PDA

View Full Version : Evolution of the term Hindu



issacnewton
05 June 2011, 10:19 AM
Hi

Its commonly thought that 'hindu' is the one who believes in Vedas, even though
the legal definition of the term 'hindu' in India is different. Initially, a hindu
was the one who lived in east of sindhu river. So what were the reasons for the
evolution of the term 'hindu' as the one who believes in Vedas only. Was there
a subconscious reason for giving Veda central place, to be acceptable to the
christians, muslims so that hindus can argue they are also 'people of the book' ?

Just curious...... I have also come across some literature by RSS saying the term hindu is found in sanskrit literature. Is it a credible ? Or was it due to
Persian influence ?

thanks

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 10:51 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu#Etymology

"Hindu" is the Persian word for "Sindhu". There was a regular sound shift between what became Persian and Sanskrit when Proto-Indo-Aryan split into its daughter languages. Sanskrit /s/ became Persian /h/. Much like the sound shift in Greek and Latin from /h/ to /s/. Greek hypo-, hyper-, hex-, hept- --> Latin sub-, supe-r, sex-, sept-.

I apologize if I didn't fully answer your question, as I cannot speak on the Vedas. I think the first few lines of the article will explain better.

saidevo
06 June 2011, 11:46 AM
namaste.

It's explained in this post:
The name Hindu for the people and the country--not a Hindu name?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=24825&postcount=1

PARAM
06 June 2011, 11:54 AM
It is about Adharmik or anti-Hindu writers who says that Hindu is a corrupt word of Sindhu by the Islamic world.

Let say muhammad made Ihlam and his followers were Muhalman, but the H was transformed to S :cool1:

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 12:28 PM
It is about Adharmik or anti-Hindu writers who says that Hindu is a corrupt word of Sindhu by the Islamic world.

Namaste PARAM.

I'm sorry, but the foregoing is not true. See my post about the Persian/Sanskrit sound changes. Moreover, Arabic is in no way related to Persian or Sanskrit. Arabic is a Semitic language of the Afroasiatic family. So there is no connection in Arabic to the Persian/Sanskrit sound change. Arabic, after spreading throughout southwest Asia including Persia, now Iran, adopted the Persian word, becoming al-Hind.

The Persian/Sanskrit sound change pre-dates Islam by at least 1500 years. Classical Sanskrit and Old Persian diverged from Proto-Indo-Iranian around 500 BC. Classical Arabic did not develop until about 200 BC; modern Arabic about 400 AD, Islam arose in the 600s AD. So the Islamic world could not have corrupted something that already existed.

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 01:15 PM
namaste.

It's explained in this post:
The name Hindu for the people and the country--not a Hindu name?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=24825&postcount=1

Actually there is proof, scroll down to the bottom for the S/H sound change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language#Subsequent_sound_changes

Proto-Indo-Iranian Old Iranian Sanskrit
*s>ss ~ h
*septm̥ "seven"saptá "seven"hapta "seven"

^ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_ref-15) "Indo-Iranian Languages." Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Ed. J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997. pp. 305.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-India_relations#Pre-Islamic_Persia_and_Vedic_civilization_era

Pre-Islamic Persia and Vedic civilization era
The languages of the northern, western, central, and eastern regions of India belonging to the Indo-Aryan (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages) family have originated from the same source as the Iranian languages (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Iranian_languages), namely the Indo-Iranian language family (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages), that itself is a member of the Satem (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Satem) group of Indo-European languages (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Indo-European_languages). The Indo-Iranians (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Indo-Iranians) were a semi-nomadic people originating from the Central Asian (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Central_Asia) steppes (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Steppes), via the Oxus (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Oxus) river valley, at c. 2000 BCE.[7] (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_note-6)
Vedic Indian people (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Indian_people) referred to themselves as Aryas (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Arya). The word Arya (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Arya) in classical Sanskrit (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Sanskrit) means "noble".[8] (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_note-7) Ancient central and northern India was also referred to as Aryavarta, meaning "abode of the Arya". Iranian peoples (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Iranian_peoples), such as Darius in his Behistun inscription, referred to themselves as Aryans (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Aryan) as well (Ariya), from which the word "Iran" originates (such as Avestan airyanam vaejo (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/w/index.php?title=Airyanam_vaejo&action=edit&redlink=1) meaning "expanse of the Aryans").
Vedic civilization began in India around 1500 BCE, with the Rigveda (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Rigveda) being the oldest of the Vedas (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Vedas). The Rigveda was composed in Vedic Sanskrit, which is very similar to Avestan (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Avestan), the ancient language of the Iranian Zoroastrian (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Zoroastrian) sacred text Avesta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Avesta). According to the Vendidad (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Vendidad) (ch.1), the Ariya lived in sixteen countries, one of them being Hapta Hindu, which is the Avestan form of the Sanskrit Sapta Sindhu (Rigveda), meaning "seven rivers" and referring to the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. Ancient Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism also have much else in common.
The Vedas and the Avesta include the performance of sacrifice (Sanskrit yajna (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Yajna) or Avestan yasna (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Yasna)) and the importance of priests. Many myths that appear in the Yasht (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Yasht) part of the Avesta have their roots in ancient Indo-Iranian culture.[6] (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_note-indianembassy-tehran_ties-5)

I'm not trying to argue, but simply point out that cultural and political bias often overrides linguistics and archaeology. There's a saying that "a language has a navy, a dialect doesn't".

Eastern Mind
06 June 2011, 04:45 PM
I'm not trying to argue, but simply point out that cultural and political bias often overrides linguistics and archaeology.

Vannakkam: And herein lies the problem with world history. The Abrahamics simply cannot handle that the origin of mankind may have been somewhere else besides around Jerusalem. So they start with this basic assumption that holds no bearing whatsoever, and everything follows from there. Being a stuck in-intellectual-debate group of souls, they feed on it, and are the sources of most so called 'history'.

The Indus Valley is one of the oldest to date. As archeology continues, older tools and other advanced civilisations may well be discovered, and the debates will ego ethnocentric debates will continue.

Personally, I've dropped it into File 13 in my mind, and only occasionally retrieve little bits of it, like now. The fact of the matter is that most of us here are known to ourselves and to others as Hindus.

If I had to call out the owner of every 'restaurant' every time I walked into it for stealing the word from French, I would be considered mighty petty indeed.

Over time, the name may change again. Besides Absolute Reality, that is the only constant: Change. God is beyond names.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 06:21 PM
Vannakkam: And herein lies the problem with world history. The Abrahamics simply cannot handle that the origin of mankind may have been somewhere else besides around Jerusalem.

You know they say history is written by the victors.

One of the things that dismayed me about being a "Christian" is the egocentrism. I use quotes because many of them are anything but. As Mahatma Gandhi pointed out "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians".

I don't like the idea of the evangelization and forced conversions and massacres of indigenous peoples, and the notion that I'm going to go to Hell because I made God angry with me. I don't mean to turn this into a "Throw 'em to the lions!" (I did once say "so many Christians and so few lions"... it was not well-received).

I have posited on a religion and politics forum (there's a recipe for disaster) that the Abrahamic beliefs are a continuation, if not a plagiarism, of earlier Mesopotamian beliefs. I've argued similarities between the teachings of Jesus, Sri Krishna and Buddha. To no avail. :(


The Indus Valley is one of the oldest to date. ...

The fact of the matter is that most of us here are known to ourselves and to others as Hindus. ...

Over time, the name may change again. Besides Absolute Reality, that is the only constant: Change. God is beyond names.

Aum Namasivaya

And those are all truths! ;) I think I was always Hindu; I have always felt I'm somehow connected to India. I'm fascinated by the IVC. I was fascinated by it the first time I saw a reference to Mohenjo Daro in a magazine decades ago. I would love to go back in time to see it. And I want to know what language they spoke! :Roll:

Eastern Mind
06 June 2011, 07:01 PM
I have posited on a religion and politics forum (there's a recipe for disaster) that the Abrahamic beliefs are a continuation, if not a plagiarism, of earlier Mesopotamian beliefs. I've argued similarities between the teachings of Jesus, Sri Krishna and Buddha. To no avail. :(



Vannakkam: That comparison is to no avail to me either. I don't believe Christ existed. (I was raised agnostic leaning to Atheism) Pretty hard to for me compare to something I don't believe existed. Kind of like comparing India to the Klingon Empire.

Why bother to make comparisons when everything you would ever need at all is found within SD?

For many Hindus, Christ and the religion by that name are totally irrelevant, other than when they have forced interaction with us.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
06 June 2011, 07:51 PM
When I say "I've argued similarities between the teachings of Jesus, Sri Krishna and Buddha" what I mean is that what Christians think is original, is not. It was Christians I argued the point with. They don't realize that what they believe all comes from SD, which is far older by several milennia than Christianity.

I have long thought that what's attributed to Jesus and what became Christianity came from SD writings and philosophy. I don't know if Jesus existed or not, but there's a lot that sounds like Sri Krishna's words. Especially considering that the Bhagavad Gita pre-dates the gospels by at least a couple of centuries. So Sanatana Dharma is what the name says, eternal truth, whether people realize it or not. I've thought this for a long time.

I can respect others' beliefs, I wish they'd respect and give credit to mine (or at least try to understand it).

Adhvagat
07 June 2011, 05:43 AM
It is about Adharmik or anti-Hindu writers who says that Hindu is a corrupt word of Sindhu by the Islamic world.

Let say muhammad made Ihlam and his followers were Muhalman, but the H was transformed to S :cool1:

Sahasranama posted on another forum regarding this... There's no Perhia, as well. :cool1:

Jainarayan
07 June 2011, 07:51 AM
Sahasranama posted on another forum regarding this... There's no Perhia, as well. :cool1:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia#Name



The name of Iran (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Name_of_Iran) (ایران) is the Modern Persian (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Modern_Persian) derivative from the Proto-Iranian (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Proto-Iranian) term Aryānā,, meaning "Land of the Aryans (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Aryan)" ...

However historically Iran has been referred to as Persia or similar (La Perse, Persien, Perzië, etc.) by the Western world (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Western_world), mainly due to the writings of Greek historians who called Iran Persēs (Πέρσης), meaning land of the Persians (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Persian_peoples).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people#Ancient_history_and_origin


The Old Persians, who were one of these ethnic Iranian groups, were originally nomadic (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Nomad), pastoral people in the western Iranian plateau and by 850 B.C.E. were calling themselves the Parsa and their constantly shifting territory Parsua for the most part localized around Persis (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Persis) (Pars), bounded on the west by Tigris river (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Tigris_river) and on the south by Persian Gulf (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Persian_Gulf).[46] (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_note-book-45). The first known written record of the term Persian is from Assyrian (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Assyria) inscriptions of the 9th century B.C.E., which mention both Parsuash and Parsua (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/wiki/Parsua) .[47] (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_note-46)[48] (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/#cite_note-47)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_phonology#Consonants

Persian (Farsi today) does have an /s/ phoneme. The point of this whole exercise in apparent futility is that when the Indo-Iranian languages split into the Persian languages and Sanskrit, there was a regular sound change. Just as Grimm's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_law) applies to Germanic languages, and the sound shift between s and h in Latin and Greek, respectively, which I showed.

Therefore Persia is a Greek word, not Indo-Iranian/Aryan. Good try, however. ;)

I study comparative and historical linguistics.

Jainarayan
07 June 2011, 08:02 AM
Oh btw, I'm not arguing or trying to cause hard feelings. This is actually fun because it's keeping me on my toes. ;)

PARAM
08 June 2011, 12:00 PM
Pharsia/ Iran was ruled by Khusro dynasty or Khuhro?

When Islam invaded India, Muslim writer Al-Bruni who was a scholar of Pharsian himself translated Brahmagupta's Brahmasphuta-siddhanta into Arabic as Sind-Hind, in this both S and H are included.

Muslims made a border city between their captured parts and Independent Indian parts, this city was named as Sarhind there too both S and H are included.

If you think here anybody believe in Maxmullar's lies of the theory of Aryan Invasion, then you are absolutely wrong, here every one knows the truth.

Jainarayan
08 June 2011, 01:56 PM
Namaste PARAM.


If you think here anybody believe in Maxmullar's lies of the theory of Aryan Invasion, then you are absolutely wrong, here every one knows the truth.

Muller's theory has been soundly discredited by archaeologists and linguists since the 20th century, and even by geneticists. It's not taken seriously.

To cling to debunking it gives it creedence. It's already been debunked, and should be dead and buried. There's no evidence that any large migration into India took place in the last 10,00 years. So, no invasion.

sarangi dasi
13 June 2011, 02:57 AM
Pharsia/ Iran was ruled by Khusro dynasty or Khuhro?

When Islam invaded India, Muslim writer Al-Bruni who was a scholar of Pharsian himself translated Brahmagupta's Brahmasphuta-siddhanta into Arabic as Sind-Hind, in this both S and H are included.

Muslims made a border city between their captured parts and Independent Indian parts, this city was named as Sarhind there too both S and H are included.

If you think here anybody believe in Maxmullar's lies of the theory of Aryan Invasion, then you are absolutely wrong, here every one knows the truth.

Ah, excuse me, are you heckling someone here? I am trying to understand the purpose of your posts here.

1. Did someone ever claim that there is no "s" is ancient Persian language? (Ancient persian language is the sister language to Sanskrit and the way it was before the Islamisation of Iran which resulted in a lot of Semitic (Arabic specifically) words being introduced into Iran).

2. Did anyone suggest that a reference in an Arabic record could not record both the Iranian and the Sanskrit names for the river in question?

3. As for the city of Sarhind I am curious approx what year/centuruy are you talking about?

PARAM
03 July 2011, 12:13 PM
Ah, excuse me, are you heckling someone here? I am trying to understand the purpose of your posts here.

1. Did someone ever claim that there is no "s" is ancient Persian language? (Ancient persian language is the sister language to Sanskrit and the way it was before the Islamisation of Iran which resulted in a lot of Semitic (Arabic specifically) words being introduced into Iran).

2. Did anyone suggest that a reference in an Arabic record could not record both the Iranian and the Sanskrit names for the river in question?

3. As for the city of Sarhind I am curious approx what year/centuruy are you talking about?

This is something odd, what is the purpose of this post?

We do not need anybody's suggestions for anything that is already known.

The word Hindu is not made by Muslims, it was there even before the birth of Islam or say Ihlam.

The city of Sarhind was already there but muslim invaders changed the name to Sarhind, it means Hind ki Sarhad (Border of India). Prithviraj Chauhan conquered this place after defeating Ghauri in the first battle of Tarain.