Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Fireurimagination]

That is your belief and others do not believe this. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists living in India do not believe this. We are having a historical discussion here within the ambiance of environment that existed since the earliest known times.

What don't they believe in that the founders of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism were Hindus? Everybody knows that what is there to believe in? Or are you saying that Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism were founded by Muslims in the deserts of middle east

 

[Nassr]

What don't they believe in that the founders of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism were Hindus? Everybody knows that what is there to believe in? Or are you saying that Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism were founded by Muslims in the deserts of middle east

What was the religion of founders of Vedic culture and Hindu culture. Just because the belief of some one before accepting another faith is different, it does not mean that the new faith automatically become a sub-sect and does not retain its separate entity. Such kind of religious universalism is not accepted by large majority of people around the world. After all why did they change their earlier beliefs and accepted new ones.

 

[Fireurimagination]

I am not claiming that Hindus never lived in Lahore or for that matter in the areas within Pakistan's border. I stated that Hindus were never in majority since the earliest times in areas within Pakistani borders. I have also supported these with historical facts. This is not a religious discussion and keep religion out of it.

You started a thread about religion and now you are saying that it is not a religious discussion , okay then please enlighten us what was the religion of Pakistan after the IVC period and before Buddhism?

What was the religion of founders of Vedic culture and Hindu culture. Just because the belief of some one before accepting another faith is different, it does not mean that the new faith automatically become a sub-sect and does not retain its separate entity. Such kind of religious universalism is not accepted by large majority of people around the world. After all why did they change their earlier beliefs and accepted new ones.

Your problem is that you know a damn about Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma). Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) doesn't have one set of beliefs is it that hard to understand, damn? Sanatan Dharma can be both monotheistic and polytheistic in nature.

 

[Indischer]

I used the word time immemorial as that is what it is, you have to understand that Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is nothing like 1500-3000 year old man made Abrahamic religions with one set of believes. The Sanatan Dharma absorbs both monotheistic nature of Vedas/Shaivism/Vaishnavism/IVC etc and Polytheistic nature with concept of Hindu Trinity and Devtas. Buddhism (Hindu considers Buddha as the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu), Jainism, Sikhism sprout from Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) at a later stage. So as far as religion of present day Pakistan goes it was what is present day Hinduism but later Muslim invaders defeated and converted you guys.

Lack of one set of beliefs do not make it "time-immemorial". Sanatana Dharma may have been an amalgamation of many beliefs, but it's liturgical beginnings are not older than 2500B.C at best. Hence, in all probability, Sanatana Dharma in it's mature form is not more than 5000 years old. And FYI, I'm a Brahmin.

 

[Nassr]

You started a thread about religion and now you are saying that it is not a religious discussion , okay then please enlighten us what was the religion of Pakistan after the IVC period and before Buddhism?

It is not a religious thread. It is a thread related to history and historical facts. I believe that the people of IVC followed monotheism. And after the fading out of this civilization these people continued following monotheism for a protracted period of time. This is supported by the fact they continued living in the cities even after the fading out of IVC. The Rig Veda explains environment which were rural in nature and not urban. Therefore for a protracted period of time till these cities were completely abandoned the relationship of Rig Veda can not be linked with the people of IVC. Such links logically would emerge much much later and still their earliest form would have been monotheistic as many scholars believe that Rig Veda in its earliest format was monotheistic in essence.

Your problem is that you know a damn about Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma). Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) doesn't have one set of beliefs is it that hard to understand, damn? Sanatan Dharma can be both monotheistic and polytheistic in nature.

Why don't you understand that Sanatan Dharma is your belief and others do not believe int it which also include the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists etc etc living in India.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Lack of one set of beliefs do not make it "time-immemorial". Sanatana Dharma may have been an amalgamation of many beliefs, but it's liturgical beginnings are not older than 2500B.C at best. Hence, in all probability, Sanatana Dharma in it's mature form is not more than 5000 years old. And FYI, I'm a Brahmin.

Then can you please enlighten me with origins of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) which every resource states is unknown?

It is not a religious thread. It is a thread related to history and historical facts. I believe that the people of IVC followed monotheism. And after the fading out of this civilization these people continued following monotheism for a protracted period of time. This is supported by the fact they continued living in the cities even after the fading out of IVC. The Rig Veda explains environment which were rural in nature and not urban. Therefore for a protracted period of time till these cities were completely abandoned the relationship of Rig Veda can not be linked with the people of IVC. Such links logically would emerge much much later and still their earliest form would have been monotheistic as many scholars believe that Rig Veda in its earliest format was monotheistic in essence.

You have a bias that follower of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) can't be monotheism and I am saying that 'monotheism religion in IVC' 'after IVC' 'during Vedic Period' was Sanatan Dharma which is today's Hinduism.

 

[Nassr]

Then can you please enlighten me with origins of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) which every resource states is unknown?



You have a bias that follower of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) can't be monotheism and I am saying that 'monotheism religion in IVC' 'after IVC' 'during Vedic Period' was Sanatan Dharma which is today's Hinduism.

All I am saying is that it is your belief and there are many others who do not believe this. History is not reflected through beliefs.

 

[Fireurimagination]

All I am saying is that it is your belief and there are many others who do not believe this. History is not reflected through beliefs.

LOL and them many others where do they think Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) sprout out from then?

 

[Indischer]

Then can you please enlighten me with origins of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) which every resource states is unknown?

The obscure origins of Hinduism are not proof of it's antiquity. The liturgy of Sanatana Dharma begins with the RigVeda. The maturity of Sanskrit used to compose this text can be corroborated wit it's proximity to Avestan, an Iranian Language that's the precursor to Farsi. The RigVeda contains references to metal weapons, likely made of Bronze, as Iron is first referred only in the AtharvanaVeda. Hence, the RigVeda could not have been older than the Bronze Age. In short, it was compiled around 2500BC.

 

[bronxbull]

Rigveda is of around 6000 BC.

 

[Nassr]

LOL and them many others where do they think Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) sprout out from then?

A particular religious mindset which is not accepted as a fact by numerous others. As the Indian Hindus felt that their identification as Hindus is foreign in nature, an appropriate word to replace Hinduism was identified from the Vedic scriptures and Sanatan Dharma emerged. This is a belief system which many do not agree with.

 

[Fireurimagination]

The obscure origins of Hinduism are not proof of it's antiquity. The liturgy of Sanatana Dharma begins with the RigVeda. The maturity of Sanskrit used to compose this text can be corroborated wit it's proximity to Avestan, an Iranian Language that's the precursor to Farsi. The RigVeda contains references to metal weapons, likely made of Bronze, as Iron is first referred only in the AtharvanaVeda. Hence, the RigVeda could not have been older than the Bronze Age. In short, it was compiled around 2500BC.

The obscure origins doesn't prove that it is 2500BC old also now does it? It just means that it has been documented from 2500/5000BC or whatever. Origins are still as I said unknown.

 

[Nassr]

Rigveda is of around 6000 BC.

There are many who say that it exists since times immemorial as a word of God.

 

[Indischer]

Rigveda is of around 6000 BC.

Not proven in any way. On the other hand, linguistic evidence places it around 3000-2500 BC. The usage of metal as stated in the RigVeda also suggests it's from the Bronze age, not Stone age.

 

[bronxbull]

linguistic evidence is all extrapolation bollocks,Hinduism is the parent religion of all religions right from the history of the world.

There are many who say that it exists since times immemorial as a word of God.

yeah but someone had to talk about it with someone else right.