Re: The name Hindu for the people and the country--not a Hindu name?
Namaste.
Originally Posted by
Jaskaran Singh
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.
Originally Posted by
Anirudh
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 )- 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 amply shows, He still remained a very formidable Deity, and could well be on a resurgence today.
Last edited by satay; 07 April 2014 at 11:50 AM.
Things to remember:
1. Life = yajña
2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
5. r = c. x²
where,
r = realisation
constant c = intelligence
variable x = bhakti
Bookmarks