The Myth of Hinduism

[Guest guest]

Dearest Mother Kalima,

 

I have read that you are interested in

teaching your children about Hinduism.

 

I would like to help in that goal. It is also

a goal of mine.

 

Dear Sister Kalima, if you wish to teach the

truth, you must free yourserf from the whitewash

first.

 

Best regards,

rastanaga

-------------

 

The Myth of Hinduism

 

Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the

English colonialsts in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance

is evidenced by the fact that none of the travellers who

visited India before English rule used the word `Hindu' or

`Sanatana'. This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia

Britannica, which states :

 

" The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British

writers. "

-- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ]

 

In other words, the founding father of `Hinduism' is an

Englishman ! Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or any other

religious text prior to 1830 AD are the terms `Hindu' or

`Sanatana Dharma' used. Not a single inscription contains

the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana' prior to the Muslim era.

 

African Origin of Sudroid Shaivism

 

The Aryans who followed the `astika' Brahminist religions

of Vedism and Vaishnavism (comprising the 6 orthodox schools)

obliterated the Sudroid religion of Shaivism from most of

North India by destroying countless Shaiva temples and racially

exterminating Sudroids. Shaivism is related to native

African religion as is evident from :

 

Shiva's Name Absent in Vedas - The name `Shiva' does not

occur even once as a name of a god in the Vedas. Moreover,

the phallus worshippers are disparagingly referred to as

`shishna-devas' and as `Dasyus' in the Vedic texts.

It is thus absurd to claim Shiva is a Vedic god. Only Brahmin

historians who are experts at distorting history can put forth

such ludicrous lunacies.

 

Dravidian Etymology of Shiva - The word `Shiva' is of

Dravidian etymology, `civa' meaning `reddened' or `angry' in

Tamil. There is no sensible etymology from Sanskrit, although

wild fantasies have been set forth by the Brahmins and

Vaishnavas, claiming it is derived from `si'.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Different Indian Races

 

Sometimes definitions are put forward hypothesising that

`Hindu' is a racial term, and that there supposedly exists

`A Hindu Race'. This is a completely false guess:

 

* Sudroids are Africoid - Anthropological investigations

have revealed that the Sudras consist of several Black races,

some akin to Australoids (the Kolarians or Austric speakers)

and some akin to the Africans (the Dravidoids). Recent genetic

analyses have confirmed this view, and much evidence from

archaeology, physical anthropology, etc. prove this fact.

The view that the Sudras represent a differentiate of the Aryan race

is wholly false, as it cannot explain differences in physical

anthropology such as the flat Sudric nose (plattyrhinism) and thick

lips.

 

* Indo-Aryans - The Indo-Aryans are of Caucasoid stock, quite

unrelated to the black-skinned aboriginal Negroid-Australoids.

Linguistically, physiognomically and genetically the

Indo-Aryans are closely related to Europoids.

 

* Rajputs are Scythian - The Rajputs are descendants of Scythic

(East Iranic) immigrants who entered India much after the Aryans.

Although false genealogies were invented by the Aryan Brahmins

in order to subvert the Rajput religion of Solarism (`Saura')

and convert them to the 6 astika schools of Brahmanism, a

detailed analysis shows that the Rajputs are Scythics.

 

* The Indo-Islamic (Mughalloid) Race - The Muslims of South Asia

are overwhelmingly descendants of `Foreign Mussulman Immigrants',

ie. Arabic, Iranic and Turkic races. Even in Bangladesh,

more than half of the Muslims are of `Aristocratic Foreign'

(`ashraf') descent. They are hence not Aryan converts.

 

* Mongoloids - Pure Mongoloids inhabit the Himalayas, and the

extreme north-east. Genetic analyses have shown them to be more

closely related to Chinese and Japanese peoples, a fact which

is also borne out by their physiognomy and languages.

 

* Indo-Mon-Khmer Race - The majority of East Indics (Assamics,

Vangics, Odrics etc.), except the Aryan upper castes and the

Kolarian lower castes, are of Indic Mon-Khmer (a branch

of Mongoloids or East Asiatics) stock. Sir Risley has amply

demonstrated this stratification in East India

 

There is hence no `One Hindu Race'. There are, and have been,

a multitide of perpetually conflicting different races. All

attempts to base a definition of `Hindu' on a racial basis

have failed and have been discarded. It is thus clear that

Hinduism never was one monolithic religion. Such a concept was

invented much later, during the 19th-20th centuries during

Anglo-Brahmin ascendancy.

 

ref: http://www.dalitstan.org/books

[Guest guest]

Dear rasozoi! I will tell you essence of sanatana dharma in few

words "realise your Self" your are not the body you are atman(sat-

chit-ananda) that's it that all. Thanks for your reference, for your

kind information dalitistan.com is a full fledged Hindu bashing

website.

You don't find anything pertaining to self realisation there,

what you find are the views of a deranged ,hate monger. Those are not

the views of Self-realised souls like Ammachi or Ramana Maharshi. A

person is not Brahmin by his birth but by his conduct, is it possible

to call a person doctor simply because his fathar is a doctor. A

person is Brahmin if he realises Brahman( absolute), for example

Ammachi is not born to Brahmin, but she is a realised soul. Similarly

seer Valmiki was a high way robber ,a ferocious decoit eventually

changed and written ramayana. Vyasa credited for compiling Vedas was

born to SATYAVATI she was a daughter of fisherman. The seer of

chandogya upanishad stya kama jabali,was a son of prostitute jabali.

Angulimaan who later became monk was a high way robber, who use to

chop people hands and use to hang them arround his neck, he changed

after he met Budda. Similarly Tusli das of Ramcharit manas was a

sensualist who was over attached to his wife,later was fed up of his

behaviuor later he became staunch devotee of Rama. Radha was a

devotee of krishna, she was from a shepard's family. Bakhta Kanappa

the famous devotee of Shiva was a tribal man, the list is endless.

These are all self realised people who enriched the religion of

sanatana dharma, they don't come from brahmin's caste, but still they

are brahmins because they realised brahman. Through out the ages

Hinduism was seasoned by bakthas every body adding his divine

flavour, so it does'nt have origin or a particular founder or a

particular book.

It is totally ridiculus to call siva was a south Indian god, in

fact to many shiva temples are found in north india than south. The

prominent being none other Kashi vishawanath. Amarnath is in Jammu,

similarly mount kailas and Manas sarovar in Tibet. The biggest Hindu

Temple in Nepal is Pahupathinath temple. There were numerous siva

temples in Pakistan before partition, even few hundred hindu people

still living in Afghanistan are devotees of siva. Entire stories with

siva are connected with Ganges and Himalyas.

HINDUISM IN GENERAL HAS NOTHING TO do WITH

RACE,GENDER,PROFESSION,RELIGION,CASTE what matters is "does one

relises his Self(atma) his true nature." all the talk besides that is

grbage.

 

IF SOME BODY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT HINDUISM PLEASE FOLLOW THE

TEACHINGS OF A SELF REALIZED SOUL, NOT SOME HEAD STRONG DERANGED

INTELLECTUAL who is mainly concerned with political,

superficial,externel happenings.

 

 

Avinash ramidi

om namah sivaya.