About The Name "Hindu" by Stephen Knapp

[Guest guest]

>"vava menon" <vavamenon

>manthan (Manthan)

>manthan

>[Manthan] About The Name "Hindu" by Stephen Knapp

>Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:37:53 +0400

>

>[==========================================]

>Manthan: Information Exchange Network for

>Ideological Empowerment of Hindus

>Sponsored By: http://www.voiceofdharma.com

>[==========================================]

>

>

>About The Name "Hindu"

>

>By Stephen Knapp

>

>

> I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words

>“Hindu” and “Hinduism.” The fact is that true “Hinduism” is based on Vedic

>knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an identityis

>beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or evenHindu.

>After all, God never describes Himself as belonging to any such category,

>saying that He is only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a HinduGod.

>That is why some of the greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided

>identifying themselves only as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal,

>andtherefore beyond all such temporary designations. So am I calling the

>name“Hindu” a temporary designation?

>

> We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit.

>Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So

>how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without

>the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”

>

> Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by

>outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River

>properly. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first

>renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning “S”, thus

>makingit easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the

>Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His

>Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a

>name used especiallyduring the British regime.

>

> Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as

>Afghanistan and Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River.

>Thereafter, the name “Hindu” was used to describe the inhabitants from

>that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu

>River is located, and the region itself was called “Hindustan.” Because

>the Sanskrit sound of “S” converts to “H” in the Parsee language, the

>Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as “hindu,” even though at the time the

>people of the area did not use the name “hindu” themselves. This word was

>used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people and the religion of

>those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians conformed to

>these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu and

>Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place

>value on it or now use it out of convenience.

>

> Another view of the name “Hindu” shows the confusing nature it

>causes for understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India.

>Aswritten be R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2,

>published in Mysore in 1952), “The political situation of our country from

>centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very difficult to

>understandthe nature of this nation and its religion. The western

>scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this

>Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and therefore, they have

>contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term ‘Hindu’. This

>word, which is a foreigninnovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit

>writers and reveredAcharyas in their works. It seems that political power

>was responsiblefor insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The

>word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means

>‘the black of the sky’ and ‘Saturn’. In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu

>means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in

>history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our

>country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.”

>

> Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a

>derogatory meaning. It is said that, “Moreover, it is correct that this

>name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by

>Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word

>means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam

>were termed as slaves.” (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka Kaam,

>edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the Introduction)

>

> Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,

>published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as

>“chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].”

>In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the

>Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient

>servant), sia faam (balck color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all

>derogatory expressions forthe translation of the term hindu in the Persian

>label of the people of India.

>

> So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term

>that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can

>understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything

>todo with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion

>ever existed that was called “Hinduism” until the Indian people in general

>placed value on that name and accepted its use.

>

> The real confusion started when the name “Hinduism” was used

>to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the words

>“Hindu” and “Hinduism” was used frequently by the British with the effect

>of focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the

>people who became knownas “Hindus”. This was done with the rather

>successful intention of creating friction among the people of India. This

>was in accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier

>for their continued dominion over the country.

>

> However, we should mention that others who try to justify the

>word “Hindu” present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years

>ago,also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there

>Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma

>Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still

>waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:

>

>Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah

>MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah

>

> Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha

>samudhramvareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru

>bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu. Both of

>theseverses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of

>BharathaBhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her

>motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have

>the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi.

>“Bhoomi” (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata

>or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic

>references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of

>India is referredto as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as

>Hindustan.

>

> Another couple of references that are used, though the exact

>location of which I am not sure, includes the following:

>

>Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram

>Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe

>

>Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla

>devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu

>

> These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and

>the Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that

>all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of course,

>noteveryone is going to agree with that.

>

> Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as the

>country of “Sapta Sindhu”, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This

>is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this

>verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the

>word “Sindhu” refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific

>river called “Sindhu”. Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit,

>according toancient dictionaries, “sa” was pronounced as “ha”. Thus “Sapta

>Sindhu” was pronounced as “Hapta Hindu”. So this is how the word “Hindu”

>is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that the ancient

>Persians referred to Bharat as “Hapta Hind”, as recorded in their ancient

>classic “Bem Riyadh”. Sothis is another reason why some scholars came to

>believe that the word “Hindu” had its origin in Persia.

>

> Another theory is that the name “Hindu” does not even come

>from the name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains.

>“This [sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably

>ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not

>have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to

>be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners.” He cites an

>argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published

>in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal

>Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as Brihannaradi in the Sham

>village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this verse:

>

>himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram

>hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah

>

> Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is

>missing, but Kumar translates it as: “The country lying between the

>Himalayan mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as

>Hindusthan by combination of the first letter ‘hi’ of ‘Himalaya’ and the

>last compound letter ‘ndu’ of the word ‘Bindu.’”

>

> This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name

>“Hindu”, indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this area

>are thus known as “Hindus”.

>

> So again, in any way these theories may present their

>information, and in any way you look at it, the name “Hindu” started

>simply as a bodily and regional designation. The name “Hindu” refers to a

>location and its people and originally had nothing to do with the

>philosophies or religion of the people, which could certainly change from

>one thing to another. It is like saying that all people from India are

>Indians. Sure, thatis acceptable as a name referring to a location, but

>what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by

>numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they

>are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system

>already object to calling themselves by that name. So “Hindu” is not the

>most appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of

>sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians

>and their early history is Vedicculture. So it is more appropriate to use

>a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than

>a name that merely addresses thelocation of a people.

>

> Unfortunately, the word “Hindu” has gradually been adopted by

>most everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very

>general way, so much so, in fact, that now “Hinduism” is often used to

>describe anything from religious activities to even Indian social or

>nationalistic events. Some of these so-called “Hindu” events are not

>endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered

>non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a “Hindu” and still

>be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity casually

>be dubbed as a part of Hinduismand thoughtlessly be considered a part of

>the true Vedic culture.

>

> Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called

>sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the

>soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of sugar is

>to be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then it is not

>sugar. Orthe dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If it does not do

>that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a particular dharma

>or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or eternal. It does not change.

>So there is the state of dharma and the path of dharma. Following the

>principles of sanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining

>our forgotten relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge.

>Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all Vedic literature, such as Lord

>Krishna’s message in Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the

>Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only “Hindus” who are

>restricted to a certain region of the planet or family of birth. Such

>knowledge is actually meant forthe whole world. As everyone is a spiritual

>being and has the same spiritual essence as described according to the

>principles of sanatana-dharma, then everyone should be given the right and

>privilege to understand this knowledge. It cannot be held for an exclusive

>group of people.

>

> Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual

>philosophy that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other

>less philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is

>a “universal spiritual truth” which can be applied by all people, in any

>part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is

>eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all

>time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of

>Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name “Hindu” implies, especially

>after understanding from where the name comes.

>

> Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of

>Kali-yuga after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and

>even Hinduism (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the

>earth, there will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual

>and universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be

>re-established again in thisworld by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt then

>that He will use the name “Hindu.” He certainly said nothing of the sort

>when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.

>

> Thus, although I do not feel that “Hindu” is a proper term to

>represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word

>from time to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is already

>so much a part of everyone’s vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the

>Vedic path of sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That

>reduces the need to use the label of “Hindu” and also helps focus on the

>universal nature of the Vedic path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus

>begin to use this term sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the

>correct Sanskrit terminology,but also more accurately depicts the true

>character and spiritualintention of the Vedic path. Others have also used

>the terms sanatanis or even dharmists, both of which are closer to the

>real meaning within Vedic culture.

>

>(This article is from: http://www.stephen-knapp.com)

>

>

>********************************************

>Manthan is a moderated, invitation-only list.

>Listadmin: owner-manthan

>********************************************

>

 

_______________

Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to

School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx