Since Earliest Historical Times Hinduism Was Never Popular in Pakistan

[Ajatashatru]

I know the meaning of word "origin" . By your logic all humam beings came from common ancestor lol . you dont know the meaning of word "Islam". Origin of islam is Allah and islam is the messege of Allah revealed on Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) through angels. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was messenger of Allah and he was arabs but at his time Arabs were worshipping idols so by your logic idols worshipping is Arabic by origin. We also believe that rest of the islamic prophets also brought nothing but islam but they were sent down for particular nation unlike prophet Muhammad(PBUH). Get some education first what is slam

I know very well what is Islam and I know that Islam originated in Arabian peninsula and that's what I mentioned.

 

[Indischer]

And what was that? Which movement was started by Mahavir (AFAIK, he was last thithankar of Jainism). So all the followers of current philosophical movements like Saibaba etc are non-hindus? I see it as circular argument from your side. There are no known/deciphered texts older than Vedas (in Indian subcontinent). Your question is similar to asking whether Christianity existed before bible and then defining Christians as followers of bible. Hinduism did not pop-up in a day. It did evolve overtime and to consider it separate just because of the absence of text is a very narrow definition of Hinduism. By your definition, majority of Indians are non-hindus. Again curious, where did you get this definition of Hinduism?

Sorry about Mahavira. He is merely the last and most famous of Jain thirthankaras.
You fail to grasp my point again. Gods like Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha etc represent the evolutionary chain of Hinduism. One that began with the Vedas and worship of elemental Gods like Indra, Agni, Vayu, Savitr etc.
Hinduism as a movement is defined by it's canonical texts namely the Vedas, upanishads, Puranas etc. SaiBaba considers himself an avatar of an earlier saint. The earlier Shirdi Sai Baba preached the Bhagavat gita(a part of Hinduism). Trace back every aspect of our devotion in today's Hinduism and you'll find they link back to texts like the Puranas, Upanishads and Vedas. That's how they're all part of Hinduism. The puranas and upanishads themselves evolved from the ideas espoused in the Vedas. Get it now? It's in this context that I say that since nothing that Hindus observed earlier/observe now has been traced back to something that was seen only in IVC, it's influence on Hinduism is nil/miniscule. Since the RgVeda sits squarely at the top of this chain, one has to conclude they were the first texts that led to Hinduism(again, they were orally conveyed for a long long time. Hence, one can't argue that texts older to them may have been part of Hinduism. If such a text existed, it would have been orally conveyed too.)
Wherever a sect has begged to differ with Hindu texts substantially, they have been considered as separate religious/philosophical movements. That's why Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are seen as different religions inspired by Hinduism. If a sect has chosen to reaffirm it's links with Hindu canonical texts, it has been retained as a Hindu sect.

 

[Ajatashatru]

Howsoever we in Pakistan interpret various religions is Pakistan’s own matter and it does not have to relate in any way according to what is prophesized by Indian Hinduism. According to Indian Hindu categorization, Sanatana Dharma (another name of Hinduism) also includes other religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism etc. This categorization is not accepted and neither recognized in Pakistan. We believe that Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism etc are separate religions and are not part of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. In view of this, Sanatana Dharma was never practiced in the manner in Pakistan.

Yeah? Go check out how many Hindu temples exist in Pak and how many Buddhist ones do. If Hinduism was not practiced in Pak, these temples must have been made by ghosts.

The people of pre-1947 Pakistan since the earliest times did not identify their land as Bharatvarsha. This is the version highlighted by Indian Hindus and not the people of Pakistan even before the partition. Before the partition, the people of Pakistan were referred as British Indian as the land was ruled by the British.

Before British rule, people of present day Pak were referred to as Indians. Even during British rule the term British Indian was not used for people but only for the empire and govt. One of the places where Vedas are alleged to have been compiled is Punjab (most of which is in Pak) and it is Vedas which have the first recorded usage of 'Bharat'. Even during Muslim rule, your ancestors referred to Pak as a part of "Hindustan", clearly contradicting your claims that Hinduism was not practiced there.

Separate geography in case of Pakistan and India denoted separate political entities except during the times of Mauryas, Muslims and British when they were ruled as one political unit. Besides these eras, India was never united even in the lands of Republic of India which gained independence in 1947. The landmass of current India was divided in many sovereign states since the earliest times except for the three rules that I mentioned earlier. Heck even at the time of partition there were around 580 states, many of which were forcibly made part of Republic of India.

And all these sovereign states were part of Indian civilisation. Civilization does not mean a political union. Go see a good non-Pakistani dictionary.

Pakistan has never been part of Indian civilization as India never had a civilization of its own. The only civilization that existed in sub-continent, the IVC was and is a Pakistani civilization. Pakistani culture and cuisine is certainly not of Indian origin. Even Indian cuisine is basically of Turkish origin. This land has been a separate political entity from Republic of India except for minor aberrations, since over 9000 years.

Each and every neutral historian refers to India as one of the oldest civilizations and Pak as part of it but we should not believe them but rather believe you as you are biggest history genius who ever lived, is it? Staple cuisine like roti-sabji and daal-chaval are of Indian origin, I wasn't talking about Mughlai obviously. As I mentioned earlier, civilization does not mean political union. China wasn't united many a times in its history, but it is still a very old civilization. They have got a good animated map here -
History of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Western world is not under one rule but they still form a common 'western civilization'.

It is time that you Indians look for your own identity from within Republic of India and stop stealing identity from other peoples heritage.

You are the ones who are rewriting history to find a place for yourself in world history but failing miserably.

Kashmiri Shaivism may be termed as monism. In the larger sense, Shaivism is accepted as monotheistic format the world over.

Yeah so? Shiva is a Hindu deity and Shaivism is one of the most common forms of Hinduism. If you have any doubts, you can ask any Shaivite whether or not he is a Hindu. As I said earlier, Hinduism is not a religion in the true sense of the word so you will not find any fixed set of beliefs that all Hindus follow. Religion is a very narrow concept while Hinduism is a very broad philosophy.

 

[Black Widow]

You post was alright until you made this last idiotic statement

Islam is not a man made religion but divine religion and don't talk BS if you have no clue about Islam. Worshiping Islamic monotheistic God is way better than worshiping snakes, rats, cow and those idols whom you create yourself.

Typical Brainwashing.. Monotheism started from Egypt when "Pharao" declared himself as God and asked ppl to worship Him. That is the first historical account for Monotheism.

Polytheism is natural (evolutionary) of religion. They worship Sun to thank Sun for warmth and life. The worship wind to thank for rain and so on..

Islam is made by Muhamamd and his frnds, There is no historical and logical truth in Islam. Islam is copy paste religion. The compiler of Islam copied existing thing.. Its like old wine with new label..

The artifacts you cite are not older than 2500 BC either. So What's your reason to claim Hinduism IS older than this timeline?

You mean sites? Dwarka the ancient city of Ice age (Double the size of Manhattan) is recovered which is 15000-30000 year old.. I am not saying that those ppl were Hindu, But those ppl were very similar to Sanatan/Hinduism..

 

[Slayer786]

And that is fine. Whatever we may think of such heroes and such followers and their ideology, that is your prerogative.

But I am amazed that you don't see the contradictions between these heroes (and all that it implies) and the premise of this thread and your obsession with Dharmic religions and our country.



You don't really want to know that.

Look at how the Persians converted wholesale to Shiaism from Sunnism to get a clue.



West Pakistan had ~20% Hindu/Sikh population before partition.



The universe is complex.

Anyway, why the 100s of sects in your final and perfect religion? Things didn't seem to have turned out exactly as expected!

Can you show some facts. Just because you write it, does not mean that it is true.

 

[Indischer]

You mean sites? Dwarka the ancient city of Ice age (Double the size of Manhattan) is recovered which is 15000-30000 year old.. I am not saying that those ppl were Hindu, But those ppl were very similar to Sanatan/Hinduism..

Dude, all that we know is there is a Harappan/pre-harappan urban settlement buried near modern Dvarka. We haven't retrieved any artifact deemed to be of religious significance from there nor have we excavated the site, due to it being submerged. How can you say they were Hindus? Hinduism has merely adopted the story of a city getting submerged. Gujarat coast is notorious for changing it's coastline every few hundred years. Soil sediment analysis will tell us when was the last time that area was above the seas. Till that is done, we cannot speculate on how old this myth likely is.

 

[Black Widow]

Can you show some facts. Just because you write it, does not mean that it is true.

The entire religion is based on Believe, since when a believer start talking logical

Dude, all that we know is there is a Harappan/pre-harappan urban settlement buried near modern Dvarka. We haven't retrieved any artifact deemed to be of religious significance from there nor have we excavated the site, due to it being submerged. How can you say they were Hindus? Hinduism has merely adopted the story of a city getting submerged. Gujarat coast is notorious for changing it's coastline every few hundred years. Soil sediment analysis will tell us when was the last time that area was above the seas. Till that is done, we cannot speculate on how old this myth likely is.

Watch National Geography documentary.. And more over all historical facts are based on assumption. Nothing can be said 100% truth..

When one can believe in Allah, Vishnu(as Heavenly God), The man made drama, Why he can't believe in Dwarka?

Look at the Ancient artifacts, you can see many thing which current day Hindus use..

 

[bronxbull]

dont waste time with PPG,he is amongst the pure ones made of clay.

 

[Indischer]

The entire religion is based on Believe, since when a believer start talking logical




Watch National Geography documentary.. And more over all historical facts are based on assumption. Nothing can be said 100% truth..

When one can believe in Allah, Vishnu(as Heavenly God), The man made drama, Why he can't believe in Dwarka?

Look at the Ancient artifacts, you can see many thing which current day Hindus use..

I've seen this video before. the artifacts are what all people of that region used in ancient times, not just Hindus. This thread is not about the religious belief about Hinduism, but rather the historical veracity of Hinduism and it's influence in Pakistan.

If the land was not as submerged before, there are high chances of fishermen stumbling across man-made artifacts on beaches/in fishing nets. This could have easily led to the correct assumption that a city lies buried in the sea. Going by it's proximity to IVC, the town might turn out to be yet another IVC site. If someone claims they weren't Hindus, absence of Hindu idols/texts will support this assumption while if someone claims they were Hindus, lack of proof will defeat his assumption.

 

[Thirdfront]

Sorry about Mahavira. He is merely the last and most famous of Jain thirthankaras.
You fail to grasp my point again. Gods like Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha etc represent the evolutionary chain of Hinduism. One that began with the Vedas and worship of elemental Gods like Indra, Agni, Vayu, Savitr etc.
Hinduism as a movement is defined by it's canonical texts namely the Vedas, upanishads, Puranas etc. SaiBaba considers himself an avatar of an earlier saint. The earlier Shirdi Sai Baba preached the Bhagavat gita(a part of Hinduism). Trace back every aspect of our devotion in today's Hinduism and you'll find they link back to texts like the Puranas, Upanishads and Vedas. That's how they're all part of Hinduism. The puranas and upanishads themselves evolved from the ideas espoused in the Vedas. Get it now? It's in this context that I say that since nothing that Hindus observed earlier/observe now has been traced back to something that was seen only in IVC, it's influence on Hinduism is nil/miniscule. Since the RgVeda sits squarely at the top of this chain, one has to conclude they were the first texts that led to Hinduism(again, they were orally conveyed for a long long time. Hence, one can't argue that texts older to them may have been part of Hinduism. If such a text existed, it would have been orally conveyed too.)
Wherever a sect has begged to differ with Hindu texts substantially, they have been considered as separate religious/philosophical movements. That's why Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are seen as different religions inspired by Hinduism. If a sect has chosen to reaffirm it's links with Hindu canonical texts, it has been retained as a Hindu sect.

This is the problem I have with your argument. We don't know what you have said is true. Most probably it isn't. There is good chance that it has origin in IVC. Pashupati and mother goddess are other candidates from IVC to mainstream Hinduism. Animal sacrifice was practiced in IVC. So, how can you tell the same practice which is present in vedas was not it's adoption? From archaeological evidence, it is clear that IVC people moved east from Sindu during IVC decline period. Now, Only 2 possibilities (I am discounting third, which is vedas being completly indegenous), that vedas were completely foreign (central asia/aryan) or mixture of aryan and IVC (since there was no other civilization nearby). The first one has problem of accounting for gods like Shiva and Vishnu.. this is because main god of Aryan tribes was Indra (there is definite connection with parsis, greeks etc). But according to second hypothesis, it is possible scenario. SYmbols like Om and Swastika would have only passed on to hinduism from IVC (even though swastika were found else where, no connection to vedic people with those societies existed)
It is also your conjecture/assertion that only sects accepting hindu canonical texts were hindus and rest different. Please read how many branches of hinduism were present during late vedic period. Couple of major hindu school of thought rejected vedas (lokayat, meemansa etc..) nobody called them non-hindu groups. They were called Nastikas, but still were hindus. Your argument fails in this aspect and I believe it is because of your narrow definition of Hinduism. That is why I was curious to know how did you come to the conclusion that only those who follow vedas are Hindus.

 

[Black Widow]

I've seen this video before. the artifacts are what all people of that region used in ancient times, not just Hindus. This thread is not about the religious belief about Hinduism, but rather the historical veracity of Hinduism and it's influence in Pakistan.

If the land was not as submerged before, there are high chances of fishermen stumbling across man-made artifacts on beaches/in fishing nets. This could have easily led to the correct assumption that a city lies buried in the sea. Going by it's proximity to IVC, the town might turn out to be yet another IVC site. If someone claims they weren't Hindus, absence of Hindu idols/texts will support this assumption while if someone claims they were Hindus, lack of proof will defeat his assumption.

First of all Hinduism is not religion, It is amalgamation of religion/ritual/behaviour. As India was known as many name (Aryavrat, Bharatvarsh, Hindusthan, India etc)but still it is same land. Similarly Hinduism is known by many name, still it is same culture..

So this logic "Hinduism is not old, is BS"...

 

[Indischer]

This is the problem I have with your argument. We don't know what you have said is true. Most probably it isn't. There is good chance that it has origin in IVC. Pashupati and mother goddess are other candidates from IVC to mainstream Hinduism. Animal sacrifice was practiced in IVC. So, how can you tell the same practice which is present in vedas was not it's adoption? From archaeological evidence, it is clear that IVC people moved east from Sindu during IVC decline period. Now, Only 2 possibilities (I am discounting third, which is vedas being completly indegenous), that vedas were completely foreign (central asia/aryan) or mixture of aryan and IVC (since there was no other civilization nearby). The first one has problem of accounting for gods like Shiva and Vishnu.. this is because main god of Aryan tribes was Indra (there is definite connection with parsis, greeks etc). But according to second hypothesis, it is possible scenario. SYmbols like Om and Swastika would have only passed on to hinduism from IVC (even though swastika were found else where, no connection to vedic people with those societies existed)
It is also your conjecture/assertion that only sects accepting hindu canonical texts were hindus and rest different. Please read how many branches of hinduism were present during late vedic period. Couple of major hindu school of thought rejected vedas (lokayat, meemansa etc..) nobody called them non-hindu groups. They were called Nastikas, but still were hindus. Your argument fails in this aspect and I believe it is because of your narrow definition of Hinduism. That is why I was curious to know how did you come to the conclusion that only those who follow vedas are Hindus.

1. The Pashupati only shows a seated figure near a few animals. It's not positively identified as Shiva by anyone. It could be a spirit worshipped to keep the animals safe. The mother goddess is a symbol of fertility found in all ancient civilizations.

2. The RigVeda had already been composed by the time the tribe that composed it came to the plains of india. As previously stated here, their language, the absence of them describing any cities, it's mention of horses while there were none in IVC, it's usage of bronze-all of this support this theory. Now, the RigVeda has both a mother goddess as well as it mentions animal sacrifice! Both these concepts are seen in RigVeda itself, not in the subsequent texts.

3. The Swastika is found in all the ancient Indo-European civilizations. It was a symbol of Central Asian tribes who've taken it to Europe as well. The people of IVC are unlikely to have taken this symbol to Europe. The Nazis chose this symbol for this reason. OM is first mentioned only in the Upanishads. Except the RigVeda, the other 3 vedas were composed on Indian soil. If it was borrowed from IVC, OM might have found it's way into these Vedas. But it hasn't. The Upanishads themselves aren't older than 500BC. Hence, it's highly unlikely to have been borrowed from IVC.

4. Do you consider Atheists as Hindus? If not, then the Nastikas too are NOT Hindus. They were Atheists. The Charvaka, Ajivika, Jains and Buddhists together comprised the Nastika school of thought. The Jains and Buddhists have survived to this day and are seen as seperate religions while the Charvaka and Ajivika have unfortunately not survived. But had they survived, they wouldn't be seen as Hindus either.

First of all Hinduism is not religion, It is amalgamation of religion/ritual/behaviour. As India was known as many name (Aryavrat, Bharatvarsh, Hindusthan, India etc)but still it is same land. Similarly Hinduism is known by many name, still it is same culture..

So this logic "Hinduism is not old, is BS"...

I never said Hinduism is not old! I said Hinduism isn't older than 5500-6000 years old. the names you cite- Aryavrat, Bharatvarsh etc are all names provided in Sanskrit language, which itself isn't older than 5500 years. The Iranians call themselves Aryan too. The name Iran comes from Airyana, meaning the Land of Aryans.

 

[Thirdfront]

1. The Pashupati only shows a seated figure near a few animals. It's not positively identified as Shiva by anyone. It could be a spirit worshipped to keep the animals safe. The mother goddess is a symbol of fertility found in all ancient civilizations.

2. The RigVeda had already been composed by the time the tribe that composed it came to the plains of india. As previously stated here, their language, the absence of them describing any cities, it's mention of horses while there were none in IVC, it's usage of bronze-all of this support this theory. Now, the RigVeda has both a mother goddess as well as it mentions animal sacrifice! Both these concepts are seen in RigVeda itself, not in the subsequent texts.

3. The Swastika is found in all the ancient Indo-European civilizations. It was a symbol of Central Asian tribes who've taken it to Europe as well. The people of IVC are unlikely to have taken this symbol to Europe. The Nazis chose this symbol for this reason. OM is first mentioned only in the Upanishads. Except the RigVeda, the other 3 vedas were composed on Indian soil. If it was borrowed from IVC, OM might have found it's way into these Vedas. But it hasn't. The Upanishads themselves aren't older than 500BC. Hence, it's highly unlikely to have been borrowed from IVC.

4. Do you consider Atheists as Hindus? If not, then the Nastikas too are NOT Hindus. They were Atheists. The Charvaka, Ajivika, Jains and Buddhists together comprised the Nastika school of thought. The Jains and Buddhists have survived to this day and are seen as seperate religions while the Charvaka and Ajivika have unfortunately not survived. But had they survived, they wouldn't be seen as Hindus either.

1. Agree. But how did the concept of Shiva came from? There is no equivalent in Indo-European religion at that time. Either he was dreamt up or assimilated from IVC. Or there any third option? Also, Horse was not know to IVC but elephant were not know to central asians which are in RigVeda. Only scenario that can explain this is mixture of IVC and central asian traditions.

2. Conjunction without shred of evidence that it was completely composed. River Saraswati was mentioned, right? Also, how can one come to Indian plains without first crossing IVC?

3. Dead wrong. Go over the catalog of the IVC seals. It is the only and earliest Om symbol from any of the ancient world. Swastikas are in question, but since IVC is lot older than central asian tribes and there is clear seals with swastika in IVC, one can't imagine other way around.

4. Atheist ARE hindus (including me). Meemamsa school of thought was very much alive during late vedic period which was nastika sect. THis proves that your definition of hinduism is simply wrong.

5. What are the criteria laid down in vedas to be called as hindu? I mean, slam has clear criteria of who is a muslim and who is not. Same with jains, buddhists, christians, parsis and so on.... all defined by their founders and/or sacred texts. Where it is laid down for Hindus? If it is not there, why should your definition of Hindu is to be accepted?

 

[bronxbull]

u should ask your father that question.

 

[scorpionx]

OM is first mentioned only in the Upanishads. Except the RigVeda, the other 3 vedas were composed on Indian soil. If it was borrowed from IVC, OM might have found it's way into these Vedas. But it hasn't. The Upanishads themselves aren't older than 500BC. Hence, it's highly unlikely to have been borrowed from IVC.

Just a beginner's question. Isn't Gayatri Mantra starts with "Om" ?