శ్రీనివాసుడు తెలుగు బ్లాగుల వ్యాఖ్యలు
@పి. తిరుపాలు
హ్యూయాన్ సాంగ్ హిందూమతం గురించి చెప్పింది ఇది. తమరు చెప్పింది కాదు.
Hiuen Tsang, the Chinese Buddhist monk and traveler, observed that Hinduism was more prevalent than Buddhism in India during his visit in the 7th century CE. He noted the presence of various religious faiths and acknowledged the tolerance among people towards different beliefs, with individuals changing their religions voluntarily. Hiuen Tsang also described aspects of Hindu society, including the caste system, the prevalence of Sati, and the education of women.
Here’s a more detailed look at Hiuen Tsang’s observations:
Religious Landscape:
While Buddhism was a significant religion, Hiuen Tsang’s writings indicate that Hinduism was more widespread.
Tolerance and Religious Freedom:
He observed a general atmosphere of tolerance where people of different faiths coexisted and could freely choose their religion.
ఇక ఇస్లామ్ లో ఉండే పరమతసహనం గురించి, హిందువులపై, భారతదేశంపై ముస్లిములకుండే అభిప్రాయాన్ని గురించి తన ‘Pakistan Or The Partition Of India” అనే పుస్తకంలో అంబేడ్కర్ ఇలా అంటున్నారు. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
Ambedkar opined that Muslims think of Hindus as inferior beings and would find it hard to accept the authority of a Hindu majority government.
To the Muslims, a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country that is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if a proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race.
Antiquity and origin of the term ‘Hindu’
By Dr. Murlidhar H. Pahoja (2007)
Excerpts:
The anti-Hindu historians like Romila Thapar 1 and D.N. Jha
2 have opined that the word ‘Hindu’ was given currency by
the Arabs in the 8th century. They however, do not explain
the basis of their conclusion nor do they cite any evidence
in support of their claim. Even Arab Muslim writers do not
make such an extravagant claim 3. Another theory propounded
by European writers is that the word ‘Hindu’ is a Persian
corruption of ‘Sindhu’ resulting from the Persian practice
of replacing ‘S’ with ‘H’. Even here, no evidence is cited.
In fact the word Persia itself contains ‘S’ which should
have become ‘Perhia’ if this theory was correct. The
present paper examines the above two theories in the light
of epigraphic and literary evidence available from Persian,
Indian, Greek, Chinese and Arabic sources. The evidence
appears to support the conclusion that ‘Hindu’ like
‘Sindhu’, has been in use since the Vedic age and that
although ‘Hindu’ is a modified form of ‘Sindhu’, its origin
lies in the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing ‘H’ in
place of ‘S’.
1. Epigraphic Evidence :
The Hamadan , Persepolis and Naqsh-I-Rustam Inscriptions4
of Persian monarch Darius mention a people ‘Hidu’ as
included in his empire. These inscriptions are dated
between 520-485 B.C.4 ..Xerexes, successor of Darius, in
his inscriptios4 at Persepolis , gives names of countries
under his rule. The list includes ‘Hidu’. Xerexes was
ruling between 485-465 B.C.4 On a tomb in Persepolis ,
another inscription assigned to Artaxerexes (404-395
B.C.)4, there are three figures above which are inscribed
‘iyam Qataguviya’ (this is Satygidian), ‘iyam Ga(n)dariya’
(this is Gandhara) and ‘iyam Hi(n)duviya’ (this is
Hi(n)du)…
The Asokan inscriptions (3rd century B.C.)5, repeatedly use
expressions like ‘Hida’ (fgn) for ‘ India ‘ and ‘Hida loka’
(fgn yksd) for ‘Indian nation’. ‘Hida’ and its derivative
forms are used more than 70 times in the Ashokan
inscriptions. For instance in the Jaugadha, separate rock
edict II, the lines 3 &4, read,
sava munisaa me pajaa. atha pajaaye ichaami kinti me
saven.aa hitasukhena yujeyu atha pajaaye ichami kinti me
savena hitasukhena yujeyu hidalogika paalalokiken. a
hevameva me icha savamunisesu
(All men are my people. I desire for my people that they
may be provided with all welfare and happiness. I desire
for my people, including the people of Hind and beyond and
I desire for all men.)
The Edict further, says in lines 7 & 8,
mama nimitam ca dhammam cale yoo ti hidalogam
ca paalalogam ca aaladhaye yoo
(Dhamma may be followed and and the people of
Hind and beyond may be served.)
2. Evidence from Pahlvi Avesta:
In the Avesta, Hapta-Hindu is used for Sanskrit Sapta-
Sindhu7, 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.
3. Greek Usage
The Greek term ‘Indoi’ is a softened form of ‘Hindu’ where
the initial ‘H’ was dropped as the Greek alphabet has no
aspirate9. This term ‘Indoi’ was used in Greek literature
by Hekataeus (late 6th century B.C.) and Herodotus (early
5th century B.C.) 9, thus establishing that the Greeks were
using this derivative of ‘Hindu’ as early as 6th century
B.C.
4. The Hebrew Bible:
The Hebrew bible uses ‘Hodu’ 10 for India , which is a
Judaic form of ‘Hindu’. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is
considered earlier than 300 B.C.10 Today’s Hebrew spoken in
Israel also uses Hodu for India .
5. The Chinese Testimony:
The Chinese used the term ‘Hien-tu’ for ‘Hindu’ about 100
B.C.11 While describing movements of the Sai-Wang (100
B.C.), the Chinese annals state that the Sai-Wang went
towards the South and passing Hien-tu reached Ki-Pin11.
Later Chinese travellers Fa-Hien (5th century A.D.) and
Huen-Tsang (7th century A.D.) use a slightly modified term
‘Yintu’ 12 but the affinity to ‘Hindu’ is still retained.
This term ‘Yintu’ continues to be used till today 13.
6. Pre-Islamic Arabic Literature:
Sair-ul-Okul14 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 (Shiv), and uses ‘Hind’ for India and ‘Hindu’
for Indians. Some verses are quoted below:
Wa Abaloha ajabu armeeman Mahadevo
Manojail ilamuddin minhum wa sayattaru
(If but once one worships Mahadev with devotion,
One will attain the ultimate salvation.)
Wa sahabi Kay yam feema Kamil Hinda e Yauman,
Wa Yakulam na latabahan foeennak Tawajjaru.
(Oh Lord grant me but one day’s sojourn in Hind,
Where one can attain spiritual bliss.)
Massayare akhalakan hasanan Kullahum,
Najumam aja at Summa gabul Hindu.
(But one pilgrimage there gets one all merit,
And the company of great Hindu saints.)
The same anthology has another poem by Labi-bin-e Akhtab
bin-e Turfa who is dated 2300 before Mohammed i.e. 1700
B.C. This poem also uses ‘Hind’ for India and ‘Hindu’ for
Indian. The poem also mentions the four Vedas Sama, Yajur,
Rig and Athar…
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 17. Full article is here …
Hindu Dharma – Religion – 4
Sapta Sindus which were said to be the root for ‘Hapta Hindu’ were described in the Rigveda mantra as “imamme gange yamune saraswati sutudri stomam sachata parushnya Asiknya Marudvridhe vitastayaarjeekeeye runohya sushomya”. Sapta sindhus are seven rivers called Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sutudri, Marudvridha, Aarjeekiya and Sushoma. This ‘Sapata Sindhu’ word can be found in Rikmantres (1-35-8) like, ‘astouvyakhyat kakubhah prithivya stree dhanva yojanaa sapta sindhoona’. The people who lived in those areas of sindhu were known as Sindhus and gradually become ‘Hindus’. Since the ‘Hindu’ word is taken by all well known languages, that name only become permanent. That way the Hindu word, even though it got stabilized through ‘Sapta Sindhu’ or indenpendently formed, is a very ancient one and holy one. It has got many meanings and many explanations.
In ‘Vriddha smriti’ which belonged to the fourth century B.C., it is said ‘himsayaa dooyate yascha sadacharama tatpara; vedago pratimaa seveesa hindu mukha varna bhak’. From this it is known that the Hindu was one who felt sorrow at violence, follower of good traditions and worshipper of the Vedas, cows, idol of deities. Like wise, since it is said, ‘himsaya dooyate chittam – tena Hinduriti smritahah’ – Hindu is one who feels are distress at the violence of three forms, physical, mental and verbal. The first literaray epic ‘Ramayana’ came from the first literary poet Valmiki to explain clearly the definition of Hindu. This great Ramayana gave us Sri Ram who got the title “Ramo Vigrahavan Dharmah” – Rama is the embodiment of dharma itselt. Valmiki’s heart was the real Hindu heart which felt anguished at the killing of krouncha bird by the hunter. From that heart, the sloka ‘manishada’ emerged involuntarily and that sloka was the root cause for ‘the Ramayana’ which mirrors the Hindu heart.
In ‘Barhaspatya Sastra’ belonging to the fourth centure A.D., it is mentioned that the land that spread from ‘Himalayas to Indusarovaram” (Hindu maha samudram, Indian Ocean) and that was built by the deities as this Hindu land. ‘Himalayan samarabhya – yavadindu sarovaram; taddeva nimitam desam – Hindu sthanam prachakshate’. That is why this is also called as deva bhoomi. From this, we can understand that those who live in this Hindu bhoomi are known as Hindus. This country is like navel to Brahma’s creation. That is why this has also got the name of ‘ఆజనథ’. అన్నదానం చిదంబర శాస్త్రిగారు హిందూధర్మ అని ఓ 11 భాగాల వ్యాస పరంపర వ్రాసారు. నాలుగో భాగంలో ఈ హిందూ పదం గురించిన వివరణ పైన యిచ్చాను
నా వెతుకులాటలో దీనికి మూలాలు కనబడ్డాయి…
ABOUT THE NAME “HINDU”
By Stephen Knapp
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words “Hindu” and “Hinduism.” The fact is that true “Hinduism” is based on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity. Many people do accept it to mean the same thing as Sanatana-dharma, which is a more accurate Sanskrit term for the Vedic path. Such an identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary designations. So am I calling the name “Hindu” a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term “hindu” is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for “Hinduism.”
Most scholars feel that the name “Hindu” was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India. Neither are these words found in any Buddhist or Jain texts, nor any of the official 23 languages of India. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning “S”, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime. Before this, the Vedic name for the area was Bharath Varsha, which many people still prefer to call it by that name.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name “Hindu” was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was called “Hindustan.” Because the Sanskrit sound of “S” converts to “H” in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as “hindu,” even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name “hindu” themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place value on it or now use it out of convenience.
This is corroborated and explained further by Sarjerao Ramrao Gharge-Deshmukh, where he explains, “At the juncture of the Greek invasion, the noun Hindu had not yet evolved. The natives were [known as] the Vedic people who followed the practices prescribed in the Vedas where fire worship was prominent among other forces of nature, such as Indra (rains), Varun (water), Vayu (wind), Ashva (horse), etc. As a religion, Islam was formalized around 622 AD and the Persian conquest of 642-44 AD by the Arabs as Islamic power destroyed the age-old Persian civilization in terms of philosophy, culture, type of worship, etc. Within 100 years of the Arabic conquest, the Persians were overwhelmingly converted to Islam. At this juncture, due to Persian interchangeability between ‘s’ and ‘h’, Sindu must have become Hindu and the Persians called their brothers across the river as Hindus and the abode of the Hindus as Hindusthan. Nehru in his book titled Discovery of India also states that the earliest reference to the term Hindu was found in the Tantrik literatures of the 8th century AD. Thus, relatively speaking, Hindu is the modern term for the Vedic Indians by the Persians who had lost their ancient civilization to the Arabs.” (Ramayana: A Fact or Fiction?, by Sarjerao Ramrao Gharge-Deshmukh, Pratibha Deshmukh, Pune, October, 2003, p.236)
Another view of the name “Hindu” shows the confusing nature it causes for understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written by R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), “The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and, therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term ‘Hindu’. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means ‘the black of the sky’ and ‘Saturn’. In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.”
The location wherein the word “Hindu” occurs for what some people feel the first time is in the Avesta of the Iranians in its description of the country of India and its people. As their state religion of Zoroastrianism grew, the word seemed to take on a derogatory meaning. And of course as Islam spread in India, the words “Hindu” and “Hindustan” became even more disrespected and even hated in the Persian arena, and more prominent in the Persian and Arabic literature after the 11th century.
Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a derogatory meaning. It is said that, “Moreover, it is correct that this name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the Introduction)
Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as “chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].” In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.
So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that was called “Hinduism” until the Indian people in general placed value on that name, as given by those who dominated over them, and accepted its use. Furthermore, the term has been used to convey demeaning connotations. So is it any wonder that some Indian acharyas and Vedic organizations do not care to use the term?
The real confusion started when the name “Hinduism” was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” were used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as “Hindus”. This was done with the rather successful intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was in accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier for their continued dominion over the country.
However, we should mention that others who try to justify the word “Hindu” present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:
Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah
Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu. Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. “Bhoomi” (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan. The name Bharata-varsha certainly helps capture the roots and glorious past of the country and its people.
Another couple of references that are used, though the exact location of which I am not sure, includes the following:
Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe
Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla
devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu
These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with that.
Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharata is referred to as the country of “Sapta Sindhu”, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the word “Sindhu” refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific river called “Sindhu”. Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit, according to ancient dictionaries, “sa” was pronounced as “ha”. Thus “Sapta Sindhu” was pronounced as “Hapta Hindu”. So this is how the word “Hindu” is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that the ancient Persians referred to Bharat as “Hapta Hind”, as recorded in their ancient classic “Bem Riyadh”. So this is another reason why some scholars came to believe that the word “Hindu” had its origin in Persia.
Another theory is that the name “Hindu” does not even come from the name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. “This [Sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners.” He cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this verse:
himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah
Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing, but Kumar translates it as: “The country lying between the Himalayan mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter ‘hi’ of ‘Himalaya’ and the last compound letter ‘ndu’ of the word ‘Bindu.’”
This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name “Hindu”, indicating an indigenous origin. The conclusion of which is that people living in this area are thus known as “Hindus”.
So again, in any way these theories may present their information, and in any way you look at it, the name “Hindu” started simply as a bodily and regional designation. The name “Hindu” refers to a location and its people and originally had nothing to do with the philosophies, religion or culture of the people, which could certainly change from one thing to another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians. Sure, that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already object to calling themselves by that name. So “Hindu” is not the most appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of Sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians and their early history is Vedic culture or Vedic dharma. So it is more appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses the location of a people.
It seems that only with the Vedic kings of the Vijayanagara empire in 1352 was the word “Hindu” used with pride by Bukkal who described himself as “Hinduraya suratrana”. Whereas the main Sanskrit texts, and even the rituals that have been performed in the temples from millennia ago, used the word “Bharata” in reference to the area of present-day India. Thus, it is traditionally and technically more accurate to refer to the land of India as “Bharata” or “Bharat varsha”.
Unfortunately, the word “Hindu” has gradually been adopted by most everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general way, so much so, in fact, that now “Hinduism” is often used to describe anything from religious activities to even Indian social or nationalistic events. Some of these so-called “Hindu” events are not endorsed in the Vedic literature, and, therefore, must be considered non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call themselves a “Hindu” and still be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor can any activity casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be considered a part of the true Vedic culture.
Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more precisely called Sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the soul in its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of sugar is to be sweet, this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then it is not sugar. Or the dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If it does not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a particular dharma or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or eternal. It does not change. So there is the state of dharma and the path of dharma. Following the principles of Sanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining our forgotten spiritual identity and relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge and its system of self-realization. Thus, the knowledge of the Vedas and all Vedic literature, such as Lord Krishna’s message in Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not limited to only “Hindus” who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or family of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as described according to the principles of Sanatana-dharma, then everyone should be given the right and privilege to understand this knowledge. It cannot be held for an exclusive group or region of people.
Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual philosophy that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is a “universal spiritual truth” which can be applied by all people, in any part of the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is eternal. Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all time and worldly designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of Vedic wisdom and is more than what the name “Hindu” implies, especially after understanding from where the name comes.
Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hinduism (as we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth, there will still be the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and universal truth, even if such truths may be forgotten and must be re-established again in this world by Lord Krishna Himself. I doubt then that He will use the name “Hindu.” He certainly said nothing of the sort when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.
Thus, although I do not feel that “Hindu” is a proper term to represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time to time to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part of everyone’s vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of Sanatana-dharma, I call myself a Sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use the label of “Hindu” and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic path. Therefore, I propose that all those who consider themselves to be Hindus begin to use this term Sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology, but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of the Vedic path. Others have also used the terms Sanatanis or even Dharmists, both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.
However, for political and legal purposes it may be convenient to continue using the name Hindu for the time being. Until the terms Sanatana-dharma or Vedic dharma become more recognized by international law and society in general, “Hindu” may remain the term behind which to rally for Vedic culture. But over the long term, it is a name that is bound to change in meaning to the varying views of it due to its lack of a real linguistic foundation. Being based merely on the values people place in it, its meaning and purpose will vary from person to person, culture to culture, and certainly from generation to generation. We can see how this took place with the British in India. So there will be the perpetuation of the problems with the name and why some people and groups will not want to accept it.
Yet by the continued and increased use of the terms Vedic dharma or Sanatana-dharma, at least by those who are more aware of the definitive Sanskrit basis of these terms, they will gain recognition as being the more correct terminology. It merely takes some time to make the proper adjustments.
This is the way to help cure the misinterpretation or misunderstandings that may come from using the name “Hindu,” and also end the reasons why some groups do not care to identify themselves under that name. After all, most Vedic groups, regardless of their orientation and the specific path they follow, can certainly unite behind the term Vedic dharma.
APPENDIX: Srila Prabhupada, founder of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, has said different things at different times or to different people regarding the use of the name “Hindu”. Many times members of Iskcon seem to think that the name Hindu should be avoided at all costs. And on numerous occasions Srila Prabhupada did say Iskcon members are not necessarily Hindus.
However, he succinctly explains to Janmanjaya and Taradevi in a letter from Los Angeles of July 9th, 1970 that there is a connection between Hinduism and Krishna Consciousness: “Regarding your questions: Hindu means the culture of the Indians. India happens to be situated on the other side of the Indus River which is now in Pakistan which is spelled Indus–in Sanskrit it is called Sindhu. The sindhu was misspelled by the Europeans as Indus, and from Indus the word ‘Indian’ has come. Similarly the Arabians used to pronounce sindhus as Hindus. This [thus] Hindus is spoken as Hindus. It is neither a Sanskrit word nor is it found in the Vedic literatures. But the culture of the Indians or the Hindus is Vedic and beginning with the four varnas and four ashramas. So these varnas and four ashramas are meant for really civilized human race. Therefore the conclusion is actually when a human being is civilized in the true sense of the term he follows the system of varna and ashrama and then he can be called a ‘Hindu’. Our Krishna Consciousness Movement is preaching these four varnas and four ashramas, so naturally it has got some relationship with the Hindus. So Hindus can be understood from the cultural point of view, not religious point of view. Culture is never religion. Religion is a faith, and culture is educational or advancement of knowledge.”
He further says in a letter from Los Angeles, July 16th, 1970, wherein he answers questions for a Nevatiaji: “9. The Americans are very intelligent and qualified boys and girls so they understand the principles as genuine and thus they accept them. They understand that Krishna Consciousness Movement is neither Indian nor Hindu, but it is a cultural movement for the whole human society although of course because it is coming from India it has [an] Indian and Hindu touch.”
In this way, Srila Prabhupada differentiated Krishna Consciousness as a universal, cultural and spiritual movement that could stand on its own, apart from any particular religious and cultural distinction. Yet he still relates how there is certainly an Indian and Hindu relationship with what is being presented within his movement. And this does not have to be nor should it be completely ignored or avoided. We can certainly work together for the preservation and promotion of Vedic culture without difficulty with those who may prefer to call themselves Hindu, knowing our connection with the Vedic traditions.
[This article and more information at
The name Hindu for the people and the country–not a Hindu name?
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:
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-tureached 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.”
In reply to .
బోర్ల : బ్రౌణ్య తెలుగు-ఇంగ్లీష్ నిఘంటువు 1903
Upside down, topsy-turvy.
బోర్లదోయు to upset, overthrow.
బోర్లపడు to lie prostrate: to be overset.
దేన్ని చూచి బోర్లపడుతావు what do you pride yourself upon?
బోర్లబొక్కలపడు to fall on one’s breast or face.
బోర్ల : శ్రీహరి నిఘంటువు తెలుగు-తెలుగు (రవ్వా శ్రీహరి) 2004 Report an error about this Word-Meaning గ్రంథసంకేత వివరణ పట్టిక
క్రి.విణ.
ఱొమ్ము క్రింద అగునట్లు.
బోర్ల : శంకరనారాయణ తెలుగు-ఇంగ్లీష్ నిఘంటువు 1953 Report an error about this Word-Meaning
adv.
on the face, facing, or with the face, downwards.