What is Hinduism? A Personal View

arjunm#89:

"of course it's not a religion..it's a cult"

Why not a congregation of cults?

Ranjit#87:

How do you explain the large scale conversion of Bengal?

I do not know enough about the conversion process in Sindh and Punjab. Someone more knowledgeable may throw some light on these. My guess is that the conversion in Sindh was almost wholesale and probably was the result of forcible conversion following the defeat of the local king; most of Sindhi are, I think, relatively recent migrants from Punjab (notice their love for the Sikh scriptures even though there is no record of any Sikh gurus going there. Most of the Punjab conversions, I believe, were rajput and jat converts who emraced the new religion to join the ruling class.

#114:

correction:
"most of Sindhi are, I think, relatively recent migrants from Punjab" should read
most of the Sindhi Hindus, I think, relatively recent migrants from Punjab.

#114:

correction:
"most of Sindhi are, I think, relatively recent migrants from Punjab" should read
most of the Sindhi Hindus, I think, relatively recent migrants from Punjab.

Dear Dost Mittar,

Thanks for sharing your wonderful article with us.

Hinduism looks more like a cultural thing and I talked to few newly converted western Hindus and they told me that worship and love of Hindu gods and deities gave them freedom from painful realities and un answered questions of real life..

Just like most of the religions Hinduism act as an escape from harsh failures like death and lack of true love etc., so ultimately humans start loving their imaginary "beloveds" and hand carved deities ...

Music , devotional songs and never ending rituals keep minds of people occupied and happy..

One sided talk with hand carved deities can be called as a collective neurosis of mankind..??

I also figured out that Sikhism is much simple, very profound and practical philosophy which asks to reach God through serving others..

Hindus burn lot of wood and expensive food items, Ghee etc. during rituals where as Sikhism is more pragmatic and it asks to properly use the "common wealth" of community through utilization of spiritual and physical food in resource centres of temples..

In contrary to various gods and caste system of Hinduism, we find that Sikhism is the latest religious philosophy which talks about oneness of God and equality of all living creatures...

I also noted that Sikh holy book Granth Sahib contains poetry of Muslim mystics...

I wonder why India failed to adopt more simple, evolved and practical message of Sikhism and why approx 1 billion people of this earth follow very complicated Hinduism..??

I also have a question to ask about use of cow's urine by Hindus..do they put "gomutra" or cow's urine and cow's dung in all holy foods served in their homes and temples..??

Is there any law in the modern world which stop them from doing like this..??

Nature Lover,

I have been to many Hindu temples and I have heard of nor seen people putting cow urine in food items.

All the hindus I know have never comsumed Cow Urine.

Perhaps Hinduism's appeal lies in accepting that there is not a single truth. It also believes in equal and opposite truths.

Perhaps the appeal lies in being not very certain. It undrestands, the followers afterall are human beings where a single set of rules might not fit everybody. Its ability to not to issue a fatwa on a Hindu like me could also be a plus.

I know I will probably be lynched by the sangh parivar on this site or they will send Modi and his goons on my trail and since the The Guru of the Sangh parivar failed to even mention this in his screed about the hindu religion.

I hope this helps some bigots to learn that Sindh and Hind were always two different countries and They have no claim whatsoever over the Indus civilization so save your breath!

The whole of Pakistan, Kashmir and East Afghanistan as Sapta Sindhu -- the land of seven rivers. In Rigveda it is referred to as Sapta Sindhva, while India is named Bharat Varsa (the land of the sons of Bharat, a legendary Emperor).Thus, there were two countries in this sub-continent: Sapta Sindhva and Bharat Varsa. The Assyrians in the 7th century B.C. knew the north-western part of the sub-continent as Sinda. However, when India began to be called Hind by Persians and Arabs, and Ind by Greeks and Romans, the local people continued to call their land, Sind. This distinction continued for centuries. Arab geographers, historians and travelers also called the entire area from the Arabian Sea to the range of Kashmir mountains Sind. As such, there were always two countries in the sub-continent -- Sind and Hind. The present Pakistan (including Kashmir and a major portion of Afghanistan) constituting one country, and India, another.

Here is a little note about the population composition post#114 by the Parivar chief!

"As regards the composition of the population of Sind Province (before Partition) the two main stocks that inhabit Sind are related to, and common, one with the Punjab and another with Baluchistan. The majority stock is that of Rajputs and Jats who are the descendants of Sakas, Kushans and Huns who also constitute the majority of the population the Punjab. During Kalhora rule a number of Jat tribes such as the Sials, Joyas and Khawars came from the Punjab and settled in Sind. They are called Sirai i.e., men from the north and speak Siraiki language.

Two main Rajput tribes of Sind are: the Samma, a branch of the Yadav Rajputs who inhabit the eastern and lower Sind and Bahawalpur; and the Sumra who, according to the 1907 edition of the Gazetteer are a branch of the Parwar Rajputs. Among others are the Bhuttos, Bhattis, Lakha, Sahetas, Lohanas, Mohano, Dahars, Indhar, Chachar, Dhareja, Rathors, Dakhan, Langah etc. The Mohano tribe is spread over Makran, Sind and southern Punjab. They are also identified with the 'Mallah' of the Punjab and both have in common a sub-section called Manjari. All these, old Sindhi tribes are known under the common nomenclature of Sammat.

The smaller stock is that of Baluchi tribes settled in various parts of Sind mostly during the last five hundred years or so Since they were martial people and ruled over Sind for some time before the arrival of the British, they acquired vast lands in the province with the result that a large number of present-day Sindhi landlords are of Baluch origin. According to the 1941 census, which was the last one held before Partition Baluchis formed 23% of the total Muslim population of Sind. Among the Baluchi tribes inhabiting Sind are the Rind, Dombki, Jakhrani, Leghari, Lashari, Chandio, Karmati, Korai, Jatoi, Burdi, Khosa, Jamali, Umrani, Bugti, Marri, Mazari, Talpur, Brohi, Nizamani, Buledhi, Karrani, Bozdar, Nukharni, Magsi etc. These tribes are spread over Baluchistan, Sind and the south-western districts of the Punjab.

Yet a third stock of Sindhi population comprises of the descendants of Muslim conquerors, administrators and missionaries who were mostly Arabs, Persians, Turks or Mughals. They are a small minority settled in cities and towns but so deeply absorbed and blended with the other components of the population that all the three together have evolved a distinct language and culture. Of this third element Arabs have contributed most to the development of Sindhi language and literature and to the advancement of its intellectual and cultural activities."

HP,

They say that the inhabitants of the indus valley were dravidians?

"Almost all the religious books of the Hindus, particularly the Dharma Shastras regarded Sakas and Yavanas, the inhabitants of Pakistan in those days, as M'leechas (impure). The Atharva-veda regarded Pakistan as outlandish. Similarly they were unanimous in considering Vangals i.e., Bengalees, as barbarous, outside the pale of Aryans--outscastes, outsiders. Further, they were all termed dasyus (slaves) and rakashas (devils). According to a passage in the Mahabharata, Yavanas and Gandharas (people of Pakistan), and Vangals (Bangladeshis) are sinful creatures in earth. They did not respect the Brahmins and their religion; did not follow their laws, spoke different language and were therefore detested and despised by the Aryan high castes. Inter-mixture with them was prohibited. Patanjali speaks of Yavanas and Sakas as sudras and relegates them outside Aryavarta (A History of Indian Culture, by Radhakumad Mukherjee).

The strange fact is that the basin of the Indus and the Punjab West of Sutlej came to be regarded as impure land by the Brahmins of interior India at quite an early date. Orthodox Hindus are still unwilling to cross the Indus, and the whole of West Punjab between that river and the Sutlej is condemned as unholy ground, unfit for the residence of strict votaries of Dharma (Oxford History of India, by VA Smith, 3rd edition, edited by Percival Spear)."

#121 Posted by vengatramanan
"They say that the inhabitants of the indus valley were dravidians?"

yes. Some were. They still live in Dadu district and in tharparkar and along the coast! I am not sure whether the Aryan and Dravidian distinction strictly apply in Sindh!

HP,

They say that the inhabitants of the indus valley were dravidians?

"The Jat's spirit of freedom and equality refused to submit to Brahminical Hinduism and in its turn drew the censure of the privileged Brahmins of the Gangetic plain who pronounced that 'No Aryan should stay in the Punjab for even two days because the Punjabis refused to obey the priests (A History of Sikhs, by Kushwant Singh).

The inroads of those foreigners blotted out the memory of the memory of the Aryan immigration from the North-West (i.e. Pakistan) which is not traceable either in the popular puranic literature or in the oral traditions of the people. To the east of Sutlej (i.e. India) the Aryans were usually safe from foreign invasions and free to work out their own way of life undisturbed. They proceeded to do so and thus to create Hinduism with its inseparable institution of caste (Oxford History of India, by VA Smith, 3rd edition, edited by Percival Spear).

It is noteworthy that according to the Bandayana Dharma Shastra the Indus Valley was considered impure and outside the limits of Aryandom proper. Any one who went there had to perform sacrifices of purification on return. (Tribes in Ancient India, by BC Law) "

"The Brhat-Samhita mentions Vokkana country as situated in the western region of Indian subcontinent (Pakistan). In chapter XVI, V.35, Varaha Mihira includes the Vokkana among those belonging to Rahu, together with barbarians, evil-doers and the like (Roruka: was it Moenjodaro? by Pranavitana, Studies in asian History: Proceedings of the Asian History Congress held at New Delhi in 1961).

In later vedic literature there are references to confederation of un-Aryan tribes living in the north-east and north-west of the sub-continent in the first half of the 1st millennium B.C. Pundra and Vanga in Bengal, Madra in the Ravi-Chenab Doab (The Peoples of Pakistan, by Yu Gankovsky).

While the Aryans by now expanded far into India their old home in the Punjab and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where the Vedic sacrifices are not performed (The Wonder that was India, by AL Basham).

Both Buddhism and Jainism flourished in Sind and it had revolted against the superiority of Brahmins. They ignored their Gods and denied the Vedas (Sindhi Culture, by UT Thakur). "

#124 Double post. Sorr, dunno how it got there.

#117, #118
As this cow urine drinking story is thrown up every once in a while, let us put it in right perspective. Hindus don’t drink cow urine as a religious practice. But it constitutes a part of the Ayurveda – Indian natural medicine of which many muslims and christians are also adept.

Urine of a cow, which has recently given birth is considered having great medicinal value for various liver & other digestive ailments. It is given after purification and not more than a spoonful. My own brother was brought back to life when he was 2 years old and doctors had given up on him only on cow urine as medication combined with some herbs.

"The Hindus never built any holy city or temple or regarded any river in the current Pakistan sacred. The Punjab Gaztteer Vol. XX says that "the Punjab can show but few Hindu antiquities." It may be noted that the remains of pre-Vedic (Indus Valley Civilization) and Buddhist periods are found in Pakistan but not of the Hindu period which came between the two and again appeared to a limited extent after the fall of Buddhism."