Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Fireurimagination]

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.

OMG Oh mann conspiracy theories here too, okay okay Bro they followed a mysterious religion (Sanatan Dharma) and Vedas that later Hindus stole

 

[Indischer]

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.

We go by what proof we have. When the first adherents of Sanatana Dharma composed hymns to honour their Gods, the language they used and it's antiquity is good proof of their timeline. The implements that they use are further indicators. (If the language used was from around 2500BC, they possibly could not have composed the hymns in this language in 5000BC, get it?)

 

[Kloitra]

You raised this topic again and I responded. The main thing here is that the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists do not agree with Indian categorization as them being part of Hindu religion and that they are part of of Hindu sub-sect.

What makes you think a few odd protesters represent entire communities? Besides, being treated with the same law is different than categorization as a sub-sect. That is what I mentioned in my earlier post, constitution considers them as separate religion, and has same law for them as Hinduism.

But lets end it here, not the proper thread.

 

[Indischer]

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

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

Lost you there. Ms Bull, a rhetorical question, what is so different between a White Supremacist and a Hindu Supremacist? After all, both are founded on Illogical Reasoning!

 

[Fireurimagination]

We go by what proof we have. When the first adherents of Sanatana Dharma composed hymns to honour their Gods, the language they used and it's antiquity is good proof of their timeline. The implements that they use are further indicators. (If the language used was from around 2500BC, they possibly could not have composed the hymns in this language in 5000BC, get it?)

As I said that Vedas or documented proof may go back 5000 BC but Vedas are not the start point of Sanatan Dharma. Thus you can't pin point origins or time period of Sanatan Dharma.

 

[Nassr]

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.

It is generally believed that Professor Max Müller's earlier estimate of 1200 BC, appears to be much nearer the mark.

 

[Indischer]

As I said that Vedas or documented proof may go back 5000 BC but Vedas are not the start point of Sanatan Dharma. Thus you can't pin point origins or time period of Sanatan Dharma.

Of course we can! We are not worshipping any deity that existed before the composition of the Vedas. All our social customs and rituals have developed after the composition of the Vedas. If there is any part of Hinduism that predates the RigVeda, I'd like to know that! Otherwise, go by proof yourself if you want others to go by any proofs that you give!

 

[Nassr]

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



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

I agree with you. However being talkative is not my forte as of majority male species.

OMG Oh mann conspiracy theories here too, okay okay Bro they followed a mysterious religion (Sanatan Dharma) and Vedas that later Hindus stole

OK.

 

[Indischer]

It is generally believed that Professor Max Müller's earlier estimate of 1200 BC, appears to be much nearer the mark.

Not for the RigVeda. The RV does not mention Iron, which was in use in India by 1200 BC. Also, there is no mention of Rice, suggesting that it was compiled before the Aryans entered the plains of Punjab. Plus, the archaic Sanskrit used in RV is the biggest proof of this. The later Vedas supposedly show a marked change in their Sanskrit vocabulary.

 

[Nassr]

What makes you think a few odd protesters represent entire communities? Besides, being treated with the same law is different than categorization as a sub-sect. That is what I mentioned in my earlier post, constitution considers them as separate religion, and has same law for them as Hinduism.

But lets end it here, not the proper thread.

There is a bill pending approval in the Lok Sabha to change the Indian Constitution with regard to such categorization. What more can I say.

Not for the RigVeda. The RV does not mention Iron, which was in use in India by 1200 BC. Also, there is no mention of Rice, suggesting that it was compiled before the Aryans entered the plains of Punjab. Plus, the archaic Sanskrit used in RV is the biggest proof of this. The later Vedas supposedly show a marked change in their Sanskrit vocabulary.

However, the Rig Veda talks about rural environment and the IVC was an urban civilization. The Rig Veda talks about horses and chariots which were not found in the IVC. Rig Veda talks about rural chieftain based system which does not conform to the governing environment of the IVC. Therefore basing such emanation from around the peak of IVC period does have its pitfalls.

 

[Indischer]

However, the Rig Veda talks about rural environment and the IVC was an urban civilization. The Rig Veda talks about horses and chariots which were not found in the IVC. Rig Veda talks about rural chieftain based system which does not conform to the governing environment of the IVC. Therefore basing such emanation from around the peak of IVC period does have its pitfalls.

That's simple. The Aryan tribes which had composed the RigVeda would not have entered the valleys and plains of the Indus when the RV was being composed. Except the RigVeda, the other Vedas were all composed on Indian soil.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Of course we can! We are not worshipping any deity that existed before the composition of the Vedas. All our social customs and rituals have developed after the composition of the Vedas. If there is any part of Hinduism that predates the RigVeda, I'd like to know that! Otherwise, go by proof yourself if you want others to go by any proofs that you give!

What about Pre Vedic era? Mehgarh and Dvaraka era dating back 10000 BC, Sanatan Dharma was present duing this Pre Vedic period also. So Vedic era is no way the begining of the Sanatan Dharma.

 

[Indischer]

What about Pre Vedic era? Mehgarh and Dvaraka era dating back 10000 BC, Sanatan Dharma was present duing this Pre Vedic period also. So Vedic era is no way the begining of the Sanatan Dharma.

Nobody is sure about the religion followed in Mehrgarh or IVC. There is no evidence about the religious beliefs of these civilizations and about whether any of it has found it's way into Sanatana Dharma. What sources are you quoting to make this assumption?

 

[Sinnerman108]

@LoveIcon - Sunnaaa haiii ke Porous eik Butt Sahib thaaa aur Sikander eik Arian ?

Nawaz Sharif is also BUTT sahib.

Now comment.

If one worships an image of Shiva in a temple, it's idol worship and if one does the same in a Church or Dargah, it isn't? Doesn't Islam explicitly forbid idolizing mortals? Then why visit the grave of saints as part of a religious devotion?

Anyways, Ignorant statements hurt,don't they. If you're ready to dish out cr@p, be ready to receive them in equal measure.

These practices are no where allowed, rather strictly forbidden in Islam.

 

[Fireurimagination]

Nobody is sure about the religion followed in Mehrgarh or IVC. There is no evidence about the religious beliefs of these civilizations and about whether any of it has found it's way into Sanatana Dharma. What sources are you quoting to make this assumption?

That's what I am saying that the pre Vedic era could have been or not been that of Sanatan Dharma. Although theoretically it was going by the beliefs. So saying that the Vedic era was beginning of Sanatan Dharma is wrong (it can't be proven). Probably the Aryans brought the Rig Veda with them which assimilated in the Sanatan Dharma (Dravadian local culture) or who knows. So as I said earlier nobody knows, origins of Hinduism are unknown. Saying it's xyz years old is factually wrong. About proof yes it was there 5000 BC was it there in 10000 BC nobody knows. Well religion wise you know the stories of the Yugas. :p