Did Hinduism start with the arrival of the Aryans?

[The Crimson Universe]

Even though most hindus consider that hinduism is an eternal religion and that it existed from time immemorial, historians on the other hand believes that the roots of hinduism can be traced back to the Vedic period, with the arrival of the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent (1500 BCE - 500 BCE).

As per historical records, the Aryans brought along with them the vedas and started various types of sacrifices to various devatas/dieties.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the Aryans in the vedic period considered Indra and Agni to be the chief gods. During that period Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma or the Devi didn't rise into prominence. It was later in the Puranic era (500 BCE - 500 CE) when Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and Devi became the chief gods.

Before the arrival of the Aryans, there was the Indus Valley civilization, but little is known to us about their religious practices, like whom they worshipped, who were their chief gods and so on. Since we don't have enough archaeological evidence on the religious practices of the people of Indus Valley, many historians has come to the conclusion that hinduism originated during the arrival of the Aryans.

What are your views on this?

 

[stvdv]

Even though most hindus consider that hinduism is an eternal religion and that it existed from time immemorial, historians on the other hand believes that the roots of hinduism can be traced back to the Vedic period, with the arrival of the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent (1500 BCE - 500 BCE).

I believe it's from God, not from Aryans to be clear. And I believe indeed it's eternal, historians might not be always the proper source of knowledge, esp. when talking about Spirituality

Maybe God decided a boost was needed when the Aryans showed their faces over there

So maybe indeed the Aryans needed to get this education from God, so some extra 'energy' took place during that time, which historians were able to track down

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, there is Indus valley civilization with possibly a meditating Shiva and Mother Goddesses, which will make Hinduism at least 5,000 years old. Aryans came in around 4,000 years ago, and the Vedic religion was resisted into the historical times. There are stories of religious conflict (which in India does not mean war or cutting each other's head, but making myths, that is a religious revenge).

We have Shiva destroying Daksha's yajna, Krishna protecting the people of Vraja from the wrath of Indra by lifting Govardhan hill on the tip of his small finger, and the final banishment of Indra worship with Ahilya episode giving Indra a thousand vaginas over his body. That relegated him to a secondary position vis-a-vis deities like Shiva, Mother Goddess, Rama and Krishna, who do not find any mention in RigVeda.

So what was resisting the Vedic religion? - Must have been beliefs (in case of Hinduism, a loosely bound system of beliefs) which existed prior to the coming of Aryans. That was and is Hinduism. Sure, the two steams mingled, primacy of Vedas and related literature (which was developed in India - Upanishads) was established. Sanskrit became the liturgical and academic language, and Aryans accepted the indigenous Gods. Their priests (brahmins) got into conducting not just the yajnas but also worship of the indigenous deities which became their main source of livelihood.

Please note that the Hindu belief systems were starkly different from the Vedic religion. Ahimsa, no animal sacrifices, meditation, heaven and hell, reincarnation; not just going to the land of ancestors (Pitraloka, Valhala) as in pagan religions of Europe.

 

[ajay0]

This theory has been discounted by modern historians due to recent findings and discoveries. The swastika has been found in the Indus Valley civilization relics.

Swastika | Harappa

The Arya in eastern Dhamic philosophy means the 'noble one' or one of noble character or conduct, characterised by higher states of consciousness.This is how it is defined in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

If you look into it, you can see that the Avatars Rama, Krishna, Abhimanyu, Drona, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula are considered to be dark-skinned in the ancient Hindu scriptures. Same goes for Vishnu who is considered to be an 'Aryan' god by historians of the older school and is dark-skinned as well.

' Arya is not a race; Arya means a noble-minded person. The word Arya is often confused with a race. In the beginning, western historians propounded this theory of the Aryan race. That developed into Hitler's Aryan superiority. And when Hitler died, the Aryan race theory also died ! But the word Arya is used in sanskrit always for the noble-minded person.

Take any sanskrit drama. The person will address another character as 'My dear Arya,noble-minded person'. And Buddha spoke of his teachings as Arya-satyani, Noble Truths. Noble is the word for Arya there. The four Noble truths, Arya Satyani. So, the word Arya was used by Buddha, as also by earlier Vedic literature.

And this word, Arya is, therefore, a very great word in Sanskrit. Be an Aryan means, be noble-minded. Don't be petty, don't be small. ' ~ Swami Ranganathananda, commentary of the Bhagavad gita ( Volume 1,Chapter 2.88)

 

[Vinayaka]

Even though most hindus consider that hinduism is an eternal religion and that it existed from time immemorial, historians on the other hand believes that the roots of hinduism can be traced back to the Vedic period, with the arrival of the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent (1500 BCE - 500 BCE).

As per historical records, the Aryans brought along with them the vedas and started various types of sacrifices to various devatas/dieties.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the Aryans in the vedic period considered Indra and Agni to be the chief gods. During that period Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma or the Devi didn't rise into prominence. It was later in the Puranic era (500 BCE - 500 CE) when Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and Devi became the chief gods.

Before the arrival of the Aryans, there was the Indus Valley civilization, but little is known to us about their religious practices, like whom they worshipped, who were their chief gods and so on. Since we don't have enough archaeological evidence on the religious practices of the people of Indus Valley, many historians has come to the conclusion that hinduism originated during the arrival of the Aryans.

What are your views on this?

I used to care about this, but once I realised it was a distraction to my practice. I more or less dropped any attachment to the opinions I hold. Does it matter how we got to where we are today? The fact is that Hinduism is the most alive and active ancient religion going on today. We have a billion adherents, tons of teaching lineages, a million temples, and concepts that permeate all of society, and is gaining. Who cares how it originated. Let the scholars have at it.

At a teacher's convention I went to a speech by a good Catholic father on world religions, as I was curious, and ready to confront him on errors about Hinduism. His opening line was 'Which county on this planet is the most religious, where people spend more time on religion than in any other?" After nobody answered, he stated unequivocally ... "India .... (pause for effect) ... by far." Then he went on to show how the Catholic converts in India benefited greatly by the surroundings of permeating religiosity.

He had it right. It's Hinduism influencing Christianity, east influencing west, not the other way around.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Well, there is Indus valley civilization with possibly a meditating Shiva and Mother Goddesses, which will make Hinduism at least 5,000 years old. Aryans came in around 4,000 years ago, and the Vedic religion was resisted into the historical times. There are stories of religious conflict (which in India does not mean war or cutting each other's head, but making myths, that is a religious revenge).

We have Shiva destroying Daksha's yajna, Krishna protecting the people of Vraja from the wrath of Indra by lifting Govardhan hill on the tip of his small finger, and the final banishment of Indra worship with Ahilya episode giving Indra a thousand vaginas over his body. That relegated him to a secondary position vis-a-vis deities like Shiva, Mother Goddess, Rama and Krishna, who do not find any mention in RigVeda.

So what was resisting the Vedic religion? - Must have been beliefs (in case of Hinduism, a loosely bound system of beliefs) which existed prior to the coming of Aryans. That was and is Hinduism. Sure, the two steams mingled, primacy of Vedas and related literature (which was developed in India - Upanishads) was established. Sanskrit became the liturgical and academic language, and Aryans accepted the indigenous Gods. Their priests (brahmins) got into conducting not just the yajnas but also worship of the indigenous deities which became their main source of livelihood.

Please note that the Hindu belief systems were starkly different from the Vedic religion. Ahimsa, no animal sacrifices, meditation, heaven and hell, reincarnation; not just going to the land of ancestors (Pitraloka, Valhala) as in pagan religions of Europe.

If Ramayana and Mahabharata (as the historians claim) took place almost 7000 to 5000 years ago, long before the Indus valley civilization flourished, then it makes me wonder, why no seals containing images of Rama or Krishna were found in sites like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro.

Also who lived on the indian subcontinent before the Indus valley civilizations? Was it the dravidians? Just curious.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, 7000 or 5000 years is mythology (that is not what theist Hindus believe. Rama's time is mentioned to have been 864000 + 5123 years ago, end of what is called the Treta Eon; and Krishna's time 5123 years ago, end of Dwapara eon. ).

The fact is that Rama worship may have been prevalent in Central-Eastern India (Ayodhya) and Krishna in Central and Western India (Mathura and Dwarika). Just like the worship of Murugan / Kartikeya is prominent in South India. Parashurama is associated with Gulf of Cambay region; Nrisimha, Varaha, Kachapa, and Matsya were popular in Central South India (Telangana/Andhra); Vamana in Kerala. So, I am not surprised that there is no Rama or Krishna find in Harappa or Mohanjodaro*.
Hinduism consolidated these deities as avataras of Vishnu. Hindus were great assimilators as they absorbed the people of Aryan, Greek, Persian, Scythian, Hun or Tibeto-Burmese stock.

Yeah, perhaps you can term the indigenous inhabitants of India as Dravidians if you exclude thousands of other aboriginal tribes who did not live in cities.

* Incidently, I find that the itinerant fishermen of Indus were/are known as Mohanas, therefore Mohanjodero - The camp of Mohanas.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Even though most hindus consider that hinduism is an eternal religion and that it existed from time immemorial, historians on the other hand believes that the roots of hinduism can be traced back to the Vedic period, with the arrival of the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent (1500 BCE - 500 BCE).

That is not true. In the first place, modern day Hinduism has very little to do with the Vedic religion, which died out a long time ago. Hindus today worship idols and visit temples. They worship Tirupathi Venkatesh, Sai Baba, Durga, Ganesha, Murugan, Shiva, Hanuman, Krishna and Rama. None of these gods or practices are Vedic.

People lived in India before the arrival of Aryans. They had their own religious beliefs, gods and goddesses and it is likely that some of them have survived to this day. Check the old village war/protective gods all over the country.

As per historical records, the Aryans brought along with them the vedas and started various types of sacrifices to various devatas/dieties.

Yes. The word Arya comes from ancient Sanskrit/Persian where it meant a certain tribe or homeland (Airyanam Vaejah in ancient Persian and Aryavarta in Sanskrit). But most of their old practices of fire worship, Yajna and their primary gods - Indra, Mitra, Vayu, etc, lost favor a long time ago giving way to other beliefs, though some remnants continue to this day.

Stay clear of internet articles on this topic and read books written by qualified historians. There is a ton of Hindu propaganda on this topic all over the internet.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The word Arya comes from ancient Sanskrit/Persian where it meant a certain tribe ..

A group of tribes will be a better description or perhaps 'Aryan people' (but not a 'race'). The word 'Arya' came to India as well as Iran from Old Avestan or Old Vedic, which originated from Indo-European (there is a Greaco-Aryan hypotheisis also). The Balkans, Slavs, Greeks, Celts, Germans, Irish, all have closely-related language and mythology. Starting from around the Yamanaya region in 7th millennium BC, these people moved / influenced West, North and East.

Hello again! =)

 

[Valjean]

Hinduism today is a mish-mosh of dozens of different beliefs and traditions, and, as far as I'm aware, none are much like the Vedic religions of two or three thousand years ago.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But Val, Vedic rituals and people who believe in them also exist. It is not that they have died out. Millions study Vedas for years. Although, their interpretation is different from the scientific and historical that I prefer. There are 18 Sanskrit universities in India and many colleges.
Ah, there is a Sanskrit Wikipedia also.
List of Sanskrit universities in India - Wikipedia
Veda classes - Google Search
yajna - Google Search

 

[shivsomashekhar]

A group of tribes will be a better description or perhaps 'Aryan people' (but not a 'race'). The word 'Arya' came to India as well as Iran from Old Avestan or Old Vedic, which originated from Indo-European (there is a Greaco-Aryan hypotheisis also). The Balkans, Slavs, Greeks, Celts, Germans, Irish, all have closely-related language and mythology. Starting from around the Yamanaya region in 7th millennium BC, these people moved / influenced West, North and East.

Hello again! =)

Aryan always meant a distinct group of people (tribe or tribes).

In ancient Persia, people were either Airya (Aryan) or Anairya (not Aryans).

Similarly, in India, it was Arya or Anarya. The former (followers of the Vedic religion) were good/noble and the latter the opposite.

Romans used the same concept. People who spoke Roman/Greek were civilized. Everyone else was a barbarian.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, tribals are true to the template.

 

[ajay0]

If Ramayana and Mahabharata (as the historians claim) took place almost 7000 to 5000 years ago, long before the Indus valley civilization flourished, then it makes me wonder, why no seals containing images of Rama or Krishna were found in sites like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro.

This is a valid question. Numerous Shivalingams were found in the sites of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, but no images of Rama or Krishna were found, along with other anthropomorphic idols of gods and goddesses.


In both the Ramayana and Mahabharatha, you can find Parashurama, Rama, Krishna and their archrivals Ravana and Duryodhana worshipping the Shivalingam. However there is no mention of them worshipping anthropomorphic idols of gods and goddesses or of their temples.

This is because in earlier times only the non-anthropomorphic Shivalingam was worshipped by the Hindus.

The worship of the anthropomorphic idols of gods and goddesses in temples came much later on and began mainly due to the influence of Jainism and Buddhism.

The Jains and Buddhists rejected the Vedic disciplines and created their own temples and beautiful idols of Mahavira, Tirthankaras and Buddha for worship.

This persuaded the Hindus too to create anthropomorphic idols of the gods and goddesses for worship along with their temples, in imitation of the Jains and Buddhists.


In all major temples in India devoted to the gods and goddesses, there is a tradition of worshipping the nonanthropomorphic Shivalingam first and then worshipping the anthropomorphic gods or goddess. This is because the Shivalingam is considered the greatest of the 330 million gods and goddesses.


In the famous Guruvayoor temple of Krishna in south India, there is a tradition of worshipping the Shivalingam at the Mamiyoor Shiva temple prior to worshipping at the Guruvayoor temple of Sri Krishna.

Similarly in the Rama temple next to Guruvayoor in Triprayar, there is a tradition of worshipping the Shivalingam at the Melthrikovil Shiva temple prior to worshipping at the Sri Rama temple.

Similarly in the famous Kodungallur Devi temple nearby as well, there is a tradition of worshipping the Shivalingam at the Thiruvanchikulam Shiva temple prior to worshipping at the temple of the goddess.


With the progression of time, much of these traditions or customs became diluted or unknown, and most laymen worship just the anthropomorphic idols, as they are easier to relate to because of their human figures.

More information in this regard can be found in this below article on the Shivalingam by the Hindu spiritual master Sri Sri Ravi Shankar....

29 November 2012 - QA 2

Even earlier, in the Sanatan Dharma (referring to an earlier name for Hinduism) there were no idols or idol worship as such, but only Havans (ritual in which making offerings into a consecrated fire is the primary action) were performed and Lord Shiva’s pind would be placed to establish his presence. That was it, nothing else would be done.
It was only later that the custom of installing idols came up.

Now, why did the practice of having idols begin?
This was because by seeing the idol a feeling of devotion would arise from within.
The other reason is that when Buddhists and Jains made their temples they would place such beautiful idols at the altar. So then those who followed Sanatan Dharma felt that they should also do something like this. So they also followed the same and began to establish different idols of Lord Vishnu, Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.
You will not find any mention of a practice of installing idols for worship in the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana.
Only the Shiva Linga (Shankar Linga) was installed. That is why only the Shiva Linga was there in the ancient period, which was worshiped by Lord Krishna, Lord Rama and everyone else.~ Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

 

[The Crimson Universe]

This is a valid question. Numerous Shivalingams were found in the sites of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, but no images of Rama or Krishna were found, along with other anthropomorphic idols of gods and goddesses.


In both the Ramayana and Mahabharatha, you can find Parashurama, Rama, Krishna and their archrivals Ravana and Duryodhana worshipping the Shivalingam. However there is no mention of them worshipping anthropomorphic idols of gods and goddesses or of their temples.

This is because in earlier times only the non-anthropomorphic Shivalingam was worshipped by the Hindus.

The worship of the anthropomorphic idols of gods and goddesses in temples came much later on and began mainly due to the influence of Jainism and Buddhism.

The Jains and Buddhists rejected the Vedic disciplines and created their own temples and beautiful idols of Mahavira, Tirthankaras and Buddha for worship.

This persuaded the Hindus too to create anthropomorphic idols of the gods and goddesses for worship along with their temples, in imitation of the Jains and Buddhists.


In all major temples in India devoted to the gods and goddesses, there is a tradition of worshipping the nonanthropomorphic Shivalingam first and then worshipping the anthropomorphic gods or goddess. This is because the Shivalingam is considered the greatest of the 330 million gods and goddesses.


In the famous Guruvayoor temple of Krishna in south India, there is a tradition of worshipping the Shivalingam at the Mamiyoor Shiva temple prior to worshipping at the Guruvayoor temple of Sri Krishna.

Similarly in the Rama temple next to Guruvayoor in Triprayar, there is a tradition of worshipping the Shivalingam at the Melthrikovil Shiva temple prior to worshipping at the Sri Rama temple.

Similarly in the famous Kodungallur Devi temple nearby as well, there is a tradition of worshipping the Shivalingam at the Thiruvanchikulam Shiva temple prior to worshipping at the temple of the goddess.


With the progression of time, much of these traditions or customs became diluted or unknown, and most laymen worship just the anthropomorphic idols, as they are easier to relate to because of their human figures.

More information in this regard can be found in this below article on the Shivalingam by the Hindu spiritual master Sri Sri Ravi Shankar....

29 November 2012 - QA 2

Interesting.
Are there any stories in the scriptures on how the worship of lingam originally started in the ancient times?
Also does this mean that it is Shiva who is the supreme God and not Krishna/Vishnu even after when Krishna claims in Gita that it is Him who descends on this planet when righteousness diminishes?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No problem about being Supreme in Hinduism. Any God or Goddess can be that, depending upon the inclination of the worshiper. The chosen God of Goddess is known as 'Ishta' (sort of 'the focus'). The choice of an 'Ishta' does not bar the worshiper to worship any other God as Goddess. Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism are not in competition.

 

[sayak83]

Even though most hindus consider that hinduism is an eternal religion and that it existed from time immemorial, historians on the other hand believes that the roots of hinduism can be traced back to the Vedic period, with the arrival of the Aryans in the Indian subcontinent (1500 BCE - 500 BCE).

As per historical records, the Aryans brought along with them the vedas and started various types of sacrifices to various devatas/dieties.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the Aryans in the vedic period considered Indra and Agni to be the chief gods. During that period Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma or the Devi didn't rise into prominence. It was later in the Puranic era (500 BCE - 500 CE) when Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and Devi became the chief gods.

Before the arrival of the Aryans, there was the Indus Valley civilization, but little is known to us about their religious practices, like whom they worshipped, who were their chief gods and so on. Since we don't have enough archaeological evidence on the religious practices of the people of Indus Valley, many historians has come to the conclusion that hinduism originated during the arrival of the Aryans.

What are your views on this?

Vedas and Yajnas come with the Aryans. Yoga, Tapsya, Puja, Tantra, deities like Siva, Shakti were from Harappan, South Indian and East Indian heritage. That is my tentative view. They could be assimilated in one system because of the realization of Brahman by ancient sages, the one essence within the various forms.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Phallic worship should be old in India but I could not find much definite evidence. Harappa and Mohanjodaro had some deities resembling Shiva, Mother Goddesses and bulls and even stone and terracotta artifacts resembling 'lingam'.

Later the lingams were placed in a 'yoni' to complete the idea. Yoni and lingam from Kalibangan, equally old and more extensive site than Harappa and Mohanjodaro. (starting 2,500 BCE).
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5ddf8dfc679b0cd6ba4597f9d340924b.webp

 

[ajay0]

Interesting.
Are there any stories in the scriptures on how the worship of lingam originally started in the ancient times?

In most scriptures you can see the likes of Rama, Krishna, Parashurama, Vishnu worshipping the Shivalingam.

Lingam means “Leeyate Gamyate iti Linga”, (from whom the whole Creation 'comes out' and in whom that entire creation 'merges' at the end). Just as “Om” is the primordial vibration from which all other sounds emanate, so do all other forms and shapes emerge from the Shivalingam at the time of creation and return back to it at the time of cosmic dissolution.


Jyotirlingam is an another name for the Shivalingam with 'Jyoti' meaning light in sanskrit.

In the Shiva purana, it is said that Shiva pierced the three words as a huge endless pillar of light, the Jyotirlingam.

The Jyotirlinga is an ancient axis mundi symbol representing the supreme formless (nirguna) reality at the core of creation, out of which the form (saguna) of Shiva appears. The 12 Jyothirlinga shrines, thus are places where Shiva appeared as a fiery column of light.


A female enlightened master of Kerala named Shivayogini Matha (1923-1981) also similarly worshiped the Shivalingam during her days of sadhana, chanting the 'Om namah Shivaya' mantra perceiving Shivalingam as a flame of lamp consecrated in her heart (in her own words).


Hrtpadma karnika madhye, sthira dipa nibhakrtim I
angustha matram, acalam, dhyayed om karam Tsvaram II

One should contemplate on "Om" as Isvara in the heart
resembling an unflickering flame.
— Dhyana Bindu Upanishad, XIX

Also does this mean that it is Shiva who is the supreme God and not Krishna/Vishnu even after when Krishna claims in Gita that it is Him who descends on this planet when righteousness diminishes?

Krishna was a regular and devout worshipper of the Shivalingam, and did not skip this practice even during the Mahabharata war.

In the scriptures the Shivalingam is associated with light. You can also see that there is a correlation between God and light in various world religions.

I have created a thread in this regard...

Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions...

Swami Vivekananda referred to Atharva Veda Samhita and explained in the Paris Congress of Religions, that Shivling actually refers to the beginless and endless Stambha or cosmic pillar of light that is a symbol for the Eternal Brahman.

Swami Vivekananda, a worshipper of the Shivalingam himself, accused the left-handed Tantrik sect of perverting the understanding of Shivalingam to suit and promote their licentious cult and philosophy.

Other perversions of the tantric cult include thuggism or human sacrifices which was condemned by Krishna in the Mahabharatha. The King Jarasandha, who was about to indulge in human sacrifices of a hundred kings to the goddess, was stopped in his endeavor by Krishna, Arjuna and Bheema as contradictory to virtue and vedic injunctions.



The Paris congress

The Swami said that the worship of the Shiva-Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva-Veda Samhitâ sung in praise of the Yupa-Stambha, the sacrificial post. In that hymn a description is found of the beginningless and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman.


The explanation of the Shalagrama-Shila as a phallic emblem was an imaginary invention and, from the very beginning, beside the mark. The explanation of the Shiva-Linga as a phallic emblem was brought forward by the most thoughtless, and was forthcoming in India in her most degraded times, those of the downfall of Buddhism. The filthiest Tântrika literature of Buddhism of those times is yet largely found and practiced in Nepal and Tibet.

Similarly, the philosophical principle of Shivalingam as male and Prakriti (nature) as female gave to symbolic suggestions or metaphors as that indicated by gender symbols in some later scriptures. However this does not take away the fact that the Jyotirlingam, an another name for the Shivalingam, means 'sign of light' with 'Jyoti' meaning light in Sanskrit.