The Concept of Pakistan in the Vedas

[Chhatrapati]

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

Where exactly did I say you said that? I said, it is illogical to compartmentalize into xyz Hinduism. Please explain what you meant by "Adding"? You can't apply such simple logic to religions, it has more contexts than adding certain beliefs and calling it something else.

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

Like I said, apply the same "Chain system" to Hinduism. I believe I explained it pretty clear how the system works in previous threads, I can't rephrase into more essays for something anyone with basic comprehension can understand.

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

Again, I explained in detail how relevant they are in the first reply. Puranic gods will not be mentioned in Vedas simply because these are a manifestation of the same Vedas.

 

[21st Century Vampire]

Would you deconstruct these texts and attribute them to xyz Christianity or xyz Islam?

I'll explain it again in a different way this time to make it easy but conclusion is still the same...it depends on the context, there's a reason some sects of Gnosticism is sometimes called gnostic christianity because it first of all builds upon and secondly differs/adds to the primary source which is the New Testament at a different time....same with Hinduism simple

Where exactly did I say you said that?

It's a rhetorical question, i was agreeing with your premise the whole time since the start, we have common ground here and i what i meant by "hindu" is hinduism as a whole the same way you view it but i later elucidated that it had a different morphology at a different chronology because further stuff were integrated

Please explain what you meant by "Adding"?

I mean it in the same way you said that accommodations were made

You can't apply such simple logic to religions, it has more contexts than adding certain beliefs and calling it something else.

Added or not It's still hindu not something else, never disagreed but we need a temporal marker for example i say that stuff were added in the puranas then clearly the morphology was different in pre-puranic hinduism and as far as the logic of it is concerned then if we have later materials outside the primary source which can be argued to be differing from it or adding to it then obviously a quellenforschung will lead to many different possible hypotheses

Like I said, apply the same "Chain system" to Hinduism. I believe I explained it pretty clear how the system works in previous threads, I can't rephrase into more essays for something anyone with basic comprehension can understand.

The hadithic chain system is completely different nor is it compatible with your anterior claims as a whole and nor is it compatible with the reasoning behind your question, the hadith uses the chain system to trace back to the primary source because it's real source is the primary source, it not an addition nor an elaboration outside the primary source

Again, I explained in detail how relevant they are in the first reply. Puranic gods will not be mentioned in Vedas simply because these are a manifestation of the same Vedas.

Again that's your theological interpretation, there are various other possibilities from a secular lens like the ones already mentioned

 

[Chhatrapati]

I'll explain it again in a different way this time to make it easy but conclusion is still the same...it depends on the context, there's a reason some sects of Gnosticism is sometimes called gnostic christianity because it first of all builds upon and secondly differs/adds to the primary source which is the New Testament at a different time....same with Hinduism simple

Yeah, except it's widely accepted both by their clergies as well as the regular Christian public. Have Hindu religious sects ever asked to be called or are they called different types of Hindus? Specifically, Vedic Hindus, Puranic Hindus, Nastika Hindu, I don't see you appropriating others, something which we don't even consider as a division.

I mean it in the same way you said that accommodations were made

Accommodations were made in the original Vedas itself. What later transpired is different schools of thought based on those accommodations.

Added or not It's still hindu not something else, never disagreed but we need a temporal marker for example i say that stuff were added in the puranas then clearly the morphology was different in pre-puranic hinduism and as far as the logic of it is concerned then if we have later materials outside the primary source which can be argued to be differing from it or adding to it then obviously a quellenforschung will lead to many different possible hypotheses

Let me get this straight, my contention which you quoted was the illogical dissection of Vedic and Puranic, to insert an invisible split in theology and geography is stupid. If it was said, Shivism or Vaishnavitism, or say the 6 schools of Hinduism forming different thoughts, yes it has a logical argument in it. Though such a case does not arise in this case.

The hadithic chain system is completely different nor is it compatible with your anterior claims as a whole and nor is it compatible with the reasoning behind your question, the hadith uses the chain system to trace back to the primary source because it's real source is the primary source, it not an addition nor an elaboration outside the primary source

Again you're misquoting what I said, I'm not dragging different religions. What I am saying is there can't be different styles of Hinduism based on a different era, we don't see it that way. When Pakistani Sindhi worship Jhulelal they do not become Puranic Hindus or Vedic Hindu, such a division does not exist.

Again that's your theological interpretation, there are various other possibilities from a secular lens like the ones already mentioned

That's not an interpretation, that's a fact. The purpose of Puranas is well served to get the message of Vedas and Upanishads across. Unless you have something to say in regard to that, I don't see the point in your argument.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Though such a case does not arise in this case.

This is your interpretation. Subjectivity. Opinion.

The facts presented regarding the rivalries between gangetics and IVC inhabitants would suggest contrary to your assertions.

 

[Chhatrapati]

This is your interpretation. Subjectivity. Opinion.

The facts presented regarding the rivalries between gangetics and IVC inhabitants would suggest contrary to your assertions.

haha IVC? IVC is a dead civilization. Just like I said, I don't see any facts just misrepresentations, lies to suit an agenda, fallacies...