simultaneously by both Hindus and Buddhists.

 

[roadrunner]

I gave you the examples of Persian and Chinese civilizations whose influence was over a much bigger area than the current boundaries of Iran and China. You may take the example of the Roman empire again. Their extent was all over Europe and ME at a time. But modern Italy is much smaller than that. It is still rightly called the Roman empire. Italians (and other people who were a part of it) are definitely the inheritors of that legacy irrespective of the modern borders.

You are not able to see the simple fact that modern geography is not the sole basis for the nomenclature of an ancient civilization. You go to many East Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Cambodia etc. and you will find them heavily influenced by the same Indian civilization. They won't even dispute with the name. The Chinese were majorly influenced by the same civilization and they acknowledge that as such.

I know this will not help you get out of your denial, but hey, I did my bit!

You've not answered my question, as I thought you would not. I will ask it you again.

Anyhow, in the above post, you mention the Persian Empire being a lot larger than modern day Iran, and it is modern day Iran that inherits everything in the Persian Empire.

I say no it does not. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during the Persian Empire is Pakistani history. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Iran is Iranian history.

For example, Pakistan can claim to have been part of the Persian Empire, however it cannot claim to have aided the Persian fight against the Greeks at Thermopyle since it had nothing to do with it, despite being part of the Persian Empire at the time.

You perhaps can see that Pakistan cannot claim anything that the land or the people of Pakistan's ancestors were not involved in.

This, however is a bad example.

The Persian Empire is fine. It's not like they've renamed their country that that of another historical country and claimed the history of that historical country. So your digressing, poorly I might add.

 

[Vinod2070]

The name Kashmir itself has been derived from the tale of Rishi Kashyap.

The Valley of Kashmir was once the great lake Satisar. According to Hindu texts, the Hindu sage Kashyapa drained a lake lying north of the Pir Panjal Range by cutting the mountain near Varamulla. The sage then encouraged people from India to settle in the valley that was formed after the lake was drained. The locals named the valley Kashyap-Mar and Kashyap-Pura in honour of the sage. The name Kashmir is derived from ka (the water) and shimeera (to desiccate), so the word Kashmir implies land desiccated from water. The lake was very holy to the population until it drained.

Jammu and Kashmir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[roadrunner]

Infact, Kashmir has a mixed Hindu-Buddhist past with many sites used simultaneously by both Hindus and Buddhists.

What on earth are you trying to prove with these silly little pictures of statues and temples?

They prove absolutely nothing, except make you feel like you've answered some question satisfactorily using a load of baloney and junk.

Kashmir was a centre of Buddhism, yes.

It was not significantly Hindu at anytime in its history.

Yes, you can find Siva idols there (Siva is a Rig Vedic God too), and yes you can find Vedic Temples there.

This proves what exactly? Absolutely nothing. You can find statues of Ganesh all over the world, in the Ural mountains, or in Greece, anywhere.

You can find temples to Buddhism and Vedism in Kashmir, yes, these were popular religions.

What you will not find in Kashmir are any substantial amounts of statues or temples of Krishna or the other Gangetic Gods, because these are all arisen from Hinduism.

 

[roadrunner]

The name Kashmir itself has been derived from the tale of Rishi Kashyap.



Jammu and Kashmir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL. Kashmir derives from a meaning that is "land from water". That is its literal translation.

What you've quoted is a story

 

[roadrunner]

You two are sidetracking the major issues with irrelevant postings, like of the meaning of Kashmir, and the rest of the junk.

The major issue is this. You've still not answered it.

I'll post it again

"In 50 years time, Morrocco decides to rename itself the Middle East and the Middle East is known as Al-Arabiyah. Egypt was a Middle Eastern civilization in the past, so can we now say that the pyramids were designed/built by the Berbers of Morrocco?"

If your answer is yes, then give a reason.

If no, then you've acknowledged that the Indian fraud of stealing Pakistan's history is wrong.

 

[Vinod2070]

You've not answered my question, as I thought you would not. I will ask it you again.

Anyhow, in the above post, you mention the Persian Empire being a lot larger than modern day Iran, and it is modern day Iran that inherits everything in the Persian Empire.

I say no it does not. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Pakistan during the Persian Empire is Pakistani history. Whatever happened within the borders of modern day Iran is Iranian history.

I never said that.

Iranians can legitimately call themselves the inheritors to that legacy except for the fact that some or many of them may have now started hating that history after their invasions and subsequent events. I know the Ayatollahs there raise their brows over festivals like Navroz now!

If let's say a substantial part of Persia had remained Zoroastrian and still carried forward that legacy, I would surely say that they are the real inheritors of the legacy of Persian civilization though it was a shared one when it happened irrespective of the current geography.

If the other part of Persia had denigrated that legacy for a thousand years before suddenly waking up and calling a major part of that legacy as exclusive to themselves based on the current geography, it would make sense only to themselves!

Please do not mix civilization and history. Anything that happened in any part of Persian empire would be a shared legacy of all parts of that empire.

For example, Pakistan can claim to have been part of the Persian Empire, however it cannot claim to have aided the Persian fight against the Greeks at Thermopyle since it had nothing to do with it, despite being part of the Persian Empire at the time.

You perhaps can see that Pakistan cannot claim anything that the land or the people of Pakistan's ancestors were not involved in.

This, however is a bad example.

The Persian Empire is fine. It's not like they've renamed their country that that of another historical country and claimed the history of that historical country. So your digressing, poorly I might add.

This renaming thing is only an issue for you. A part of India (actually 2, in the East and West) separated in 1947 and chose to go it's own way based on religious divisiveness. That is all there is to it.

There was no renaming of India. Plain and simple.

Any argument derived from this false premise is false by definition!

 

[Flintlock]

What on earth are you trying to prove with these silly little pictures of statues and temples?

They prove absolutely nothing, except make you feel like you've answered some question satisfactorily using a load of baloney and junk.

Kashmir was a centre of Buddhism, yes.

It was not significantly Hindu at anytime in its history.

Gosh, then I wonder who financed those massive Hindu temples. Lets see - who gives grants to build religious structures - the King of course!

its the ruler of the land who grants both land and often finances the construction of religious structures. Are you telling me that the "Silly temples" sprung up on their own without royal patronage.

if you do, then you are seriously historically challenged.

Yes, you can find Siva idols there (Siva is a Rig Vedic God too), and yes you can find Vedic Temples there.

Haha. Once again showing your ignorance, and completely ignoring my post about how the modern Shiva is NOT a Rigvedic god but he significantly evolved his identity for several thousand years.
The "Rudra" of the Rigved and modern "Shiva" are not the same thing.

This proves what exactly? Absolutely nothing. You can find statues of Ganesh all over the world, in the Ural mountains, or in Greece, anywhere.

Sure, but you can't find so many temples or such a large amount of artefacts, now can you?

You can find temples to Buddhism and Vedism in Kashmir, yes, these were popular religions.

They were also practiced simulataneously, often using the same holy sites, indicating Syncretic traditions.

And BTW - the word is Hinduism, not Vedism, which isn't even a word.

Oh sorry, it is a word:

http://www.vedism.in/

What you will not find in Kashmir are any substantial amounts of statues or temples of Krishna or the other Gangetic Gods, because these are all arisen from Hinduism.

Gangetic gods? What the hell are those? Are you telling me that Shiva and Vishnu are not popular Indian gods today? Are they not Hindu gods?

Krishna is just ONE god, out of many. How does the fact that there is no krishna here prove anything? Grow up please.

 

[Flintlock]

You two are sidetracking the major issues with irrelevant postings, like of the meaning of Kashmir, and the rest of the junk.
.

I believe the title of the thread is "Ancient History", so there are no irrelevant postings here.

Secondly your "junk" comment clearly shows that its YOU who is sidetracking.

If you don't want to reply to those posts, then don't! Why are you complaining?

 

[Flintlock]

Hinduism is a very poorly defined religion. Didn't the Supreme Court of India once state that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are sub sects of Hinduism?
Even today the religion can hardly be defined, so when talking about a period 1400 years ago, certain Historians ignorantly claim all non-Muslims to have been Hindus in one form or another.

And this vague definition of Hinduism goes on to define 'Ancient India'.

Hinduism might not have an exact definition, but at the same time, it is very easy to distinguish between Hinduism and other religions.

If you remove Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism from the mix, the major Hindu deities like Surya Dev, Ganesh, Shiva, Vishnu, and many more which are popular even today, would indicate the Hindu religion.

The fact is that the Hindu Shahi kings worshipped Shiva (and Not the Rigvedic Rudra as RR is trying to claim) and Ganesha (as attested by the Ganesh statue with the King's inscription on it). This would clearly make them Hindus. Not some other religion, and definitely not the primitive hinduism (or "Vedism" as RR calls it) of the Rigvedic times which basically disappeard and evolved into Hinduism a couple of thousand years back.

Your post is akin to claiming that the Greek Paganism was not one religion because they worshipped many gods, some of which were popular or unpopular at different times, and all evolved their identites as time passed.

 

[roadrunner]

Haha. Once again showing your ignorance, and completely ignoring my post about how the modern Shiva is NOT a Rigvedic god but he significantly evolved his identity for several thousand years.
The "Rudra" of the Rigved and modern "Shiva" are not the same thing.

Rudra is Siva. It's a fact Siva exists in the Rig Veda.

If Afghanistan was following a Hindu religion, why can't you find any Krishna temples, or Krishna insciptions, since Krishna is Hindus main deity.

I'll tell you why. Because Afghanistan never followed Hinduism.

It followed Vedism, which was the precursor to modern Hinduism.

 

[Vinod2070]

How many Zoroastrian temples are present in modern Iran?

Did it never follow Zoroastrianism?

 

[Flintlock]

LOL.. learn the basics of Hinduism please:

Hinduism as we know it can be subdivided into a number of major currents. Of the historical division into six darshanas, only two schools, Vedanta and Yoga survive. The main divisions of Hinduism today are Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism and Shaktism. The vast majority of present day Hindus can be categorized under one of these four groups, although there are many other, partly overlapping, allegiances and denominations.
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rudra is Siva. It's a fact Siva exists in the Rig Veda.

If Afghanistan was following a Hindu religion, why can't you find any Krishna temples, or Krishna insciptions, since Krishna is Hindus main deity.

I'll tell you why. Because Afghanistan never followed Hinduism.

It followed Vedism, which was the precursor to modern Hinduism.

LOL - Krishna is NOT the "main deity". Where do you get this stuff? Infact, Shiva is worshipped by far more people than Krishna in India today.

Get your basics right Mr. RR, before passing judgment on Hinduism.

Here, read the wikipedia article on Shaivism:

Shaivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And on the basic Hindu denominatons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_denominations