PDA

View Full Version : The name Hindu for the people and the country--not a Hindu name?



saidevo
06 October 2008, 10:02 AM
The History of India taught in schools and colleges in India are based on the works of anti-Hindu historians Romila Thapar and D.N.Jha. According to these pseudo-historians, only in the 8th century CE the name 'Hindu' was given currency by the Arabs. This statement is not backed by any evidence, however.

Another theory from the Europeans states that the name 'Hindu' is a Persian corruption of 'Sindhu', resulting from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. Again no evidence is shown for this theory.

Dr. Murlidhar H.Pahoja, an independent researcher, exposes the falsity of these two theories with overwhelming evidence in his booklet titled "Antiquity and Origin of the Term 'Hindu'", which can be downloaded at: http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

Here are the points with which he exposes the falsity of the above claims:

Epigraphic Evidence

• The Hamadan, Persepolis and Naqsh-I-Rustam Inscriptions of the Persian monarch Darius mention a people 'Hidu' as included in his empire. These inscriptions are dated between 520-485 BCE.

• Xerexes, successor of Darius, in his inscriptios at Persepolis, gives names of countries under his rule. The list includes 'Hidu'. Xerexes was ruling between 485-465 BCE.

• The Asokan inscriptions (3rd century BCE), repeatedly use expressions like 'Hida' (हिद) for 'India' and 'Hida loka' for 'Indian nation'. 'Hida' and its derivative forms are used more than 70 times in the Ashokan inscriptions.

• In Persepolis Pahlvi inscriptions of Shahpur II (310 CE) the king has the titles shakanshah hind shakastan u tuxaristan dabiran dabir, "king of Shakastan, minister of ministers of Hind Shakastan and Tukharistan".

Literary Evidence

Literary evidence takes the antiquity of the word 'Hindu' back to at least 1000 BCE and possibly 5000 BCE.

Evidence from Pahlvi Avesta

• In the Avesta, Hapta-Hindu is used for Sanskrit Sapta-Sindhu, the Avesta being dated variously between 5000-1000 B.C. This indicates that the term 'Hindu' is as old as the word 'Sindhu'. Sindhu is a Vedik term used in the Rigveda. And therefore, 'Hindu' is as ancient as the Rigveda.

• In the Avestan Gatha 'Shatir', 163rd Verse speaks of the visit of Veda Vyas to the court of Gustashp and in the presence of Zorashtra, Veda Vyas introduces himself saying 'man marde am Hind jijad'--I am man born in 'Hind'. Veda Vyas was an elder contemporary of Shri Krishna (3100 BCE).

Greek Usage

• The Greek term 'Indoi' is a softened form of 'Hindu' where the initial 'H' was dropped as the Greek alphabet has no aspirate. This term 'Indoi' was used in Greek literature by Hekataeus (late 6th century BCE) and Herodotus (early 5th century BCE).

The Hebrew Bible

• The Hebrew bible uses 'Hodu' for India, which is a Judaic form of 'Hindu'. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is considered earlier than 300 BCE. Today's Hebrew spoken in Israel also uses Hodu for India.

The Chinese Testimony

• The Chinese used the term 'Hien-tu' for 'Hindu' about 100 BCE. While describing movements of the Sai-Wang (100 BCE), the Chinese annals state that the Sai-Wang went towards the South and passing Hien-tu reached Ki-Pin.

Later Chinese travellers Fa-Hien (5th century CE) and Huen-Tsang (7th century CE) use a slightly modified term 'Yintu' but the affinity to 'Hindu' is still retained. This term 'Yintu' continues to be used till today.

Pre-Islamic Arabic Literature

• Sair-ul-Okul1 is an anthology of ancient Arabic poetry available in the Turkish library Makhtab-e-Sultania in Istambul. In this anthology is included a poem by Prophet Mohammed's uncle Omar-bin-e-Hassham. The poem is in praise of Mahadev (Shiva), and uses 'Hind' for India and 'Hindu' for Indians.

• The same anthology has another poem by Labi-bin-e Akhtab bin-e Turfa who is dated 2300 before Mohammed i.e., 1700 BCE. This poem also uses 'Hind' for India and 'Hindu' for Indian. The poem also mentions the four Vedas Sama, Yajur, Rig and Athar. This poem is quoted on columns in the Laxmi Narayan Mandir in New Delhi, popularly known as Birla Mandir (Temple).

'Hindu' in Sanskrit Literature

Another doubt created by the modern day anglicized historian is that the term 'Hindu' is not found used in Sanskrit literature. This misconception can be dispelled by quoting from Sanskrit works:

• Meru tantra (4th to 6th century CE), a Shaiva text, comments on 'Hindu':

hInaM cha duShyatyeva hindurityuchyate priye |
"Hindu is one who discards the mean and the ignoble."

• The same idea is expressed in Shabda Kalpadruma:

hInaM duShyati iti hindu |

• Brihaspati Agama says:

himAlayaM samArabhya yAvadindu sarovaram |
taM devanirmitaM desha hindusthAnaM prachakShate ||

"Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan."

• Parijat Haran Natak describes Hindu as:

hinasti tamasA pApAn daihikAn duShTamAnasAn |
hetibhiH shatruvarga cha sa hindurabhidhIyate ||

"Hindu is one who with penance washes one's sins and evil thoughts and with
arms destroys one's enemies."

• Madhava Digvijaya states:

oMkAramUlamantrADhya punarjanmadRuDhAshayaH |
gobhaktako bhAratagururhindurhisanadUShakaH ||

"One who meditates on Omkar as the primeal sound, believes in karma and reincarnation, has reverence for the cow, who is devoted to Bharat, and abhors evil, is deserving of being called Hindu.

• Vriddha Smriti defines Hindu as:

hiMsayA dUyate yashcha sadAcharaNatatpara |
vedagopratimAsevI sa hindumukhshabdabhAk ||

"One who abhors the mean and the ignoble, and is of noblebearing, who reveres the Veda, the cow, and the deity, is a Hindu."

• Similarly other Sanskrit works which use the term 'Hindu' are, Kalika Puran, Bhavishya Puran, Adbhut Kosh, Medini Kosh, Ram Kosh etc. Even Kalidas has used a derivative form 'Haindava'.

'Hindu' and 'Sindhu'

• Another theory says that 'Hindu' originated from the Persian practice of replacing 'S' with 'H'. This does not seem to be true is evident from the fact that Sindh has not become Hind and both Sindh and Hind exist in Persian as well as Arabic. The inscriptions of Darius and Xerexes which describe India as Hi(n)du, also use the term 'Sugd' for Sogdiana. This 'Sugd' should have become 'Hugd' as per this theory. The Pahlvi inscription of Shahpur II, uses 'S' in Shakastan and Tuxaristan.

• But it cannot be denied that Hindu is a form of Sindhu. It needs to be realised that this change from S to H is common in Saurashtra where Sorath becomes Horath, Somnath becomes Homnath and so on. The form Hindu is therefore, likely to have come from Saurashtra.

It should also be noted that as per Nirukta rules of grammar, in the Vedik language, replacement of S with H is permitted.

Conclusion

Epigraphic evidence takes the antiquity of 'Hindu' back to atleast 500 B.C. Use of 'Hindu' as part of 'Hapta-Hindu' in the Avesta suggests that 'Hindu' is as old as 'Sindhu' and therefore, belongs to the Vedic age.

Regarding the origin of 'Hindu' from 'Sindhu', the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing 'H' in place of 'S' provides the answer.

Other Sanskrit references

• Some scholars hold that ancient Indian civilisation did have a name of its own, prior to the arrival of Persians. A Sanskrit scholar, Swami Mangal Nathji, had found ancient Hindu writings called Birhannaradi Purana in Hoshiarpur (Punjab)[1] which contained the verse:

Himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
Hindusthanamiti qyatan hi antaraksha-rayogatah

"The country between Himalayas and Bindu Sarovar (Cape Commorin Sea) is Hindusthan derived by combining the first letter 'Hi' of Himalayas and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word Bindu."

Other instances are cited in Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Brihaspati Samhita:

Aaasindo sindhu paryantham yasyabharatha bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh pithrubhoochaiva sah vai hindurithismrithaah

"Whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Saptha Sindhu and the Indian Ocean as his motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu."

From VishNu Purana, 2.3.1:

Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam |
Varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih ||

"Bharat is the name of country situated to the north of the sea and south of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati."

Jack_ripper
26 October 2008, 03:45 AM
Hmm..Quite interesting facts, I had never known of this information ever. Thanks for sharing:)

riyaaz
26 October 2009, 01:16 AM
Peace

coming to the avoiding of the terms like "poor topic writer" or "stupid", im sorry. But i hope that our administrators take action against those hindus who use words like "pigs".

And coming to the word hindu, a link has been provided. There is contradiction in that link. Firstly, it proves with irrefutable proofs that the word hindu is a geographical definition. It refers to the people of India. And contradicting itself, it presents opinions from scholars where they say that hindu is a follower of a particular religion.
Thus, the contradiction is clear. I leave it to the readers to decide between the irrefutable proofs and the "opinions" of the scholars.

A follower of the religion of Islam is called a muslim. Quran mentions the word "muslim" several times. I challenge everyone here to bring a verse from the Rigved, which is the most sacred book of hinduism, where it says that the word hindu is a follower of a particular religion.

Guidance

TatTvamAsi
26 October 2009, 01:51 PM
Give me one iota of "PROOF" as to the actuality of ANY OF THE aBRAHAMIC FAITHS, not just isLAME. you believe in the myth of adam of eve, as I've explained before, could not have spread humanity unless they slept with their progeny! Therefore, all abrahamic faiths condone incest! What a great religion indeed!

And you musLAMES think you are the most religious people on earth! hahahhaah.. if you had an ounce of RELIGION within you, there would be no conversion of others as muslims/christians do on a daily basis.

Hindu as a follower of a religion is a modern extrapolation because now in India, there are other religions. In the times before religion was degraded (i.e. myths like judaism, christianity, and islam came about), everyone in that geography was a follower of Sanatana Dharma (HINDUISM). Therefore, anyone who lived in the subcontinet was considered HINDU.

Remember, there are seals from the ancient cities of India that have depictions of Shiva among other deities including the Shiva Lingam. These seals date to around 5500 years ago!

By the way, have you visited the Shiva Lingam in mecca? ;) Hopefully soon, a nice SHIVA TEMPLE will be built on that VERY SPOT. :D

And who said "RigVeda is the most sacred book of Hinduism"? We are not brain-dead like you muslims to cling on to a particular label or book and repeat what the sulla mullahs tell you. That is the beauty of Hinduism as it depends on the follower to decide what their "most sacred book/ritual/God" is. You can never understand that as a mleccha.

Oh, and by the way, you muslims are far more idolatrous than you claim Hindus are. Proof? I can throw the Gita on the floor and step on it. Can you do that to the quran? ;)


Peace

coming to the avoiding of the terms like "poor topic writer" or "stupid", im sorry. But i hope that our administrators take action against those hindus who use words like "pigs".

And coming to the word hindu, a link has been provided. There is contradiction in that link. Firstly, it proves with irrefutable proofs that the word hindu is a geographical definition. It refers to the people of India. And contradicting itself, it presents opinions from scholars where they say that hindu is a follower of a particular religion.
Thus, the contradiction is clear. I leave it to the readers to decide between the irrefutable proofs and the "opinions" of the scholars.

A follower of the religion of Islam is called a muslim. Quran mentions the word "muslim" several times. I challenge everyone here to bring a verse from the Rigved, which is the most sacred book of hinduism, where it says that the word hindu is a follower of a particular religion.

Guidance

Harjas Kaur
26 October 2009, 11:54 PM
"And coming to the word hindu, a link has been provided. There is contradiction in that link. Firstly, it proves with irrefutable proofs that the word hindu is a geographical definition. It refers to the people of India. And contradicting itself, it presents opinions from scholars where they say that hindu is a follower of a particular religion. Thus, the contradiction is clear." The entire line of enquiry is preposterous. Hindustan has historically referred to a geographic location. Hence, Hindustan clearly defines a concept of Nation as per the definition of the term: "Latin: natio meaning being born."

So clearly it is correct to say that the term Hindu refers to both a geographical location and a nationhood of related people.


There is truth to the phrase, "America is a Christian nation." Despite the fact none of the original inhabits were Christian, nonetheless the society of America which evolved on that continent was predominantly Christian in orientation. And while America represents a democratic homogeneity of various religions, it is still predominantly Christian as per the majority culture and how that reflects in it's vote bank and policies.

Would anyone say America is NOT a Christian nation because "America" refers to geography alone?

Likewise, the term "Hindu" has long been associated with the religious beliefs of the people of the region of Hindustan. Let me show you an example:

Raag Gaurhee Poorbee: Saint Kabir (http://www.searchgurbani.com/sggs.php?word=hindu&Book=ggs&Action=Page&Param=340):
ਤੁਰਕ ਤਰੀਕਤਿ ਜਾਨੀਐ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਬੇਦ ਪੁਰਾਨ ॥
thurak thareekath jaaneeai hindhoo baedh puraan ||
The Muslim knows the Muslim way of life; the Hindu knows the Vedas and Puraanas.
~SGGS Ji ang 340
So where is this invented contradiction to argue for illegitimacy of "Hindu" as either Nationality or Religion?


Religion: < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=re-&db=luna) + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ligament&db=luna) ) + -iōn- -ion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ion&db=luna); cf. Rely.

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religionFrom it's barest dictionary definition, that body of beliefs which owe their origination to the scriptures of the Vedas and Puranas, are they not a set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe, involving ritual observances and having a code of moral conduct?

By what default of logic can "Hinduism" be said NOT to be a religion? It is the very basis of all the world's religions because the Vedas are the oldest known religious scriptures and a case can be made illustrating an origination traceable to the Vedas as point of religious philosophy, as seen in the very definition of the name "Alla," owing origin back at least 5,000 years and referring per the Rg Veda to "Indra swaroop," and also "Amba Bhavani Mata the Jagadamba."

"BA'AL (Hebrew:בַּעַל): Semitic name of several storm gods." http://www.20000-names.com/weather_names.htm
Allah is a Sanskrit word. In Sanskrit Allah, Akka and Amba are synonyms. They signify a goddess or mother. The term Allah appears in Sanskrit chants while invoking goddess Durga i.e. Bhavani. The Islamic word Allah for God is therefore not an innovation but the ancient Sanskrit appellation retained and continued to be used by Islam. http://www.hinduunity.com/articles/islamexposed/preislamicarabia.html
"The word iḷ&#226; also occurs in the verse (1/13/9) of the Ṛgveda, that reads,

Iḷ&#226;, sarasvat&#238; mah&#238; tisro dev&#238;rmayobhuvaḥ z
Varhiḥ s&#238;dantasridhaḥ zz

“Iḷ&#226;, Sarasvat&#238; and Mah&#238;, three godesses who bring delight, be seated, peaceful, on the grass”. In this verse, Iḷ&#226; is a godess and, according to S&#226;yana, Iḷ&#226; in this verse may stand for earth, or cow, or v&#226;c (speech).

In a similar manner, there is another word Al&#226; in the Ṛgveda that refers to various deities. The verse (3/30/10) contains the word and says,

Al&#226;tṛṇo vala Indra vrajo goḥ pura hantorbhayamano by&#226;ra z
Sugatpatho akṛṇonniraje gaḥ pr&#226;vanv&#226;ṇ&#238;ḥ purah&#251;taṃ
dhamant&#238;ḥ zz

“He who withheld the kine, in silence yielded in fear before thy blow, O Indra. He made paths easy to drive forth the cattle. Loud-breathing praises helped the much-invoked One” [tr: ibid]. Here, Al&#226; is the other name of Indra. The entire Hymn (3/30) has been dedicated to Indra and this confirms that the word Al&#226; in the verse refers to Indra." http://hindtoday.com/Blogs/ViewBlogsV2.aspx?HTAdvtId=1498&HTAdvtPlaceCode=WORLDSo Islam has not given the correct meaning of Allah to the world. Neither has it been honest about origination. But in fact Islam has distorted the original definitions into a radically new meaning.


Suta Goswami said: After hearing the king’s prayers, Lord Shiva said: O king Bhojaraja, you should go to the place called Mahakakshvara, that land is called Vahika and now is being contaminated by the mlecchas. In that terrible country there no longer exists dharma. There was a mystic demon named Tripura(Tripurasura), whom I have already burnt to ashes, he has come again by the order of Bali. He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me. His name is Mahamada(Muhammad) and his deeds are like that of a ghost. Therefore, O king, you should not go to this land of the evil ghost. By my mercy your intelligence will be purified. Hearing this the king came back to his country and Mahamada(Muhammad) came with them to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly: O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you. http://bhavishyapuran.blogspot.com/According to Bhavishya Purana, Mohamed is the incarnation of Tripurasura.

"Religion founded by Mahamada = Paisachyadharama (demoniac religion)."


ਕਲਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ਕਤੇਬ ਕੁਰਾਣੁ ॥
kal paravaan kathaeb kuraan ||
In Kali Yuga, the Koran and the Bible have become famous.

ਪੋਥੀ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਰਹੇ ਪੁਰਾਣ ॥
pothhee panddith rehae puraan ||
The Pandit's scriptures and the Puraanas are not respected.

ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਉ ਭਇਆ ਰਹਮਾਣੁ ॥
naanak naao bhaeiaa rehamaan ||
O Nanak, the Lord's Name now is Rehmaan, the Merciful.

ਕਰਿ ਕਰਤਾ ਤੂ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੁ ॥੭॥
kar karathaa thoo eaeko jaan ||7||
Know that there is only One Creator of the creation. ||7||
~SGGS Ji ang 903


ਧੋਤੀ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੈ ਜਪਮਾਲੀ ਧਾਨੁ ਮਲੇਛਾਂ ਖਾਈ ॥
dhhothee ttikaa thai japamaalee dhhaan malaeshhaan khaaee ||
They wear their loin cloths, apply ritual frontal marks to their foreheads, and carry their rosaries, but they eat food with the Muslims.

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਭਾਈ ॥
anthar poojaa parrehi kathaebaa sanjam thurakaa bhaaee ||
O Siblings of Destiny, you perform devotional worship indoors, but read the Islamic sacred texts, and adopt the Muslim way of life.

ਛੋਡੀਲੇ ਪਾਖੰਡਾ ॥
shhoddeelae paakhanddaa ||
Renounce your hypocrisy!

ਨਾਮਿ ਲਇਐ ਜਾਹਿ ਤਰੰਦਾ ॥੧॥
naam laeiai jaahi tharandhaa ||1||
Taking the Naam, the Name of the Lord, you shall swim across. ||1||
~SGGS Ji ang 471


ਕਾਜੀ ਤੈ ਕਵਨ ਕਤੇਬ ਬਖਾਨੀ ॥
kaajee thai kavan kathaeb bakhaanee ||
O Qazi, which book have you read?

ਪੜ੍ਹਤ ਗੁਨਤ ਐਸੇ ਸਭ ਮਾਰੇ ਕਿਨਹੂੰ ਖਬਰਿ ਨ ਜਾਨੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
parrhath gunath aisae sabh maarae kinehoon khabar n jaanee ||1|| rehaao ||
Such scholars and students have all died, and none of them have discovered the inner meaning. ||1||Pause||

ਸਕਤਿ ਸਨੇਹੁ ਕਰਿ ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕਰੀਐ ਮੈ ਨ ਬਦਉਗਾ ਭਾਈ ॥
sakath sanaehu kar sunnath kareeai mai n badhougaa bhaaee ||
Because of the love of woman, circumcision is done; I don't believe in it, O Siblings of Destiny.

ਜਉ ਰੇ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਮੋਹਿ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਕਰੈਗਾ ਆਪਨ ਹੀ ਕਟਿ ਜਾਈ ॥੨॥
jo rae khudhaae mohi thurak karaigaa aapan hee katt jaaee ||2||
If God wished me to be a Muslim, it would be cut off by itself. ||2||

ਸੁੰਨਤਿ ਕੀਏ ਤੁਰਕੁ ਜੇ ਹੋਇਗਾ ਅਉਰਤ ਕਾ ਕਿਆ ਕਰੀਐ ॥
sunnath keeeae thurak jae hoeigaa aourath kaa kiaa kareeai ||
If circumcision makes one a Muslim, then what about a woman?

ਅਰਧ ਸਰੀਰੀ ਨਾਰਿ ਨ ਛੋਡੈ ਤਾ ਤੇ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੀ ਰਹੀਐ ॥੩॥
aradhh sareeree naar n shhoddai thaa thae hindhoo hee reheeai ||3||
She is the other half of a man's body, and she does not leave him, so he remains a Hindu. ||3||

ਛਾਡਿ ਕਤੇਬ ਰਾਮੁ ਭਜੁ ਬਉਰੇ ਜੁਲਮ ਕਰਤ ਹੈ ਭਾਰੀ ॥
shhaadd kathaeb raam bhaj bourae julam karath hai bhaaree ||
Give up your holy books, and remember the Lord, you fool, and stop oppressing others so badly.

ਕਬੀਰੈ ਪਕਰੀ ਟੇਕ ਰਾਮ ਕੀ ਤੁਰਕ ਰਹੇ ਪਚਿਹਾਰੀ ॥੪॥੮॥
kabeerai pakaree ttaek raam kee thurak rehae pachihaaree ||4||8||
Kabeer has grasped hold of the Lord's Support, and the Muslims have utterly failed. ||4||8||
~SGGS Ji ang 477

DavidC
27 October 2009, 03:09 AM
I read much of the original post and it is interesting, but now I am confused on what is the difference between 'Hindustan,' 'India,' 'Bharat.'

Harjas Kaur
27 October 2009, 05:29 AM
but now I am confused on what is the difference between 'Hindustan,' 'India,' 'Bharat.'Lols.


Hindustan: Nation of people from the geographical region of the Indus Valley.

India: Indh, Hind: Indus, Hindus. Hind is just pronunciation difference from Ind. So India is variant of Hindustan, land of Hindoos. So you will see slogan Jaya Hind! Representing "All glories and victory to Hindustan/India."

Bharat: "officially Bhārata Gaṇarājya भारत गणराज्य, is the Hindustani term for the Republic of India."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_%28disambiguation%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_&#37;28disambiguation%29)
Bharat is more correct term as it implies "Greater India," incorporating the spirituality as well as the nationality and geography and derives from Indic languages as opposed to Indus or Hindu which is what invaders called Hindustan. Bharat Mata is "Divine Mother India."
Vande Mataram - Revival - A.R.Rahman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRPpSgRqtRc
Translation

Mother, I salute thee!
Rich with thy hurrying streams,
bright with orchard gleams,
Cool with thy winds of delight,
Green fields waving Mother of might,
Mother free.

Glory of moonlight dreams,
Over thy branches and lordly streams,
Clad in thy blossoming trees,
Mother, giver of ease
Laughing low and sweet!
Mother I kiss thy feet,
Speaker sweet and low!
Mother, to thee I bow.

Who hath said thou art weak in thy lands
When swords flash out in seventy million hands
And seventy million voices roar
Thy dreadful name from shore to shore?
With many strengths who art mighty and stored,
To thee I call Mother and Lord!
Thou who saves, arise and save!
To her I cry who ever her foe drove
Back from plain and sea
And shook herself free.

Thou art wisdom, thou art law,
Thou art heart, our soul, our breath
Though art love divine, the awe
In our hearts that conquers death.
Thine the strength that nerves the arm,
Thine the beauty, thine the charm.
Every image made divine
In our temples is but thine.

Thou art Durga, Lady and Queen,
With her hands that strike and her
swords of sheen,
Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned,
And the Muse a hundred-toned,
Pure and perfect without peer,
Mother lend thine ear,
Rich with thy hurrying streams,
Bright with thy orchard gleems,
Dark of hue O candid-fair

In thy soul, with jewelled hair
And thy glorious smile divine,
Loveliest of all earthly lands,
Showering wealth from well-stored hands!
Mother, mother mine!
Mother sweet, I bow to thee,
Mother great and free!

translated by Sri Aurobindo (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Aurobindo&action=edit&redlink=1)
Jana Gana Mana (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Gana_Mana) was chosen over Vande Mataram as the National Anthem of independent India in January 24 (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_24), 1950 (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950), although before this date, Vande Mataram was treated as such. Vande Mataram was rejected because Muslims offended by calling India "Mother Durga" (a Hindu goddess) equating the nation with Hinduism..." http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vande_Mataram

Yogkriya
15 January 2011, 05:30 AM
Namaskar!

Nice post by Harjas.

I agree to what Saidevo posted as well as the link given to the Hindu word research pdf, as it cites Vedic literature and antiquity of the word which is the topic. Harjas's quotations also take us more into the spiritual and social side of it in the light of impersonal understanding of the divine from the Granth Sahib asking to shed the outward symbols and seek the divine within. Since outward symbols became a reason for the differences and fight and Nanak dev ji came at a time of this struggle. Interestingly Guru Gobind Singh ji established back external symbols for the chosen Sikh community that they very much are recognized with.

ਧੋਤੀ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੈ ਜਪਮਾਲੀ ਧਾਨੁ ਮਲੇਛਾਂ ਖਾਈ ॥
dhhothee ttikaa thai japamaalee dhhaan malaeshhaan khaaee ||
They wear their loin cloths, apply ritual frontal marks to their foreheads, and carry their rosaries, but they eat food with the Muslims.

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਭਾਈ ॥
anthar poojaa parrehi kathaebaa sanjam thurakaa bhaaee ||
O Siblings of Destiny, you perform devotional worship indoors, but read the Islamic sacred texts, and adopt the Muslim way of life.

ਛੋਡੀਲੇ ਪਾਖੰਡਾ ॥
shhoddeelae paakhanddaa ||
Renounce your hypocrisy!

ਨਾਮਿ ਲਇਐ ਜਾਹਿ ਤਰੰਦਾ ॥੧॥
naam laeiai jaahi tharandhaa ||1||
Taking the Naam, the Name of the Lord, you shall swim across. ||1||
~SGGS Ji ang 471

So we see one Guru denounces adherence to various symbolism and the other gives external symbols. Seemingly two different things. I'm not seeking any explanations here, but simply noting it. Of course there are good reasons and meaning for both as per time and understanding needed.
Thus the avatars, Gurus come to teach to man as per time and tide and finally directing back to God, fulfilling the meaning of this life.

Om tat sat!

Yogkriya

Sahasranama
23 March 2011, 09:45 PM
Many people these days love to bring up that Hinduism is not the oldest religion, because the name Hindu was not that old. Great resources have already been posted here by Saidevo and others to prove otherwise. I think the argument is silly. It's like saying that India didn't have any "rice" before the British invasion: they had countless of tribes with their own language and words for this grain, but only after the British came did they have "rice." Hinduism has always been there and it doesn't matter what name it was given. Like Vivekananda said, we should say with pride that we are Hindu.

Rationalist
27 March 2011, 06:10 PM
I love this retarded and fallacy inundated argument.

It can be used equally well against any religion.

You could say "Jesus" or "God" didn't exist because the English language popped up somewhere around the 1st millennium C.E.

You could say "Confucius" didn't exist because this word didn't exist until Englishmen started translating his Chinese name this way.

I :Roll: at Westerners/Westernized people and their intellects (or lack thereof?).

Believer
04 April 2011, 09:32 AM
I love this retarded and fallacy inundated argument.

I :Roll: at Westerners/Westernized people and their intellects (or lack thereof?).

Arey yaar, slow down.
Don't take the easy route.
Be consistent with something good, not negativity. :)

anirvan
04 April 2011, 12:11 PM
one of the name of our country BHARAT needs spl mention.it is the name of this region given lakhs of yrs back when The great Suryavanshi king BHARAT ruled our country.it is found in most of our sacred texts.

charitra
04 April 2011, 12:17 PM
one of the name of our country BHARAT needs spl mention.it is the name of this region given lakhs of yrs back when The great Suryavanshi king BHARAT ruled our country.it is found in most of our sacred texts.

Bharat is printed in hindi on every postal stamp along with the english translation 'india'.Im not able to copy paste a stamp, hope someone smarter will come to my rescue, thank u.


http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=766903061158&id=5727ec9a26374c4b06edafd9c9e15f95&url=http&#37;3a%2f%2fstamps.saturnsoftmills.com%2fgandhi.jpg

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=766903061158&id=5727ec9a26374c4b06edafd9c9e15f95&url=http%3a%2f%2fstamps.saturnsoftmills.com%2fgandhi.jpg
Namaste

Netz
18 July 2013, 04:22 PM
Now this was some real knowledge. Thanks a lot!

redifflal
06 October 2013, 10:52 PM
Hindu is what outsiders have called us for thousands of years. Bharat is how we have referred to the land bounded between Himalayas and the oceans for thousands of years. According to outsider definition, Indian Muslims, Pakistanis, etc are also Hindus. Even today they name the Paki terrorist leaders in the international terrorist gangs like Al Qaeda something like al-Hindi/al-Hindu, etc.

The reason why Hindu means a religious term now is because of mainly British rule, and also Muslim intelligentsia will never admit they are Indian by blood. Everyone is a Syed or Shaikh or Pathan. I have even asked Sufi Dalit Bengali Muslims in person, so when did your forefathers convert to Islam, and they say "amra adi-musholman, afghanistan theke" LOL. Apparently there was a massive genetic invasion of Middle-Eastern people in Indian subcontinent 700 years ago, so nobody's ancestors converted. Maybe some anthropologists should do DNA research on these people haha.

Also above person quoted Kabir. Kabir is saying "The TURK does tareeqat, the Hindu has Vedas and Puranas," so even until medieval times, Hindu was juxtaposed with Turk (ethnic), not with Muslim.

Kalicharan Tuvij
18 March 2014, 12:38 AM
Namaste.

I am quoting from my post in the other thread (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=114800#post114800) regarding Hindu/ Indu, seeing this as the most relevant thread for the topic (and not to derail that thread as Anirudha suggested there).


Namaste Anirudh,

"Hindu" comes from "Indu" which stands for Soma PavamAna (Soma juice).
RV 8.48.3 (Devata: Soma, Rsi: Kanva)
अपा॑म । सोम॑म् । अ॒मृताः॑ । अ॒भू॒म॒ । अग॑न्म । ज्योतिः॑ । अवि॑दाम । दे॒वान् । किम् । नू॒नम् । अ॒स्मान् । कृ॒ण॒व॒त् । अरा॑ति । किम् । ऊँ॒ इति॑ । धू॒र्तिः । अ॒मृ॒त॒ । मर्त्य॑स्य ॥
apāma | somam | amṛtāḥ | abhūma | aganma | jyotiḥ | avidāma | devān | kim | nūnam | asmān | kṛṇavat | arāti | kim | oṃ iti | dhūrtiḥ | amṛta | martyasya

meaning: Gods exclaimed : "we have drunk Soma (Indu), we have become Immortal, of Light. Now what tricks mortal enemies can play on us (the Immortals)?"

This rica from the Veda is very definitive of our ideals. So, whether you use Hindu or Indu, Hindustan or India, doesnt matter.

Soma PavamAna is known as Indu, e.g.

RV 09.113.11 (Devata: Soma PavmAna, Rsi: Kashyapa)

यत्र॑ । आ॒न॒न्दाः । च॒ । मोदाः॑ । च॒ । मुदः॑ । प्र॒ऽमुदः॑ । आस॑ते । काम॑स्य । यत्र॑ । आ॒प्ताः । कामाः॑ । तत्र॑ । माम् । अ॒मृत॑म् । कृ॒धि॒ । इन्द्रा॑य । इ॒न्दो॒ इति॑ । परि॑ । स्र॒व॒ ॥

yatra | ānandāḥ | ca | modāḥ | ca | mudaḥ | pra-mudaḥ | āsate | kāmasya | yatra | āptāḥ | kāmāḥ | tatra | mām | amṛtam | kṛdhi | indrāya | indo iti | pari | srava

Make me immortal in that realm (Prithvi in this pada) where happiness and transports, where Joys and felicities combine, and longing wishes are fulfilled. Flow, Indu, flow for Indra's sake.
From "Indu" to "Hindu" there is hardly any journey, to warrant a revolution. Indian/ Indu/ Bharatiya/ Hindu/ Hindustan/ Indus all mean the same thing in Vedic Sanskrit.

Sindhu?
Sindhu originally means : Ocean, Sea. SaptaSindhu (HaptaHindu) is the region near Ocean where Seven rivers (used to) end their journey. This region is known as Sindh. SaptaSindhavah (plural) means those seven rivers meeting the ocean, in the Sindh region, the leading most of whom is (was) Sarasvati (river).

Sindhu also denotes the "Fourth" realm (see here (http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=sindhu&lang=sans&action=Search)) which equates it to the word Samudra of the Veda.

Sindhu only later came to be identified with a river when Sarasvati started to flow into that (needs more research though).

We also have HinduKush/ HinduKo west of Indus, and not the east of it.

Indus:
If we see that the Greek branch of IE is older than Avestan (the latest to migrate out of India), then "Indu" is original just as "Hindu".

Conclusion:
1. Hindu stands for original Indu, notwithstanding the SaptaSindhu-HaptaHindu identity.

2. In Veda, Indu means "Soma flow"/ "Soma-river" and is related to "Indra" who intakes (as in receiving from indriya-s) the Soma through the tongue "which is Agni". Agni (the janus faced god) has these aspects: bhArata, bhArati. Agni is explicitly called bhArata in Veda. So in the Vedic understanding, bhArat and Indu are on the same level. Again, bhArata means "Indra-like" (like Arjuna is addressed as bhArata by Krishna). bhArati, on the other hand, is like goddess IlA. So in the mystical sense bhArata is the kingdom of Indra, whereas ilA-vrata is the spiritual loka hovering directly over it.

3. Still, there is a probability that Hindu is actually from Sindhu and Sindh. But today anyway we call it Indus, India etc which sounds same as Indu (which is bhArat). So in the end, still, I don't care.

4. bhAratendu (bhArata + indu) harishchandra is known as the "The Father of Hindi". Note that bhAratendu was a title given to him. So from the pov I am seeing all this, only makes sense.

5. So what should we call the "Sindhu river" of today as? Actually, it is like saying "Ocean River" (i.e., that which falls into Ocean), but apart from that Sindhu should mean "Ocean" and not river, as discussed above. And there is no way of knowing what was that river called during and before the final redaction of the RgVeda (as is the case with all other rivers, too). I will go by "Indu river", as quoted from Brihaspati Agama inthe OP:


• Brihaspati Agama says:
himAlayaM samArabhya yAvadindu sarovaram |
taM devanirmitaM desha hindusthAnaM prachakShate ||
"Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan."


6. Having said all this, I have no doubt that if we truly want to find the origins of Hinduism and bhArata/ India, we have to look southwards. Hopefully I will post something important on that sometime in future.

Kalicharan Tuvij
18 March 2014, 11:27 AM
Indu in Aryan Languages

1) Indigo (English) : Greek indikon (ινδικόν), Roman indicum
Literally, “of/ from India”. Also, indikon (and English indigo) is the Greek word for “dye”.
That is, “dye from India”.
On the other hand, indigo as a color is a prominent (sixth) color of Indradhanuhsa. Indra Himself is related to six (as the leader of the six loka-s of dyAvAprithvi), and also originally the lord of the sixth chakra (now it is Soma/ Indu, in Tantra). This is the mystical meaning behind indigo the color, which is the sixth color among the seven of the Indradhanusha light-spectrum. Interestingly, in the modern yoga practices the 6th chakra is shown in indigo color.

2) Indigenous : Latin indu+gena
Indu people (gena/jana) are the indigenous people. That is the psychological reason why the westerners christened many aboriginal races as Indians (Red Indians, West Indians, Indonesians, etc). “The Homeland”/ “Motherland” is subconsciously attached with India.

3) Induction : Latin inducere/ induco : induce, lead in, bring in.
Indra = Indu + ra
Indra drinking indu denotes the receiving of spiritual intuition. “Induction” derives from that.
This has to be seen distinct from Greek [endos], which means “within” and not “leading into”.

4) Industry :

industry (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=industry) (n.)
late 15c., "cleverness, skill," from Old French industrie "activity; aptitude" (14c.) or directly from Latinindustria "diligence, activity, zeal," fem. of industrius "industrious, diligent," used as a noun, from early Latin indostruus "diligent," from indu "in, within" + stem of struere "to build" (see structure (n.)). Sense of "diligence, effort" is from 1530s; meaning "trade or manufacture" first recorded 1560s; that of "systematic work" is 1610s.
The word is reflective of the Indus (Vedic) civilisation of India which was, as is commonly known, innovations and industry driven. “Indus Civilisation” can be seen thus as “Industrial Civilisation”.

So, we have plenty there on the IE side of the story. Closer to home, I don’t see ancients were so dumb as to equate Sindh with the whole of India. Again, HinduKush/ HinduKo is more along the lines of indiko discussed earlier, and geographically as well doesn’t sit well with Sindh idea. Sindh is still there, as well as the Sindhis.

And India of Indra and Indu is also, still here.


Advanced readings: In RgVeda Sindhu (Ocean, Samudra) has a mystical meaning more than anything. So, even though the Ocean there is called Sindhu mahAsAgar, we very well know Sindhu means Samudra in general in even Hindi. The best picture imo (in RV thought) is this: Indu (Soma) originates from Samudra (Sindhu) and finally pours into Samudra (Sindhu) as well. Indeed, there are two Samudra-s (one above, one below) in Vedic thought. Sarasvati, too, is called in one place "sindhu-mAtA" (bahuvrihi) meaning: having Samudra (Sindhu) as Her Origin (Mother), which all sounds to be too counter-intuitive if understood in very literal terms. To continue with the Indu flow picture, when it enters into mystical dyAvAprithvi realm through the efforts of Indra, it branches out in six/seven streams each one of which finally merges into the Samudra.

Kalicharan Tuvij
19 March 2014, 09:10 AM
I am reproducing an article from here (http://www.indiatribune.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=695%3Awords-hindu-hindosthan-indostan-india-are-rooted-in-sanskirt&Itemid=478), which uses a similar approach (though I may not concur fully with some details) to buttress the fact about Indu, with the merit of been written in a simple language.


Words Hindu, Hindosthan, Indostan, India are rooted in Sanskrit

By Bhikhu Patel

San Jose, CA: Niranjan Shah, in his article — Followers of knowledge or Veda are known as Hindus — published in the India Tribune dated October 24, says the origin of the word Hindu to the Persians. In his earlier article — Who is Hindu? Who is not? -published in the India Tribune dated September 28, 2002, he has given the following explanation.

“In Hindu scriptures, the word Hindu is not to be found. It was brought into India by the Islamic invaders. The term Hindu is the Persian equivalent of the Vedic term Sindhu. The Iranians used the word Hindu to designate the river Sindhu and population around the Sindhu. The word Hindu was used outside India but was unknown within the country.”

In his latest article, he has described “the word Hindu used for the people who lived around the Sindhu river as is generally believed, thus it is a geographic word.”

This has been the popular theory propagating the vocal chord difficulties of the Persians in pronouncing “Sa,” mispronounced Sindhu as Hindu, which hardened up as “Ind” in Greek. The weakness of this theory is that even today, words such as Sindh, Sindhi and Sindhu are in popular use. There are names of towns in Persia itself, e.g. Susa and Shiraz. The popular example given to support mispronunciation is the Sanskrit word Soma which is mispronounced Hoama in old Persian. This may be so, however, it is generally only one syllable that is mispronounced, “So” changing to “Hoa,” and this is supported by people in Surat district who mispronounce the word Surat as Hurat. Thus Hindu should have been Hindhu, but it is not.

Edward J. Jurji in The Great Religions of Modern World, credits the origin of the word “Hindustan” to the “moving tribesmen, who were impressed by the mighty river and called their home Hindustan, land of the rivers.” He further clarifies that “the Persian word for a river, Hindu, had become, probably in post-Vedic times, the Sanskrit “Sindhu.” India as a country was an envy of the world for its fabulous riches, advanced culture and knowledge; a country that possessed Sanskrit, a language that mesmerized the Europeans, when they realized its influence over the world languages, a whole new science of Comparative Philology came into existence; a country that provided knowledge to the world, the Greeks and the Chinese came to study at Takshila and Nalanda universities; a country whose civilization has an inbuilt civilized behavior; a country, its people, its ocean, its mountain range and its Dharm, all have a common word Hindu in their names; the origin of such a word cannot be credited to the vocal chord difficulties of the Persian.

The Arab historians nor the European historians can be trusted when the Hindu interests are at stake. To the Arabs, the word Hindu meant a slave. Let us study the word Hindukush in which lay the explanation of the word “Hindu.” Hindukush is the name of a portion of the Himalayan mountain range, that arises in the northern parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. As usual, the historians gave the credit for the name Hindukush to the Arabs, one of them by the name Ibn Battutah, who gave the meaning Hindu killer. The historians happened to have looked for Hindu skeletons to justify this story but found none.

This mountain range was famous for medicinal plants that bloomed in the moonlight. The Sanskrit word “Indukush” (Hindukush) means “krupan” (leaves or grass) that grows in the moonlight.

The European historians carried on with Ibn Battutah story and added on the Greek difficulties that changed the word Hindu to Ind, even though they knew there were names, e.g. Homer, Heraclitus and Herodotus among the Greeks. Therefore, the historians’ stories have no grounds to be believed.

India had many visitors, among them some Chinese, who came to study Buddhism at source. One of them was Hiuen Tsang. In his travelogue, he records that “the correct pronunciation for Tien Chu (India) is Intu” which means the moon in Chinese language. He further elaborates that “the scholars from that land have brightened the world with their delightful and shining knowledge, like the moon.”

The word Hindu did not appear in the scriptures, as distinctions among communities were not necessary. It only became necessary after the 11th century with the establishment of Islamic rule in India. As religions and communities mushroomed, the words Indu (Hindu) for the people and Industhan (Hindusthan) for their land came in vogue.

The Greeks called the sub-continent “Ind” and its people “Indoi.” Thus, the Greek “Ind” and the Chinese “Intu” are not far out from the Sanskrit word “Indu” for the moon (Chandra). As is known to most people, India was once known as Bharatvarsh, named after a legendary Chandravanshiya King Bharat, who ruled India in the past. His people were also known as Chandravanshiya (Indiya or India).

Thus, the origin of the name Hindu is indigenous with the Sanskrit root “Ind.” Not only that, “Ind” is the root word for Indostan, India, Indies (Indias), Indian (Indikoi), Hindu, Hindosthan and Hindustan.

Sahasranama
19 March 2014, 06:30 PM
It has become popular with these so called researchers to "debunk" traditionally held concepts. Often the person doing the debunking is just trying to seek attention with inconclusive evidence. These bottom feeders of academia love to say things like Hinduism/ India has never existed in the past as a religion/ country, that physical yoga was invented based on western gymnastics or that bhakti developed out of Islamic and Christian ideologies. In all these cases it is very important that we Hindus debunk the debunking.

Sudas Paijavana
19 March 2014, 08:01 PM
Namaste,

...by Bhikhu Patel...
It's all in the name, bro. All in the name. Kem cho status. :D BTW, thank you a thousand-fold, KT, for these extremely informative and contributive posts.

hinduism♥krishna
20 March 2014, 04:14 AM
The word Hindu did not appear in the scriptures, as distinctions among communities were not necessary. It only became necessary after the 11th century with the establishment of Islamic rule in India. As religions and communities mushroomed, the words Indu (Hindu) for the people and Industhan (Hindusthan) for their land came in vogue.
This is what I believe about absence of Hindu word in ancient scriptures . I'm feeling amazing :) by knowing that my view is exactly coinciding with Patel's view .

I really :Roll: when European/western scholars make a public stunt saying hindu word is not an ancient word and so Hindu dharma is also not ancient and it's just 800 years old . For proving this they have created a new word 'Vedic Age ' and many fake theories . But the fact is that there was never a Vedic age at all . These so called Historians are intentionally making number of false theories like Aryan Invasion , Sanskrit is derived language from PIE etc . Theirs all these hard works are just to alter Hindu's million years of richest history and making it just 800 years old and to prove Hinduism came after Christianity . Nothing else other than this in their minds , even some are paid by christian missionaries , one of them Romila Thapar and many western history scholars .

What is there in just Name ? Name can not ever tell you the history . Every Hindu knows that there was never a name for our Dharma . It was being called as just Dharma . Because Hindu scriptures uses ONLY dharma word to denote religion of Hindus ( Bramhana-kshatriya-vaishya-shudra Varnas ) .

At ancient times before muslim invasion , there was no any need for Hindu word or any other word . At that time people were identifying themselves just by Varna . However when Mlecchas ( Caste-less ) invaded Aryans ( Hindus ) , then the words like Hindu , mleccha , Yavanas came into existence in Hindu communities . Hindus themselves starting calling themselves as Hindus to distinguish people of four Varnas from caste-less people who invaded land of Aryans .

I think the most authentic origin of Hindu is definitely from Agama and Puranas . Hindus used Hindu word to separate out Mlecchas from pious people of four Varnas .

• Brihaspati Agama says:
himAlayaM samArabhya yAvadindu sarovaram |
taM devanirmitaM desha hindusthAnaM prachakShate ||

"Starting from Himalaya up to Indu waters is this God-created country Hindustan."

Birhannaradi Purana in Hoshiarpur (Punjab)[1] which contained the verse:

Himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
Hindusthanamiti qyatan hi antaraksha-rayogatah

"The country between Himalayas and Bindu Sarovar (Cape Commorin Sea) is Hindusthan derived by combining the first letter 'Hi' of Himalayas and the last compound letter 'ndu' of the word Bindu."

From VishNu Purana, 2.3.1:

Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam |
Varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih ||

"Bharat is the name of country situated to the north of the sea and south of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati."

One shoudn't get misunderstood here . This verse is talking about persons whose Homeland is BharataVarsha , not about foreigners . Besides before muslim invasion , there was not a single mleccha in Aryavarta ( India ) and this defination was written long before muslim's invasion . So Hindu is not only geographical definition . It has relation with Dharma also .

Besides VedaVyasa says in Bhavishya Purana " Mlecchas will invade land of aryas ( Hindus ) and loot them and will try to destroy dharma . After that BharataVarsha will become a country of mixed races like aryas ( Hindus ) and mlecchas. Mleccha's population will get increased throughout the world and Even in BharataVarsha . "

Kalicharan Tuvij
20 March 2014, 10:16 AM
It's all in the name, bro. All in the name. Kem cho status. :D
Actually crossed my mind, so I double checked the name:)

BTW, thank you a thousand-fold, KT, for these extremely informative and contributive posts.
No, no. In fact there is a mountain out there, and here we have like pointing to a few pebbles only so far. Laziness, incompetency, I suppose. I hope you and Jaskaran (he's at it, bet), and also others, can add something, in time, here: relevant, tangible or questioning.

KT


P.S.: sisnadevA have made the world a sick place, gotta say.

Sudas Paijavana
20 March 2014, 06:18 PM
Actually crossed my mind, so I double checked the name:)

No, no. In fact there is a mountain out there, and here we have like pointing to a few pebbles only so far. Laziness, incompetency, I suppose. I hope you and Jaskaran (he's at it, bet), and also others, can add something, in time, here: relevant, tangible or questioning.

Namaste,

I hope I can add something contributive soon. I'm still reading over your sources and going through the mountain out there. There are a lot of valuable sources. But, once again, thank you for bringing one or two of them to light.

ShivaFan
23 March 2014, 12:59 PM
Namaste

I may be the "last man standing" when it comes to using the word Hindu and Hinduism as a catch-all for the original religion, and I will continue to call myself a Hindu probably to my death.

But a side note I thought I would mention is, and it is simply to bring up an observation, many, many Saivas I have noticed are often calling themself Saiva instead of Hindu. The Vaisnavas and especially Gaudiyas have been doing the same for a very long time here in America, since the last many decades they do not say "I am a Hindu" but rather "I am a Vaishnava" (or "Gaudiya Vaishnava" and so on).

Now I notice Saivas in America be they of Euro or Indian origin or other who may have in the past said "I am a Hindu" rather say "I am a Saiva". This is simply an observation, not taking sides.

With each decade, Americans understand more and more Sanskrit words, understand different Hindu terms, paths, sects and so on. While saying "Hindu" in the past would be familiar but not "Saiva", yet now many Americans know the word Saiva or Shaiva now, they "see it in terms of a religion, and Shiva", and the same is true of Vaishnava, they know the word Vedic as well.

Mother India is full of tirthas. So that is a vital reason why, when Americans hear the word Hindu, they see Hindustan or land of Hindus as geographic, viz India. The link between India and religion, e,g. Hinduism, is that the tirthas are found. Meaning, for example, Ganga Maa.

Ganga Maa or Ganges River is, to countless Americans, Hinduism. They hear Hindu, they think Ganges River. They think Surya the sun rising over Ganges, and devotees and holy one's dipping in the Ganga with a big Sun overhead.

This may in part be poetic vision, but I am telling you the way many think. To them, Hinduism is not a people but a place, they think Ganga, or Vrindavan, or Kashi, and so on.

A "Hindu" to them is someone who venerates such tirthas and the Devatas. Despite all the efforts of Advaitans to put in place a different vision then this, most Americans think Hinduism as this, the Ganga, the Devatas Siva, Vishnu, Brahma, and Mother Goddess. They see a place, India.

But now they know more words, such as Vedic, Vaishnava, Shaiva. But even knowing these words, they "see India".

Just saying.

Om Namah Sivaya

Kalicharan Tuvij
24 March 2014, 08:24 AM
Namaste,

Dharma (religious), Hindu (cultural), Indian (political) -- these three words are synonymous to me, but then I should count myself as an endangered species.

Frankly, I am not concerned about how the non-Indian or also the non-Hindu people can perceive what Dharma is to them if they are into it.

But let us see, anyway.

The "directory", apparently, is:

Indian > Hindu > Dharma

Here I am taking the words according to their present meaning (so, "Hindu" is cultural, and "Indian" is political, even though both derive from the same word Indu).

Or, let us say:

Indian-Hindu-Dharma

Today it has already suffered ellipsis and we have:
Hindu-Dharma

And tomorrow, devoid of the cultural assets, the bindi and the sari, it will be:
Dharma

This can be the western route. By that time, to counterbalance that, there will be no India left.

I say so based on pure observation. The story on this end of spectrum is going on like this:

Indian-Hindu-Dharma
Indian-Hindu
Indian
-nil-

Already we are into the phase in India where Hindu word has been orchestrated. Indians today fear calling themselves Hindu, or even accept that their ancestors were Hindu.

It is already into the last phase where the idea of India is in peril. Foreigners and Indian intellectuals (not to forget the immigrants)have joined a chorus: "there never was an India" (la-la-..background music).

Yet, pick any Indian among the billions of them, and run a narco on him/her, you will hear Vedic rica-s straight coming one after one from the mouth.

*But, again, that one is from the third innermost, obsolete, layer i.e. Dharma.



KT

P.S.:
The idea "India" received a major setback during the mass exodus of thousands of "educated Indians" especially during the nineties, the consequences of which will be most readily visible in the next twenty-five years.

Eastern Mind
24 March 2014, 01:40 PM
Namaste

I may be the "last man standing" when it comes to using the word Hindu and Hinduism as a catch-all for the original religion, and I will continue to call myself a Hindu probably to my death.



Vannakkam: I am with you.

Despite the history, it's what we have today, and what works. Try using google maps and searching for 'Vaishnava temple' or 'Sanatana Dharma temples'. Still I am glad the west is developing a greater knowledge of the specific sects, because it makes for a much better understanding all around.

Aum Namasivaya

Anirudh
25 March 2014, 06:22 PM
Thanks K T, Sudas, Sai Devo and others who have shared very valuable information.

It will take sometime before I understand completely about the history of the word Hindu and also to get rid of my aversion for the word Hindu or Hindustan.

However this post present a starting point.

It will be helpful if some references of the word Hindu and not Indu from our ancient text is provided. I am interested to know whether Hindu is a Persian way (my assumption) of referring Indu.

I would like to be wrong in my assumption but if it is not the case then we are still carrying the slavery baggage. So whom ever working on it kindly add this into your list of treasure hunt.

Kalicharan Tuvij
26 March 2014, 10:08 AM
Namaste.


It will be helpful if some references of the word Hindu and not Indu from our ancient text is provided. I am interested to know whether Hindu is a Persian way (my assumption) of referring Indu.
Hindu is originally a Persian way of referring Indu. And the texts that have been quoted in this thread as references to the word Hindu, in my opinion merely express their acceptance of the term.

I would like to be wrong in my assumption but if it is not the case then we are still carrying the slavery baggage. So whom ever working on it kindly add this into your list of treasure hunt.
The Persians (pArsis) were a people just like us. Zoroastrianism (the religion of pArsis) and Vedanta (of us) are nothing but siblings having the Vedic Dharma as their common Father and Mother.
"Hindu" is given to us by the Zoros (pArsis) who were our brothers in every sense of the word. We can as well say, our elder brothers, because it is in the Persian branch that we first see the dawn of the post-Vedic age.

Let us dwell a bit here, and look deeper.


It is commonly known that in Zoroastrian we have As(h)ura-s as the divine powers and daiva-s (Deva-s) are their enemies, whereas in today's Hinduism we have Deva-s (Sura-s) as divine gods and Asura-s as their antitheses the dark powers.

Popularly this is perceived as a sign of opposition and bad blood between the two people. But in eyes of the learned this is not true. Because, firstly, in Veda both Asura-s and Sura-s (Deva-s) are gods; the same god can be called Deva in one place and Asura in another- this is in keep with the Vedic understanding that a Deva can be perceived in either ways: as in harmony (like sura-s in music theory), or as in isolation (and thus Asura) when the Deva overshadows every other Deva .

So, even as the Hindus in the Kaliyuga overemphasised the correctness of Harmony (but still remembered the Asura part at least in the spirit, when praising many of their deities as supreme in their own contexts), the Zoros on the other hand underpinned the necessity, from moral point of view, of separating goodness from evil, and therefore veered towards the Asuric powers in order to completely overshadow and vanquish Evil.

In a nutshell, pArsis were not our enemies, they were at the worst only the first ones to have started on a post Vedic journey from the original Vedic Dharma. In fact, Indians of that time stood by the Vedic Dharma (they still do, at least in name) and repelled the yet-to-be pArsis from the land in what is known as The Battle Of Ten Kings (dasa-rajanya-yuddha) - a battle far greater than even the MahabhArata in import and in scale - where the great Hindu ancestor Sudas Paijavana (think of him as a dhoti-clad Justice Dredd, lol) led from the side of Dharma and won it for us even against great odds.

But, again, this has to be seen (as is in the Veda, in fact) a war fought among brothers, among Aryans, much like in the Mahabharata.

I can standing on the Mount Everest proudly proclaim the pArsis as my brothers.

And they have given us "Hindu". We both people were on the same path down streams starting from the Vedic age. There is a theory that says Hindu could very well have origin in India itself. Basically, it is the science of sound changes, and it is found that these laws are independent of peoples.

For example, the Vedic "r" sound has become "l" sound (e.g. raghu -> laghu, so on) in both the classical Sanskrit (and hence Hindi) as well as in the western IE languages. So the sound changes have been similar even though there was no communication between the eastern (classical Sanskrit) and the western IE languages. Let me give a simple yet effective explanation of this.

Mothers are the teachers of language to their children. Sometimes it is found that the children are having difficulty in spelling certain sounds. Mothers, being the empathetic creature that they are, tend to use feedback and in this way a language changes its course naturally over the time.

In the very start, however, when Sanskrit was being discovered by Hindus, both fathers and mothers played the role of teacher, the former had a dominant role in the early days but the latter took over the charge after that.

Reverting to Indu from Hindu will of itself happen when reverting to Sanskrit from Hindi is accomplished. Sanskrit is lurking there.. its DNA has deep truths (that can literally drive one mad), but that will take some time to unfold if that happens.

Today, unfortunately, there are no pArsis left, except those who came back to India to avoid persecution in Iran. And the Iranians today identify themselves as - you know what- fArsis (f = p+h) because is this what their Arab victors called them!

Sounds funny, but what people in ignorance impute to Indu-Hindu is actually in reality applicable on the very supposed "perpetrators" as in pArsi-fArsi.

No fun/ pun intended:cool1:

Jaskaran Singh
26 March 2014, 06:19 PM
Thanks K T, Sudas, Sai Devo and others who have shared very valuable information.

It will take sometime before I understand completely about the history of the word Hindu and also to get rid of my aversion for the word Hindu or Hindustan.

However this post present a starting point.

It will be helpful if some references of the word Hindu and not Indu from our ancient text is provided. I am interested to know whether Hindu is a Persian way (my assumption) of referring Indu.

I would like to be wrong in my assumption but if it is not the case then we are still carrying the slavery baggage. So whom ever working on it kindly add this into your list of treasure hunt.
namaste,
I just did some research and found a page which suggests that you apparently may not be completely incorrect in your assumptions.
This is how the mleccha invaders (Turks, Persians, etc.) used the term Hindu:

Comparing to shani: "In astrology the dark and inauspicious planet Saturn is frequently called the Hindu of the Firmament."

Calling ugly, mean, etc.: "In contrast to this, the Hindu is “ugly, mean and blackish” (Schimmel, 1974, p. 244), and even cunning (cf., e.g., Hāfeẓ, Divān, no. 395, 1. 5: ḥilat-e Hendu)."

Considering Hindus to be slaves: "But the Indian is above all the slave; saying that one is someone’s "Hindu” is a strong expression of devotion, especially in love."

Source:http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hindu
Edit: Apparently, the other page isn't working, try this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hindu

Jaskaran Singh
28 March 2014, 07:38 PM
The Battle Of Ten Kings (dasa-rajanya-yuddha) - a battle far greater than even the MahabhArata in import and in scale - where the great Hindu ancestor Sudas Paijavana (think of him as a dhoti-clad Justice Dredd, lol) led from the side of Dharma and won it for us even against great odds.
praNAm,
Not really...
kurukShetra army (18 akShauhiNI-s, or around 2,755,620 people)
etayA saMkhyayAhyAsan kurupANDavasenayoH
akShauhiNyo dvijashreShThAH piNDenAShTAdashaiva tAH||1.2.24||

dAsharAj~na army (6,666 people)-
ní gavyávó anavo druhyávashca ShaShTíH shatÁ suSupuH SháTsahásrA
ShaShTír vIrÁso ádhi SháDduvoyú víshvédíndrasya vIryÀ kRtÁni||7.18.14|||

Sudas Paijavana
28 March 2014, 07:47 PM
Namaste,


... The Battle Of Ten Kings (dasa-rajanya-yuddha) - a battle far greater than even the MahabhArata in import and in scale - where the great Hindu ancestor Sudas Paijavana (think of him as a dhoti-clad Justice Dredd, lol) led from the side of Dharma and won it for us even against great odds...




Not really...
kurukShetra army-
etayA saMkhyayAhyAsan kurupANDavasenayoH
akShauhiNyo dvijashreShThAH piNDenAShTAdashaiva tAH||1.2.24||

dAsharAj~na army-
n� gavy�v� anavo druhy�vashca ShaShT�H shat� suSupuH Sh�Tsah�srA
ShaShT�r vIr�so �dhi Sh�Dduvoy� v�shv�d�ndrasya vIry� kRt�ni||7.18.14||

Take it from me, fellas. That battle was of diabolical proportions. Trust me, I was there.

*watch Jaskaran now complain to his email buddies, "omg, guys, like, omg - I can't believe HDF-Sudas thinks he's the actual Sudas, like, omg, so egotistical, like, omg, guys, like, omg, fo' real, guys, like, omg, like remember what nArada said?...like, omg, guys, like, omg!"

Jaskaran Singh
28 March 2014, 07:57 PM
*watch Jaskaran now complain to his email buddies, "omg, guys, like, omg - I can't believe HDF-Sudas thinks he's the actual Sudas, like, omg, so egotistical, like, omg, guys, like, omg, fo' real, guys, like, omg, like remember what nArada said?...like, omg, guys, like, omg!"
Yes, like OMG...
*Warning: bad language
Shoes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCF3ywukQYA)

Kalicharan Tuvij
29 March 2014, 09:45 AM
namaste,
I just did some research and found a page which suggests that you apparently may not be completely incorrect in your assumptions.
This is how the mleccha invaders (Turks, Persians, etc.) used the term Hindu:

They borrowed Zoros' (mostly their own ancestors) word and added their own little, devious, twist to it. So this abuse of the word "Hindu" by them is plain envy, and frustration of their inability to conquer and destroy Hindus. I'd say, this is how our enemies abused the word "Hindu", rather than saying this is how "Hindu" is abusive of us. Why? Because "Hindu" has roots in Sanskrit "Indu" utilising an aspirated "i".
Devoid of Zoroastrianism and civilisation, apparently dudes lost their self-respect there as well.


praNAm,
Not really...
kurukShetra army (18 akShauhiNI-s, or around 2,755,620 people)
etayA saMkhyayAhyAsan kurupANDavasenayoH
akShauhiNyo dvijashreShThAH piNDenAShTAdashaiva tAH||1.2.24||

dAsharAj~na army (6,666 people)-
ní gavyávó anavo druhyávashca ShaShTíH shatÁ suSupuH SháTsahásrA
ShaShTír vIrÁso ádhi SháDduvoyú víshvédíndrasya vIryÀ kRtÁni||7.18.14|||
Thank you for pointing this out, I stand corrected on this (the head count scales of these two wars). Even if we question these figures (25 L, really?) no doubt some estimate of scale is indeed apparent.

***********
***********
"Indu" went under some other morphisms too. One example is "Bindu".
Bindu: drop, point, ajna chakra, soma.
Yet another is: "Bindi" which women folk put on their foreheads (again, the 3rd eye, ajna chakra).
That Bindu and Bindi are sound morphisms becomes evident from their non-derivation from any sandhi or other rules in Sanskrit.

***********
***********
"Indu" is obviously a less understood word and its significance is not grasped fully even by pundits of Hindu Dharma. So, I will not be surprised if it still takes many decades before Hindus themselves are able to understand and visualise this word Hindu/ Indu properly in its full light.

I also talked about dangers on the existence of Dharma, Hinduism, and India. But I feel ultimately, both- the Eastern Hindu, and the Western Hindu - will have to settle on only one of these three denominations for themselves.

For Indians, the only choice is: India. Even if it means the silence of atheism reigning supreme at some moment.

For only then the lost genius of India, the Asura, will rise and devour all Asat, not distinguishing between friend and foe, this and that.

And once again Man will become God.




P.S.: Sudas, 'tis called, soma-high:D
Greetings in advance for RamNavami. Jai Shri Ram.

Anirudh
29 March 2014, 08:32 PM
Namaste JS ji and Sudas ji

Kindly stict to the discussion. I am following this thread to learn.

K T has praised parsi's and has pesented his views while Jaskaran is not rulling out the hidden negativity in the word Hindu

After reading K T, I wonder why should we have to stick on o loan word "Hindu" than the original word Indu.

We can always argue, what's there in the name. But isn't pronoiciation very important in Sanskrit.

Agreed, we might not change things over night but accepting to the fate without any try means we aren't proud of our History.

Jaskaran Singh
29 March 2014, 09:29 PM
Zoroastrianism (the religion of pArsis) and Vedanta (of us) are nothing but siblings having the Vedic Dharma as their common Father and Mother.
praNAm,

You do realize that the majUsI creed begins with "naismi daevo" which means that they give shrAp to the deva-s, right? You consider that to be "siblings" with vedAntI-s?

Kalicharan Tuvij
30 March 2014, 02:36 AM
Namaste,

One of my posts is scheduled to appear after post#32, where I've dealt with some of these issues. In this, I will further expand on that.


After reading K T, I wonder why should we have to stick on o loan word "Hindu" than the original word Indu.
It's merely one aspirated "i" brother. Sanskrit has seen far greater changes.

We can always argue, what's there in the name. But isn't pronoiciation very important in Sanskrit.
As I said in my last post, "Bindu" also comes from a sound change in "Indu" (and not from any rule in Sanskrit), so will you ban this word also. Or may be not, simply because the sound change is "proved to have happened" in India only?

Agreed, we might not change things over night but accepting to the fate without any try means we aren't proud of our History.
Better conserve our energies for things fruitful.


praNAm,

You do realize that the majUsI creed begins with "naismi daevo" which means that they give shrAp to the deva-s, right? You consider that to be "siblings" with vedAntI-s?
"naismi daevo", as I explained it briefly in an earlier post, has the import:
"Destroy harmony of existence with things that cannot coexist with you", if you can see beyond being just literal (and a bit polemical?).

Brahma of Vedanta, however, is present in everyone and everywhere, even inside our enemies.

Both these standpoints are completely true in isolation, this is the Vedic understanding. Therefore, we need both.

I will keep repeating this point, don't worry, till someone gets it in the end.

Meanwhile, if I missed saying this:
Hindu is given to us by pArsis who were(are) another (post)Vedic people, and pArsis should not be confused with fArsis who came to India as Mughals, and thus continued calling us Hindus.

Pranam.

Anirudh
30 March 2014, 09:06 AM
Jaskaran ji and K T ji,

Apparently aren't we doing a reverse hypothesis here.

We dont seem to have any reference of the word Hindu in our ancient Sanskrit scripts. Also it has a Persian origin. No matter who Persians are, when we have the very word Indu in Sanskrit scriptures why do we care about the loaned / forced word.

I get a feeling we try exonerate Persians to accommodatte Hindu into the folds of our religion. But why ?


Indu or Sanatana is the way to go than relying on Hindu.

Kalicharan Tuvij
31 March 2014, 12:16 PM
Namaste.

There are many, many, things that I am not willing to share right now, for I believe the time is not ripe yet.

Ultimately, however, I do see the point of having the freedom to choose ones own name, instead of relying on terms given by others no matter however much Vedic in origin or not.

So, the focal point is this word, "Indu". Why should we accept it?

Why should we, of all Devatā-s in our pantheon, relate ourselves, for the denomination, to Indra only?

Where is the evidence, if there at all, that our Rishis called themselves as Indu-s?

However, we know that we have always used BhArata and BhArati for self-identity.

But, who is this BhArata and this BhArati?

Well, there have been illustrious kings, chakravartins, going by that name. There was a Vedic tribe, a very prominent one, also of name BhArata.

But ultimately it is our spirituality, our worldview, that gives us a meaningful insight into the meaning of these two words.

Though I have touched on this earlier, briefly, I will rather avoid dwelling on it right now. Except, emphasising on that there is a point where BhArata meets BhArati. That point is to be understood (again, IMO) as Indu.

In Indu, both BhArata and BhArati are simultaneously present.

Then, it might be asked here: why the hell we don't remember all this?

Because, this was a real, long, long time ago.

Another hint that I will leave here is, the whole world was dominated and in a way controlled by Aryan armies from India. India, therefore, when seen through the eyes of the world, was an icon, murthy, of Lord Indra.

On my side, I will confess here:
1) I am not being an apologetic for the Hindu word. I am a free person.
2) There is a duplication in having both Hindu and Indian, when both mean the same Indu thing. Rather, I have slightly inclined on the side of doing away with Hindu altogether and keeping only Indian (and BhAratiya in Sanskrit). So there is no question of being apologetic or anything.
3) There could be an opposition from anti-Vedic quarters, as I see, regarding my readings. Well, I have no sympathies with them. And no, not a chance of "Sanatana Dharma", for me.


Shri Ram.

Jaskaran Singh
31 March 2014, 11:14 PM
Namaste.

There are many, many, things that I am not willing to share right now, for I believe the time is not ripe yet.

Ultimately, however, I do see the point of having the freedom to choose ones own name, instead of relying on terms given by others no matter however much Vedic in origin or not.

So, the focal point is this word, "Indu". Why should we accept it?

Why should we, of all Devatā-s in our pantheon, relate ourselves, for the denomination, to Indra only?

Where is the evidence, if there at all, that our Rishis called themselves as Indu-s?

However, we know that we have always used BhArata and BhArati for self-identity.

But, who is this BhArata and this BhArati?

Well, there have been illustrious kings, chakravartins, going by that name. There was a Vedic tribe, a very prominent one, also of name BhArata.

But ultimately it is our spirituality, our worldview, that gives us a meaningful insight into the meaning of these two words.

Though I have touched on this earlier, briefly, I will rather avoid dwelling on it right now. Except, emphasising on that there is a point where BhArata meets BhArati. That point is to be understood (again, IMO) as Indu.

In Indu, both BhArata and BhArati are simultaneously present.

Then, it might be asked here: why the hell we don't remember all this?

Because, this was a real, long, long time ago.

Another hint that I will leave here is, the whole world was dominated and in a way controlled by Aryan armies from India. India, therefore, when seen through the eyes of the world, was an icon, murthy, of Lord Indra.

On my side, I will confess here:
1) I am not being an apologetic for the Hindu word. I am a free person.
2) There is a duplication in having both Hindu and Indian, when both mean the same Indu thing. Rather, I have slightly inclined on the side of doing away with Hindu altogether and keeping only Indian (and BhAratiya in Sanskrit). So there is no question of being apologetic or anything.
3) There could be an opposition from anti-Vedic quarters, as I see, regarding my readings. Well, I have no sympathies with them. And no, not a chance of "Sanatana Dharma", for me.


Shri Ram.
What's funny is that even in Urdu we use bhArat for India, like in the following map (بھارت is written in huge print):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/India_Map_Urdu.jpg/666px-India_Map_Urdu.jpg

Anirudh
31 March 2014, 11:44 PM
In Indu, both BhArata and BhArati are simultaneously present.


Namaste K T ji,

Thank you very much for the informative post. When ever you feel the time has arrived, kindly explain how Indu encompasses BhArata and BhArati. Better yet, you can guide us to figure it out by ourselves.

As of now, I term our nation as Bharat and our Dharma as Indu / Sanaatana (but definitely not Hindu ) Dharma.

Namaste Jaskaran ji,

Urdu has no place in the discussion as it is an off shoot rather something which reminds us how we are still slaves to our regrettable past.

No offense intended or taken.

Jaskaran Singh
01 April 2014, 12:06 AM
Namaste Jaskaran ji,

Urdu has no place in the discussion as it is an off shoot rather something which reminds us how we are still slaves to our regrettable past.

No offense intended or taken.
namaste,
Couldn't one say the same about English? Even though it's the most prominent global language of communication and the second most commonly-spoken language in the world (after Mandarin Chinese), it was still introduced to India by a foreign invading force which came to loot the country, just like the Mughals (the only difference was that the looting by the British was more subtle and less violent).

Anirudh
01 April 2014, 03:07 AM
Namaste Jaskaran Ji,

I will send you a PM as my comments may derail the thread.

Kalicharan Tuvij
01 April 2014, 10:46 AM
Namaste.



What's funny is that even in Urdu we use bhArat for India, like in the following map (بھارت is written in huge print):

I have also noticed that.



When ever you feel the time has arrived, kindly explain how Indu encompasses BhArata and BhArati. Better yet, you can guide us to figure it out by ourselves.
I can try, but no guarantee, because ultimately we have to look deep within ourselves to connect to the patterns of the Vedic Rsis.
So anyway I will try a simple approach here.

First, bhArata and bhAratī -- think of these as mere words (so, Sanskrit is the key, again).
Both these words mean: "of bharata" (Hindi: भरत का).
Mostly, bhArata = son of bharata
bhAratī = daughter of bharata

This much is clear as day. But, now, just imagine,
Who (ka?) is that divine power that could be the Father of Mother BhArati Herself?

PrajApati. It is PrajApati.

So the next immediate question: is PrajApati called bharata anywhere? Or, who are the deities that are called bharata?

Satpatha BrAhmaNa 1.8.14
'Far, far famed is this Agni of the Bharata (tribe),'--the Bharata, doubtless, is Pragâpati, for he sustains (bhar) this entire (universe);--'that his great light shineth brightly, as the sun(Surya),'--that is, 'that, like the sun(Surya), his great light shines brightly;'

My further opinion on this;
Agni and Prajāpati together form the Whole. It is as if the coming together of Finite and Infinite. When we start Yagya, we first become inflated and one with Agni, and then invoke Prajapati to unite with us (this is somewhere in some BrAhmaNa). This is still only a very generic understanding. Actually, just as a rectangular field can be divided by any line running across it, similarly, Rsis used to dissect the Map Of Reality in as many ways as possible, so in that sense we can say, the division into Agni and PrajApati is one such (and of particular interest to us in the present context).

Now let us have a look at this pada of RgVeda [9.5.9] regarding Indu (Soma) PavamAna,
"Indu is Indra, tawny Steer; PavamAna is PrajApati."

So "Indu PavamAna" is purposely broken into Indu and PavamAna to showcase the duality inherent in Indu.

One part is, clearly, on the side of Infinite Godhead, the PrajApati, while the other is on the side of the Finite Godhead, Indra.

But, instead of themselves fully entering inside the DNA of Indu (ain't possible:D )- PrajApati and Indra elect their representations. Indra selects bhArata from this side and PrajApati sends BhArati from His side. So that's why I said in an earlier post that BhArata is "Indra-like".

But I also said that BhArati is ILA-like, but here I write She is a representation of PrajApati, how? Actually, it is in the same manner as "bhArata is Indra-like, yet also a representation of Agni". It isn't clear at all, I guess, but let it be, for now.

So this kind of, "logically", illustrates that "Indu is bhArata-bhArati".



As of now, I term our nation as BhArat and our Dharma as Indu / Sanaatana (but definitely not Hindu ) Dharma.
I have no problem in following this lead, post some understanding of the words and their meanings.
However, I have no problems with "Hindu" as well, since in Hindi (shall we make it Indi, too?) the word Indu is now thus understood to have gone minor sound change, and rather makes the word more pronounceable. Another sound change for the same word, as discussed earlier, is Bindu.

Hindu is therefore a perfectly valid Hindi word, if not in Sanskrit. So it is an acceptable word. And since the sound change occurred during pArsi-s (when the Mughals were not even existent), there is no particular bogey involved that can militate against its use.

The reason I believe "Hindu" should/ rather will be discarded eventually, is because the word "Indian" (also from Indu) is equivalent in every sense to "Hindu". And add to it the incidental ongoing onslaught against the word (Hindu), which day by day makes its chances for survival dim.

As regards, "Dharma", clearly, when we say "Indu/Hindu Dharma" it means "The duty of Indu/Hindu people". So, "Dharma" is not "Religion". It is a deep conspiracy (IMHO, plz correct me:( ) to equate Dharma with Religion (actually, "organised Religion") and is an attack on the secular ethos of this country and its people.

Dharma ain't no Religion.
Dharma admits of only one "organised structure" within India:- India.




P.S.:
1) Indu doesn't mean "Moon" originally, neither does soma. Indu is infact more related to Surya Deva. "Moon" is a symbol of "mind-body" and thus is the last receiver of the nectar, here on the mortal Earth, and hence soma can be seen on this level only symbolically as Moon. Indu, however, is the level of soma not on Earth but on Swarga. So connecting Indu with Moon is not OK.
2) PrajApati has undergone some change after the Vedic age, but still, as this wiki-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajapati) amply shows, He still remained a very formidable Deity, and could well be on a resurgence today.

Anirudh
02 April 2014, 08:54 PM
and is an attack on the secular ethos of this country


Namaste K T ji

Word secular confuses and at the same time irks me more than my be(i)tter half's mindset.

Just joking...

Thanks for sharing your views. I will.reply to you in few days....

Kalicharan Tuvij
06 April 2014, 07:07 AM
This is from Francois Gautier's blog (http://francoisgautier.me/2014/04/04/737/): (emphasis mine)

And indeed, if you look at India today, you find that Hinduism has permeated, influenced, shaped, every part of this country, every religion, every culture. Be it the Christians who are like no other Catholics of the world, or Indian Muslims, who whatever they may say, are utterly different from their brothers in Saudi Arabia. But Hinduism is too narrow a word, it’s a corruption of the original word “Indu”, for true Hinduism is Dharma, India’s infinite and eternal spiritual knowledge, which took shape into so many varied expressions throughout the ages, be it the Vedantas, Buddhism, or the Arya Samaj and which is today still very much alive in India, particularly in its rural masses, which after all constitute 80% of its population. And the words of the great Sage still echo in our ears: “Each nation is a shakti or power of the evolving spirit in humanity and lives by the principle it embodies. India is the Bharata Shakti, the living energy of a great spiritual conception- and fidelity to it is the very principle of her existence…But we must have a firm faith that India must rise and be great and that everything that happened, every difficulty, every reverse must help and further the end…”