U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2017, 02:45 PM
 
6,053 posts, read 3,255,228 times
Reputation: 10999

Advertisements

Did the Romans create Christianity or just tame it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2017, 06:49 PM
 
5,451 posts, read 4,844,051 times
Reputation: 1670
Naw, there were a gazillion different princedoms, some even with muslim elites over hindi populations, it was very decentralized.

As many on these sharp posters probably know, the Lenista revolution was very popular among Nehru's generation & even what went on eastward inspired local Afro-Asian Asabiya commie groups, so its not surprising who & what the other team looked out for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2017, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Kingston, ON
69 posts, read 35,298 times
Reputation: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky View Post
The Marathas were beaten by the Durrani and never managed to establish sovereignty over the subcontinent. The fact that they were unpopular to some Hindu rulers is not surprising. Politics make strange bedfellows and I wouldn't expect India to be an exception. I would find it surprising if centuries of Mughal rule did not change Hindu identity. The rise of Sikhism is one obvious change.
Yes but after the 3rd battle of Panipat, the Durrani were also debilitated to the degree that they could never again make inroads deep into the subcontinent. Abdali even wrote a letter about it extolling the Marathas. Also, ten years later the Marathas re-established dominion over North India by defeating the Mughal-Rohilla Pathan alliance of sorts which had materialized in rebellion.

Sikhism is a different story altogether. I believe that its rise could be attributed to the agrarian cultural ethos of Punjab as much as it could Muslim rule over a preponderantly Hindu populace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 04:20 PM
 
1,514 posts, read 1,041,488 times
Reputation: 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
Oh by Shiva's fifth arm, no! Hinduism is the oldest organised religion in the world.

Hinduism is the oldest dis-organized religion in the world. My general understanding is that Hinduism prides itself on being "The knowledge that has always existed- expressed in many different ways."

Thus, what is known as "Hinduism" today, had an awful lot of local variation in pre colonial India (though the variations shared core teachings from "the knowledge that always was"). The British may not have created Hinduism, but British railways sure helped unify it as a single religion instead of a "loose coalition of like minded thought".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2017, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,445 posts, read 24,503,001 times
Reputation: 7306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Hinduism is the oldest dis-organized religion in the world. My general understanding is that Hinduism prides itself on being "The knowledge that has always existed- expressed in many different ways."

Thus, what is known as "Hinduism" today, had an awful lot of local variation in pre colonial India (though the variations shared core teachings from "the knowledge that always was"). The British may not have created Hinduism, but British railways sure helped unify it as a single religion instead of a "loose coalition of like minded thought".
Much like how railroads and the telegraph encouraged nationalism in Europe...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2017, 12:07 PM
 
1,514 posts, read 1,041,488 times
Reputation: 2010
^

Very good point. I would even venture to say that British railways not only unified Hinduism into a single (well, relatively single religion), but also increased the sense of Indian national identity instead of a variety of local identities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2017, 10:55 AM
 
4,134 posts, read 1,751,274 times
Reputation: 2736
Lots of absolutely absurd and hear say information. Since Victors write History, its not surprising. Cyptic gets the cookie.

1) British did not create the terms Hindu. The Vedic tradition has been well and alive even before the English calendar. FOr those who believe that census BS, would you think US created the Blacks and Hispanic demographics?

2) Unification of Vedic and Shaiva, Vaishnava and Smartha faiths were done by saint called Adi Shankara. At the peak of British damage in the 19th century, saints like Vivekanand, Sankaracharya( coming from Adi Shankara's lineage) played in pivotal role in Hindu movement resurgence. Again the term Aryan-Dravidian is pure BS. The Tamil literary texts about Shiva are unparalelled in any language. References to Shiva s abode( Present Kangrinpoqe peak/Kailash) existed in literary texts and south INdian temples. In fact the Dravidians have more temples for Shiva than anyone else. There is also an opinion that Shiva was a South Indian King and Rudra was a different person or different incarnations over a period of time.

3) About Muslims doing more damage or unifying Hindus - There are 200 million Muslims include 40 million Shias. The Shias are the oldest who fled persecution in Persia. Who ever fled persecution found a safe place. The Christians came later.

4) And the British cannot create anything constructive. They only divide.

Of course the caste system is alive and well and it provides fodder to those who want to divide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2017, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Independent Republic of Ballard
7,044 posts, read 5,447,168 times
Reputation: 4689
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanv3 View Post
Lots of absolutely absurd and hear say information. Since Victors write History, its not surprising. Cyptic gets the cookie.

1) British did not create the terms Hindu. The Vedic tradition has been well and alive even before the English calendar. FOr those who believe that census BS, would you think US created the Blacks and Hispanic demographics?

2) Unification of Vedic and Shaiva, Vaishnava and Smartha faiths were done by saint called Adi Shankara. At the peak of British damage in the 19th century, saints like Vivekanand, Sankaracharya( coming from Adi Shankara's lineage) played in pivotal role in Hindu movement resurgence. Again the term Aryan-Dravidian is pure BS. The Tamil literary texts about Shiva are unparalelled in any language. References to Shiva s abode( Present Kangrinpoqe peak/Kailash) existed in literary texts and south INdian temples. In fact the Dravidians have more temples for Shiva than anyone else. There is also an opinion that Shiva was a South Indian King and Rudra was a different person or different incarnations over a period of time.

3) About Muslims doing more damage or unifying Hindus - There are 200 million Muslims include 40 million Shias. The Shias are the oldest who fled persecution in Persia. Who ever fled persecution found a safe place. The Christians came later.

4) And the British cannot create anything constructive. They only divide.

Of course the caste system is alive and well and it provides fodder to those who want to divide.
Are you arguing that the Aryans were native to, and not invaders from outside, the Indian subcontinent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2017, 05:34 PM
 
3,773 posts, read 1,932,307 times
Reputation: 3892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
Oh by Shiva's fifth arm, no! Hinduism is the oldest organised religion in the world.
it is not an organized religion like Christianity or Islam. there is no one religious authority or one text or one way to pray.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2017, 05:41 PM
 
3,773 posts, read 1,932,307 times
Reputation: 3892
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
The sects that make up Hinduism certainly existed long, long before British rule, but did Vaishnavas and Shaivas, for example, view themselves as being part of the same religion before British rule?
Yes. They did not call themselves anything, but were guided by related and yet distinct belief systems - dualism and non-dualism, or advaitam. they read the same texts, worship many deities, yet believe in one universal spirit, paramatma.

I agree with pankaj Mishra, the author of the article in the OP that Hinduism is a coined word with political and nationalistic slant. For a lack of a better, easily understood terms, Hinduism has become the religious umbrella under which many sects reside, quite comfortable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top