All you are suggesting is your view of Hinduism compared to the Abrahamic sects. You don't need to have anything in common with any other Hindu, that is the whole purpose of Hinduism.
Every individual has a right to there own beliefs.
Then there is no religion called Hinduism and term can be then best described as a category label to describe the religions, way of life, culture, history, ethnicity and arts of the Indian people and is then geographically bound and has no relevance to the rest of the world. However even this definition is problematic for then we would have to consider Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism Hinduism too and Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs would not accept that. Hence the label is contradictory and useless.
Again, looking at Indian History as told by invaders and people who intended division in the first place, as i said the words Bharat and Aryavarta just proves you incorrect.
No, this is the history of India as agreed upon by historians who study history as a discipline. History is a secular evidence-based field. Historians can be British, Indian, Arabic, Chinese or any nationality; they can be Hindu, Muslim Christian or any religion, they can be male or female, high caste or low caste. Secular fields of study are not geocentric. They are evidence based.
In the other thread you accused linguists of the same. You will not get very far by denying scholarship, as much as a creationist does not get very far by denying evolution. In order to disprove scholarship you need to engage with the evidence, but dismissing it will get you nowhere, but in our modern world today we decide matters through peer-review of evidence. Sure there are people outside the loop who don't play by the rules - they have no credibility.
In the end is these historian scholars who will decide what gets published in official academic text books on history of India and what will get taught in education.
I am sure you are familiar with an Indian scholar called Rajiv Malhotra? Well, Rajiv Malholra was influential in getting official academic text books published on Hinduism in California state schools revised based on the thrust of scholarship - which goes to prove if your scholarship is strong and evidence based you can indeed exert influence in the field.
Regarding your argument of the use of terms "Bharatvarsha" and "Aryavarta" does not disprove historical scholarship of India, for these terms do not specify what the geographical boundaries of India are, they could be referring to only a specific state or kingdom or they could be referring to just the whole sub-continent, but the term does not suggest political unity.
Ahh, in other words you are parroting the belief of the British, when they decided that the great Philosophy and Vedas could not have come from backward brown skin people, so they theorised the AIT.
While doing so you cant remove the place that the Vedantic philosophy took birth, it was India not any other country.
Well, this argument doe not apply to me, because I am not saying any racist things like Vedanta could not have come from brown skin people and nor do I accept the AIT theory. Nor am I saying that Vedanta philosophy did not take birth in India. However, just because Vedanta philosophy took birth in India does not mean belongs to India, anymore than the scientific method taking birth in England does not mean it belongs to England, or the laws of gravity taking birth in England is the property of England.
Vedanta philosophy is based on universal principles and hence it cannot be the property of a single people. Moreover, Vedantic like philosophy appears all over the world in Christian Gnosticism, Sufism, Neo-platonism, Egyptian mystery schools and Kabbalh.
Upanishads are just the end part of the Aryanaka and Brahmana works, they are not revealed scriptures. the rishis were just trying to understand the Vedas.
You are just picking up the Upanishads without Knowing what the Upanishads are.
And how would you prove this?
Nope, because none of the philosophies of the Upanishads are found in the Vedas. In the Vedas we find a polytheistic religion, similar to the other IE religions at the time, and only in the later hymns are clear indications of philosophical thought which foreshadows the Upanishads found, but in pretty rudimentary form and few and far between. This is why the Upanishads are called Uttra Mimassa(new tradition) Even in the Upanishads the core concepts that later form Vedanta Hinduism are not formulated into philosophical philosophies, this is later done by the Darsanas.
Its not a religion then. If there is no God, its not technically a religion, its a Spiritual Philosophy.
A religion does not have to believe in god to be regarded a religion, like Buddhism and Jainism are religions, but do not believe in God. However, yes Vedantic Hinduism basically is pure spirituality. However, it is a religion because it is based on universal truths which cover areas considered supernatural(like reincarnation, spiritual planes of reality, souls, spiritual beings, siddhis) and cover moral areas too(like karma) Hence it is more of a religion.
Alright, lest see how infallible this religion is,
First Define Maya.
Maya is the field(kshetra) of consciousness. Maya is also described as the creative energy of consciousness.
Many would say Maya is illusion, and if this world is an illusion then your wasting your time.
Maya is neither real or unreal, but it is the source of all material reality from ishvara, jiva down to the physical bhutas. Yes, these are ultimately unreal ony having naam-rupa for their existence. However, it is no waste of time for the individual jiva who is in bondage, because the jiva is compelled to act by the forces of the gunas(of maya) so the jiva cannot just choose not to act.
So although this world is an illusion, it still holds practical significance, we still have to eat, drink, earn a living, socialize and do our religious practices insofar as it propels us along to salvation. This is why in Hinduism artha, karma, dharma are considered legitimate pursuits of life, but they eventually must culminate in moksha.
Nobody Maya is like the field of radiation of the sun. It is not created by the sun but it exists as an aspect of the sun. Maya is not created. It is an eternal aspect of Brahman.
Is Mind Consciousness? and liberation from What?
Mind is not consciousness, mind referring to the anthakarana(inner instrument) is a product of prakriti/maya(matter) and is jada(inert and dead) but it animated through the reflection of consciousness which makes it seem to be sentient, in the same the moon reflecting the sun's light makes it seem to be be luminous. Liberation(moksha) is when the jivatman attains jnana that it is not the body, mind, intellect, ego etc, which it achieves not through book-knowledge, but through meditation.
Please explain Yoga of Ashtanga Kriya Yoga.
Ashtanga Kriya Yoga, also known as Raja Yoga, is the Yoga of meditation prescribed by Patanjali the founder of the Yoga Darsana to scientifically describe the process by which Jnana is attained and bring about liberation. It is attained through
chitt vritti nirodha the cessation of the modifications of the field of mind, meaning the entire field of prakriti whose activity of gunas cause the jiva to be projected into this empirical reality and experience the dualties here, when the guna activity is ceased through meditation the jiva attains liberation and realizes Brahman.
So here you admit that India was United at some point when they were practising the Upanishads. So your statement above about India being never United is incorrect.
I never said India was not united. I said that has been united for only brief periods in its history, but for the most part has existed as a fragmented entity and not a politically unified entity. The Mauraya empire appeared during the philosophical period of India and India was unified enough to be able to withstand the Greek empire, which had conquered huge parts of the world. Alexandra the Great and his armies were terrified of the united Maurayan empire that they did not dare cross the Ganga river after their relatively trivial conquest over King Porous, but even this conquest is dubious, for Alexandra the King failed to capture the territory of Porous and even gave up his previously captured territory in Afghanistan(Ghandara)
neither can any other religion. Including Vedantic Hinduism.
Indeed it can, I just answered all the main questions that define a religions(founders, history, central doctrines, practices) comprehensively and definitively.
And you are calling these cultures dead traditions.
The Birth place of the Vedantic philosophy was India, if you are suggesting to remove it from India, it is going against Vasudeva kutumbukum, removing Hinduism/vedantic from India will be like taking a Child away from its Mother.
Vedantic Hinduism can be removed as much from India, as the steam engine can from England and the computer can from America, and the law of gravitation can from England. Even a child born from a mother, once born, is no longer her property and then has an independent life of its own. Just because something was invented in India, does not mean it is bound to India. Cricket was invented in England, and it has a bigger craze in India than it does in England.
It is silly to make such overgeneralizing statements that a tantric who wanders in the graveyard knows more about Hinduism than anybody. I met such tantriks when I was in India, and some of them were scoundarals and criminals and in a developed country would be considered substance-abusers. In fact one of them attempted to entice me by trying to sell me drugs, and then pretended he had selected me as his disciple for giving me secret tantric knowledge, and then tried to get me to meet him in early hours of morning in a secluded place......(I shiver as to what his intentions were)
