The book - Emergence of Hinduism from Christianity

[Equinox]

Vannakkam

So the other day I was looking for some Hinduism-related ebooks to download on my phablet and Kindle tab. I love reading while travelling, and I move around a lot everyday, so it is a must to read while travelling in the car (if I'm not driving that is, LOL) or if I take the train. I enjoy reading while waiting for my food to arrive at the restaurant, as I dislike looking around blankly and bored while waiting for my food to arrive, unless I'm busy talking to someone(if I'm interested in the topic that is). In fact, I love reading practically anywhere.

I used to carry books around until Kindle and ebooks magically appeared on the scene. As such, my books are now confined to my house only, and accompany me only to hotels and on long-distance trips. There's some sort of satisfaction in holding a book, in contrast to gadgets, Kindle included.

Anyway, of the many thousands of Hinduism-related ebooks available, I happened to download one titled "Emergence of Hinduism from Christianity", along with a few others. Now the title written in the page appeared only as, "Emergence of Hinduism", so I gladly downloaded it thinking it was another good ebook on Hindu history, until I started reading it.

I was horrified.

Seriously how are such books even allowed to be sold and downloaded?

It was atrocious and complete blasphemy! Utter nonsense in other words.

The author, M. M. Ninan, a Christian from Kerala, attempts to twist and turn every single Hindu belief, principle and symbol into a Christian-origin one. And that too from his Christian sect only. Goes on to say that the realisation of this led to the First International Conference on Early Christianity in India which took place in New York, and this issue was the central theme of discussion.

The entire book was full of nonsense, you can only scan through it yourself to believe the extent this person could go to. It just doesn't make sense. I know I can just ignore it and pretend like it never existed but I can't. The confident manner in which he writes his dubious claims gets me so agitated.

Here's part of the introduction:

This book makes several claims which seem outrageous. But they are all based on sound verifiable facts of history, archealogy, architecture, linguistics and clear written documentations. These conclusions are inevitable results of the evidences. The following are essentially the facts:
1. Hinduism did not exist before the second century, A D.
2. Sanskrit did not exist before the second century AD,
3. There were no “Hindu Temples” before the second century AD.
4. The name Krishna did not even exist before the third century AD.
5. Idols (Vigrahas) did not appear in India before the third century AD and in Kerala until the eighth century AD.
6. St. Thomas, - Judas Thomas – one of the disciples of Jesus known commonly as the doubting Thomas came down to India and had a successful ministy all over India and China.

Hinduism as it exists today has its origin from the Thomas Ministry and it is simply the Gnostic form of Thomas Christianity. This takeover of Historic Christianity by the Gnostics under the Persian Gnostics occurred around the third century in the Inner India and took much later (eighth century) in Kerala Coast.

LOL

He says of Hindu statements and beliefs, that "none of these claims can even remotely be supported by any objective evidence. It is one thing to claim big, and altogether different to substantiate with evidences." This line is among many other so-called sudden realisations of his.

It isn't a very popular book and gets a lot of negative comments obviously. I know most of you here might tell me to just ignore it, but it gets to me. I won't be surprised if there are other books of this nature out there. Thank you for letting me vent.


Aum Namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Equinox: Yes, I have seen this before. Maybe his wife believes him. Even that's doubtful. Our Xian 'friends' really did a number in Kerala. Its good for a laugh. I 'reviewed' it on Amazon, so maybe one of thos glowing reviews came from me.

I don't think even 0.01% of people would take this guy seriously.

Aum Namasivaya

[MahaHrada]

3. There were no “Hindu Temples” before the second century AD.

5. Idols (Vigrahas) did not appear in India before the third century AD and in Kerala until the eighth century AD.

Of course this book is full of Nonsense ! For example these dates are way too early, the first important temples were built in the 5th-6th century and it took another 400 years until temple building was well established all over India. Also greater scale manufacture of murtis for worship did not start as early as mentionend in this book but as well about 300 years later, during the 5-6th century ce. around the time when the first impressive temples were built.
Of course neither temples nor worship of murtis was significantly inspired by Christianity. This book is therefore neither historical correct nor is modern Hinduism solely inspired by Christianity, though due to the islamic conquest and later the british rule modern Hinduism is to a great extent influenced by monotheism, and islamic and christian values have a considerable impact on modern Hindu religion.
Jains and Buddhists started image worship much earlier then Hindus, there are jain images used for worship dating back as early as 300 bce and also buddhist sculptures were commonplace all over india much earlier than their puranic counterparts, the first large scale manufacture of buddhist images dating around 100 ce in Kushana age, at a time when hindu sculpture was barely present.
Puranic and Agamic Hinduism and with it idol worship became not popular until the end of the Gupta empire, probably inspired by their precursors, Buddhist and Jain image worship, but certainly not by keralese Christianity.

[Equinox]

Vannakkam EM: It's definitely some sort of foolish babble, I might say. Rather childish.


MahaHrada: Yes, I'm well aware of what you say. But I'm a little doubtful about the image and statue worship part. So far as to my understanding, Jainism and Buddhism sprang from Hinduism, and it was the early Vedic Hindu gods that were first worshipped before the Jain Thirthankaras(including Mahavira) and other gods existed(or came to be realised). Not to mention the Mother Goddess tradition that was spread all over the subcontinent, which later came to be known as Devi. Hindu gods and goddesses provided the basis for Jain and Buddhist gods. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Many Hindu seals and figurines were discovered in the Indus Valley Civilization, along with Jain and Buddhist ones. The Sivalingam is one of the most ancient symbols to be worshipped, and was found in the Harappan remains. So was the Shiva Pashupati Seal.

To state that Hindu sculpture barely existed when Jain and Buddhist ones were flourishing seems rather unfounded and mendacious to me. If that was the case, it was probably due to the support of the many Jain and Buddhist kingdoms that existed at the time. This does not necessarily mean that Hindu sculpture and images didn't exist. Their worship was already long-established in surrounding Hindu kingdoms and villages. And some lay buried in the more ancient and forgotten kingdoms.


Aum Namah Shivaya

[MahaHrada]

So far as to my understanding, Jainism and Buddhism sprang from Hinduism, and it was the early Vedic Hindu gods that were first worshipped before the Jain Thirthankaras(including Mahavira) and other gods existed(or came to be realised). Not to mention the Mother Goddess tradition that was spread all over the subcontinent, which later came to be known as Devi. Hindu gods and goddesses provided the basis for Jain and Buddhist gods.

It is not about the date of the existence of vedic religion worship and deities, it is about image worship. Vedic religion or brahmanic religion, or Astika Dharma whatever you may call this community, did not worship images in the early times. Only non vedic religions had image worship. Early Mother goddess worship also was a non vedic tribal religion.
So what is the beginning of Hinduism? Is the vedic shrauta dharma without image worship already Hinduism?
Or did Hinduism as we know it today start when Temple worship and Image worship was established and the puranas and agamas are the accepted authoritative scriptures laying down the rules for worship and not anymore the vedic shastras?
That is a matter of definition, i personally wouldn´t say that the vedic religion or shrauta dharma is Hinduism. Certainly it is now a part of Hinduism, but it also predates Hinduism. I would call it more specific vedic religion or shrauta dharma.
Hinduism in my viewpoint started with the later developments of all the sects that accepted the Vedas as authoritative even if they built temples worshipped images and practiced austerities according to Puranas and Agamas, but the rise of that Religion happened not earlier than the Gupta age.
When we follow this line of thought vedic religion or shrauta dharma, shramana religions like Jainism or Buddhism, and non vedic tribal religion are all indian religions that predate the sects that were at the same time following the Vedas and worshipping Images. Combining worship acccording to vedas with Images and Temples was something new, it was not widespread in India prior to the end of the Gupta age.

[Shanti29]

I don't see why this is even being discussed. It is laughably untrue. Discussions will only bring interest and awareness.
There's no such thing as bad publicity or however the saying goes.
Better to spend time reading something else.

[Sahasranama]

We shouldn't listen to Arya Samaj, Christian or Indological propaganda about what existed in Hinduism in ancient times. The puranas are the fifth Veda as is stated in the Atharva Veda, the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, anyone who says idol worship doesn't occur in Veda, does not know what Veda is. Many instances of idol worship already occurred in the times of Prahlada, Rama and Krishna. Only nastikas will say that idol worship came later.

[Equinox]

MahaHrada,

So what are you exactly trying to say? That today's Hinduism came into existence only after the Gupta Age unified all the aspects? That line and that line alone is true to an extent, I'm not arguing on that, but it's not entirely correct either. How can it be when the Vedas existed at least more than a 1000 years before the start of the Gupta Rule? Various Hindu aspects were unified, yes, but they existed long before the Gupta Age itself.


Among other claims you also mentioned:

It is not about the date of the existence of vedic religion worship and deities, it is about image worship. Vedic religion or brahmanic religion, or Astika Dharma whatever you may call this community, they did not worship images in the early times. Only non vedic religions had image worship.

Really??? Only non-Vedic religions?

I seriously wonder what I was reading and researching about all these years. I wonder what they meant when they say the sun is worshipped as Surya. Or when Indra and Brahma and Rudra are worshipped with their respective images and attributes. Even Vishnu! And I know all these existed even before Jainism and Buddhism.

Or did Hinduism as we know it today start when Temple worship and Image worship was established and the puranas and agamas are the accepted authoritative scriptures laying down the rules for worship and not anymore the vedic shastras?

What do you mean? The Vedic Shastras, Puranas and Agamas are all part of Hinduism's many literary and authoritative scriptures. They are some of many facets of Hinduism. You may insist otherwise and claim that the Vedic Shastra is not part of Hinduism, but it is. Deal with it.

Certainly it is now a part of Hinduism, but it also predates Hinduism. I would call it more specific vedic religion or shrauta dharma.

The Hinduism of today is a long continuous fusion of countless millennia of teachings, thoughts, beliefs and devotion. What started as Vedic religion as you state came to be known as Hinduism today. It is literally the same thing after a long process. Why do you have to separate it from Hinduism?

Hinduism in my viewpoint started with the later developments of all the sects that accepted the Vedas as authoritative even if they built temples worshipped images and practiced austerities according to Puranas and Agamas, but the rise of that Religion happened not earlier than the Gupta age.
When we follow this line of thought vedic religion or shrauta dharma, shramana religions like Jainism or Buddhism, and non vedic tribal religion are all indian religions that predate the sects that were both following the Vedas and worshipping Images. Combining worship acccording to vedas with Images and Temples was something new, it was not widespread in India prior to the end of the Gupta age.

Huh??

Did you say Buddhism and Jainism predate the sects that follow the Vedas??

Saivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism and most other Hindu sects were already being practised in various parts of the Indian subcontinent even before the Gupta Age, let alone before Buddhism and Jainism came into the scene. The Guptas were themselves Hindus who tolerated Buddhism and Jainism.

Vedic-style worship of images and temples were already well-entrenched in the culture of certain societies in the subcontinent. What do you mean it's new?


Whatever your case is, it is highly questionable. You seem to be very against modern Hinduism. Perhaps you can author a book too. I'll give you the title. Say, " Hindu Imitation of Jain and Buddhist Worship"? Or maybe, " Hinduism - The Non-Vedic Religion"? Another one, " Hinduism's Claim to Vedic Religion".

We can all read it and have a good laugh!

Just as M. M. Ninan acted as an advocate for his Thomas Christianity (whatever that is) against Hinduism, you seem to be an advocate for some other cause!


Aum Namah Shivaya

[Equinox]

Shanti29: Awwwww... I didnt know that. Thanks for letting me know. You're wise as always.

Discussions will only bring interest and awareness.

That's exactly why it should be discussed; to highlight its nonsense!


Sahasranama: Yes, that's right.

Many instances of idol worship already occurred in the times of Prahlada, Rama and Krishna. Only nastikas will say that idol worship came later.

Exactly!


Aum Namah Shivaya

[MahaHrada]

How can it be when the Vedas existed at least more than a 1000 years before the start of the Gupta Rule? Various Hindu aspects were unified, yes, but they existed long before the Gupta Age itself.

Vedic religion or shrauta dharma does not know worship of images and brahmins did not officiate in temples or worshipped images prior to the Gupta age. They worshipped and sacrificed in temporary huts that have to be burned down after use and without the use of images. That is a proven fact.

Really??? Only non-Vedic religions?

Yes, Image use is unknown in ancient vedic religion, as many other ideas that are a part of Hinduism that were accepted only at a later date by the brahmin community.
Only Puranas and Agamas prescribe image worship or temple worship, this kind of worship, combining shrauta rituals with non vedic concepts began to become widely accepted and practiced during gupta rule.

I seriously wonder what I was reading and researching about all these years. I wonder what they meant when they say the sun is worshipped as Surya. Or when Indra and Brahma and Rudra are worshipped with their respective images and attributes. Even Vishnu! And I know all these existed even before Jainism and Buddhism.

Certainly they existed but were not worshipped in temples or by the use of images, instead by means of the shrauta rites presribed in the karma kanda of the vedas. In the Dharmashastra it is even warnend that the sacrality of the vedic sacrifices can be destroyed when a temple priest is present.

What do you mean? The Vedic Shastras, Puranas and Agamas are all part of Hinduism's many literary and authoritative scriptures. They are some of many facets of Hinduism. You may insist otherwise and claim that the Vedic Shastra is not part of Hinduism, but it is.

The Puranas and Agamas are not part of the Vedic shrauta dharma, they are later sectarian Hindu scriptures. Vedic religion is a part of Hinduism i already wrote that, but Puranas and Agamas are not part of the ancient vedic religion, the shrauta dharma, but date from a time when Hinduism and its temple worship and image worship of vedic deities such as Vishnu was already established.

It is literally the same thing after a long process. Why do you have to separate it from Hinduism?

No, that is a wrong assumption it is beyond doubt that the ancient vedic religion is very different from modern Hinduism for instance as i just explainend, there was no temple worship or image worship in the vedic religion.

Did you say Buddhism and Jainism predate the sects that follow the Vedas??

As is said temple worship as prescribed in the Puranas and Agamas, the worship of vedic deities in the form of images in temples happened at a later date than Buddhism and Jainism. The first larger and more important Temples were built around the 5-6th century CE. Buddha lived appx. in the 5th century BCE, so Buddha predates the nowdays widespread Hindu way of temple and image worship of vedic dieties about 1000 years.

Vedic-style worship of images and temples were already well-entrenched in the culture of certain societies in the subcontinent. What do you mean it's new?

Extensive Temple building did not exist prior to the 5th century. There is no extensive temple building that date back to an early date except some mud structures here and there there was nothing. While we find lots of Images of Buddhas and Jain Tirthankaras in Kushana age there are very few hindu deities among the sculptures and certainly temple worship was not widespread in the vedic community in Kushana age, not to speak of even earlier times, because it was objectionable to the brahmin community. Thats why i said it became widespread and it was considered more acceptable in the vedic community only at a very much later date, not until the 9th century CE, while image worship was widespread in the non vedic communities including Jains and Buddhist at a much earlier date.