How old is Hinduism

[Wannabe Yogi]

The second source is a group called the Aryans, a nomadic group of people who might have migrated to India from Central Asia.

The scientific evidence points out the the Aryans could not have come from out side of India. Aryan is a term of respect not an ethnic group.

 

[Andal]

The Aryan invasion is a myth of 19th century Europe. It isn't real! Forget what your college professor has said or anyone else for that matter. It never ceases to surprise me that this lie is still being taught as truth. There were no Aryans outside of India. In fact the latest genetics studies suggests that the earliest people came from africa then went to India and from India they spread to East Asia and Europe.

The only evidence used to support the Aryan Invasion theory was that there are linguistic similarities between Sanskrit and the languages of Europe. It never occurred to them that it originated in India. Also the "Arabic Numeral System" isn't Arabic at all but comes directly out of Vedic society.

Those who stood by the Aryan Invasion did so out of an underlying racist current in their societies. The latest excavations of Harrapa and Mohenjo-daro show evidence of Vedic religion long before the alleged invasion. This includes images of Shiva and Shakti as well as purification baths.

So how to date Hinduism then? I don't think we can. Ram lived 10,000 years ago in Vedic culture and Krishna lived 5,000 years ago in a Vedic culture so what do we do.

I think also it is mistaken to draw a line between Hinduism and Vedic religion as they are one in the same. Hinduism is a made up term to refer to people east of the Sindu. Our religion is Sanatana Dharma which originates with the Vedas.

((sorry about my rant, I just don't like seeing falsehoods about Dharm)

Hari Om!

 

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

The Aryan invasion is a myth of 19th century Europe. It isn't real! Forget what your college professor has said or anyone else for that matter. It never ceases to surprise me that this lie is still being taught as truth. There were no Aryans outside of India. In fact the latest genetics studies suggests that the earliest people came from africa then went to India and from India they spread to East Asia and Europe.

The only evidence used to support the Aryan Invasion theory was that there are linguistic similarities between Sanskrit and the languages of Europe. It never occurred to them that it originated in India. Also the "Arabic Numeral System" isn't Arabic at all but comes directly out of Vedic society.

No homeland outside of Bharata-Varsa is designated as ever having been theirs. Aryans are not a "racial" group, and neither are "Dravidians".....Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome, microsatellite DNA, and mitochondrial DNA in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent.

Sources

1. Sahoo, Sanghamitra; Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems and V. K. Kashyap (2006-01-24). "A Prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios" Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of United States of America 103 (4): 843–848.

2. Sengupta, S.; et al. (2006-02-01). "Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y- chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of Central Asian pastoralists." Am J Hum Genet. (The American Society of Human Genetics) 78 (2): 201–221.

3. Sharma, S.; Saha A, Rai E, Bhat A, Bamezai R. (2005). "Human mtDNA hypervariable regions, HVR I and II, hint at deep common maternal founder and subsequent maternal gene flow in Indian population groups." J Hum Genet. 50 (10): 497–506.

The eighteenth and nineteenth century inhabitants of India knew who they were and where they came from....they didn't require the butchered revision of their history by European "Indologists". Klaus Klostermaier, Director of Academic Affairs at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies (1997-1998) has said, the so-called "Aryan Invasion Theory" is purely speculative, and we don't have a shred of evidence- either archaeological or literary- that such an invasion ever occurred.

The Battle of Kurukshetra took place in what is now the state of Haryan in the Punjab province of northern India in approximately 3100 BC, and although various nineteenth century European "Indologist -friendly" dates have been assigned thereto by white ethnocentric "experts" (no doubt originally to make its occurrence in India's history more "Bible-friendly" {Noah's flood, having occurred around 2500 BC, as per Archbishop Ussher's Old Testament chronology}), the Mahabharata itself provides detailed astronomical data which corroborates the date i have given.

Indian archaeologist T.K.V. Rajan offered a presentation at the CP Art Center in Chennai entitled : In Search of Krishna- a well-documented collection of material about the excavations conducted at the various sites connected with the life of Krishna and the events of the Mahabharata. Here are a few of the things that were brought up:

This civilisation is characterized by the use of iron. Hastinapur, between Meerut and Mawana in Uttar Pradesh, is now a forgotten village, but excavations in 1952 revealed the existence of Vidur-ka-tilla (Vidura's palace), Draupadi-ki-rasoi (Draupadi's kitchen) and Draupadi Ghat (for bathing), besides copper utensils, iron seals, ornaments made of gold and silver, terracotta discs and several oblong-shaped ivory dice used in the game of chauper. Iron objects numbering 135, and which included arrow and spearheads, shafts, tongs, hooks, axes and knives indicate the existence of a vigorous industry. There are indications of brick-lined roads and drainage systems, and an agro-livestock based economy.

ys,
bmd.

 

[Andal]

No homeland outside of Bharata-Varsa is designated as ever having been theirs. Aryans are not a "racial" group, and neither are "Dravidians".....Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome, microsatellite DNA, and mitochondrial DNA in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent.

Sources

1. Sahoo, Sanghamitra; Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems and V. K. Kashyap (2006-01-24). "A Prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios" Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of United States of America 103 (4): 843–848.

2. Sengupta, S.; et al. (2006-02-01). "Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y- chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of Central Asian pastoralists." Am J Hum Genet. (The American Society of Human Genetics) 78 (2): 201–221.

3. Sharma, S.; Saha A, Rai E, Bhat A, Bamezai R. (2005). "Human mtDNA hypervariable regions, HVR I and II, hint at deep common maternal founder and subsequent maternal gene flow in Indian population groups." J Hum Genet. 50 (10): 497–506.

The eighteenth and nineteenth century inhabitants of India knew who they were and where they came from....they didn't require the butchered revision of their history by European "Indologists". Klaus Klostermaier, Director of Academic Affairs at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies (1997-1998) has said, the so-called "Aryan Invasion Theory" is purely speculative, and we don't have a shred of evidence- either archaeological or literary- that such an invasion ever occurred.

The Battle of Kurukshetra took place in what is now the state of Haryan in the Punjab province of northern India in approximately 3100 BC, and although various nineteenth century European "Indologist -friendly" dates have been assigned thereto by white ethnocentric "experts" (no doubt originally to make its occurrence in India's history more "Bible-friendly" {Noah's flood, having occurred around 2500 BC, as per Archbishop Ussher's Old Testament chronology}), the Mahabharata itself provides detailed astronomical data which corroborates the date i have given.

Indian archaeologist T.K.V. Rajan offered a presentation at the CP Art Center in Chennai entitled : In Search of Krishna- a well-documented collection of material about the excavations conducted at the various sites connected with the life of Krishna and the events of the Mahabharata. Here are a few of the things that were brought up:

This civilisation is characterized by the use of iron. Hastinapur, between Meerut and Mawana in Uttar Pradesh, is now a forgotten village, but excavations in 1952 revealed the existence of Vidur-ka-tilla (Vidura's palace), Draupadi-ki-rasoi (Draupadi's kitchen) and Draupadi Ghat (for bathing), besides copper utensils, iron seals, ornaments made of gold and silver, terracotta discs and several oblong-shaped ivory dice used in the game of chauper. Iron objects numbering 135, and which included arrow and spearheads, shafts, tongs, hooks, axes and knives indicate the existence of a vigorous industry. There are indications of brick-lined roads and drainage systems, and an agro-livestock based economy.

ys,
bmd.

Thank you Prabhu for this post. Very well written and supported

Hari Bol!

 

[rcscwc]

How old is Hinduism? There is nothing like Hinduism. It was a term coined by the British about 200 years ago.

Sanatan Dhsarma is old beyond reckoning/

 

[rcscwc]

I suppose, but are you REALLY counting Vedas as hinduism? They don't really teach the same sorts of things... for instance, the Isa Upanishad suggests that we should NOT eat any flesh of any creature unless it is already dead.

On the other hand, some traditions from back then also discuss ancient horse sacrifices that took place in order for the new king to "show off' more or less. These are two conflicting scriptures. Depending on what modern Hindus do, wouldnt' it be fairer to date your traditions to the furthest back those traditions go, versus how old the Vedas are?

Upanishads are part of what are called Vedanta, explanatory addendum to Vedas. panishads disapproved of sacrifices, as as meat eating.

For showing horse sacrifice is better than killing and burning of the bones of priests who are nor worshipping your god. OT refers.

PS: Isha Upanishad, aka Ishavasya, is one of the shortest and has no reference to flesh eating.

 

[rcscwc]

Well, that may be so. I did learn about Hinduism in a Western University... however the professor who taught it made sure we were all aware of "orientalism" and how it affects our readings. He tried to give us the best translations, and really made an effort to help us understand it in a "non-west" light. However, it wasn't a very in depth study. We didn't spent a lot of time arguing about the age of Hinduism itself. The professor claimed that most people believe, at least in academia, that it's around 3,000-4,000 years old. BUT, he also made the point to say that ancient Hinduism really isn't anything like modern Hinduism is today. *shrug* I only know a little after that.

Did he tell you also about occidentalism and how it affects your reading? That was more important.

Even the "best" translations can be tainted. Max Muller too gave "best" translations, but he himself claimed that his agenda was discredit Hinduism.

A shallow study would tell you what some westren "indologists" claim, that RV is younger than 1500 BC, or not older than 3000 BC with a cap of 4000 BC, when the world was "created"

Many in academis still talk of Aryan Invasion, when it has been disproved more than a century earlier.

hinduism has a unique capability. It goes on changing and adjusting while remaining the same at core.

 

[rcscwc]

I think you are right that this whole conversation is very hard one. I also feel that this has very little to do with the spiritual path we call Hinduism. It is important because the old Euro centered views that White men came down from the north and brought the vedas with them to teach the Indigenous peoples of India religion is not only bad history but its also borders on racism.

Please don't think I am calling any one racist I am not. The Aryan Invasion theory comes from a time when Indigenous people were never given there due.

White, tall, red haired, blue eyed men came down to India, and within 200 years became shorter, black haired, black eyed men, whose most revered figures are black in skin, Rama, Krishna Goddess Kali etc.!! Some like Brahma are yellow too, as is the man known to be the Guru, Brihaspati.

 

[Andal]

The Vedas very much so count as Hinduism. In fact it is acceptance of the authority of the Vedas that makes one a Hindu. (well a astika Hindu anyway) Upanishadic literature is considered one and the same with the 4 Vedas and to accept one while denying the other doesn't make much sense as they are both Shruti.

As for the Ashvamedha, I am not of aware of the horse being eaten by the sacrificer. It is cut up and thrown on the ritual fire but I have not heard of it then being consumed by the attendees (although I could be wrong) Also many of the sacrafices contained within the Vedas are put into the context of Treta Yuga where such yajnas could be performed properly and where the karmic remifications were different. I know of maybe once or twice in history where this yajna has been documented as taking place.

Hari Om!

 

[bansal2008]

You have to start distinguishing between Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma..Sanatana Dharma is eternal.. all other religions started in Kali YUGA and have their traces/origins in Sanatana Dharma.

 

[rcscwc]

I suppose, but are you REALLY counting Vedas as hinduism? They don't really teach the same sorts of things... for instance, the Isa Upanishad suggests that we should NOT eat any flesh of any creature unless it is already dead.

On the other hand, some traditions from back then also discuss ancient horse sacrifices that took place in order for the new king to "show off' more or less. These are two conflicting scriptures. Depending on what modern Hindus do, wouldnt' it be fairer to date your traditions to the furthest back those traditions go, versus how old the Vedas are?

You forget one MAJOR thing. Hinduism is actually Sanatan Dharma, the eternal. SD is not static, but changes with dynamic equillibrium. Never the applecart is upset, though it moves.

There were lots of developements. Vedas were followed by Brahmanas, followed by Aryankas and finally by Upanishds. All of the are considered Vedanta ie Addendum at the End of Vedas.

Brahmanas did have animal sacrifice, but so what? Islam till today has animal sacrifice and you do not wonder WHY!!

Upanishads were definitely against animal sacrifices. What conflict is there? Nothing. Is updation a crime?

Yes, ashvmedha yajna was performed by VERY powerful kings desiring exapansion of their suzerainity not exapansion of terrotory by annexation. It was not performed by every kinglet. In puranas, not even half a dozen instances can be found. Do you know what it was?

A king used to release a horse with a placard: Accept my paramountcy OR fight. In most cases there were only token fights, AS the kshatriyas could not ignore challenges. Almost none of the challenging was killed, EXCEPT in battle. None was deposed. The heir apparent of the killed kings were coronated too. But most submitted after a token fight.

All those "vanquished" kings were invited, they came with gifts and tithes, and went back with RETURN gifts. All were honored and duly saluted. None was slighted. In fact the paramount Emperor welcomed them and had their feet WASHED!

UNPRECENTED in any other "civilisation" where vanquished kings were massacred and their families sold into slavery.

 

[bansal2008]

^^^^in addition to the above post's reply to "Buttons" comment..
I would like to add that Hinduism is also called YUGA Dharma. Read this for quick understanding ---> Yuga Dharma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yuga Dharma is that aspect of dharma that is valid for a Yuga, an epoch or age as established by Hindu tradition. The other aspect of dharma is Sanatan Dharma, dharma which is not subject to change.

Hinduism is also called YUG DHARMA. The set that comprises the minor laws, which guide the working of our everyday life. These have nothing to do with the other principles. Even in India, these minor laws have been changing all the time. Customs of one age, of one yuga, have not been the customs of another, and as yuga come after yuga, they will still have to change.

Here is first lesson on hindu scriptures.
Hindu scriptures writings are broken into two groups: Śruti writings (such as the Vedas) regarded as timeless in character, and Smriti, writings that focus on less timeless elements. Sanatan Dharma is based on the Shruti writings, while Yuga Dharma is based on the Smitris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If our ancestors killed animals or ate meat, it was seen okay to do so since the Yugas were different. There were different circumstances, difference in thinking. Animal sacrifices in Yajna was done not for personal gains but for the welfare of the whole humanity.

No system in the world is completely foolproof or wholly acceptable. Even the present social and political system is not perfect. If some flaws creeps into a system it can be remedied. Our ancient saints and sages have suggested to us a panacea for tackling such unwarranted situations:

yaani asmakam suchritani, tani tavya upasthani, no itranani..(Taittiriya Upanishad, I-II-2)

This means good actions of others should be embraced and imitated and not the rest. Acting upon this precept we can keep up the good and give up the bad. Our welfare lies in carrying on our good conduct, actions, and intentions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

OM

 

[Satsangi]

I agree with zenzero- with one difference. The Sanatana Dharma is eternal and has always been there during creation as well as destruction and before nothing existed. It manifested with the creation in the form of Omkar which is the source of everything in Sanatan Dharma.
Regards

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

It manifested with the creation in the form of Omkar which is the source of everything in Sanatan Dharma.

Omkar too is perceived differently by different individuals.
Truth is there exits a soundless sound which is the source of creation.
Dharma is only a way back to that source.
Sanatan dharma is a label to understand that dharma itself is eternal like existence itself.

Love & rgds

 

[santdasji]

Yes i agree with Zenzero here, Dharm is also eternal like existence itself.

 

[Satsangi]

Omkar is only only one; how one "perceives" is ones problem; it actually needs to be "perceived without perceptive senses"; hope this makes sense.
Regards

 

[TatTvamAsi]

Sanatana Dharma is TIMELESS ORDER. It is beyond time.

Having said that, does anyone subscribe to the actual dating of the "Yugas"? This Kalpa, the Svetavaraha Kalpa, is supposed to have begun ~2 Billion years ago! There is no evidence for human/advanced civilization on this planet at that time. Perhaps it includes other planets?

 

[Satsangi]

It is not necessary that there be humans during the start of Kalpa; may be dinosaurs were there!! LoL.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Some idea of kalpas available at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(time_unit)

Love & rgds

 

[santdasji]

Omkaar is sanatan, shashvat, aprakrut, avinashi just like Bhagwan. It is His just liek the sanatan dharma. No date on it.