How did Hindu paganism survive centuries of Muslim and Christian rule?

There's a lot of problems with this image, but it does give a very basic rundown of Hindu thought

Attached: t3_545ota.jpg (638x4650, 748K)

> paganism
It's not, and that's probably one reason why.

Not entirely actually, it's just an interpretation, albeit clearly through the eyes of an Indian culture which has been influenced by many non-Vedic movements. The one god thing is by far the most justifiable, based on Vedas.

>some native religion
wat

>One god thing is justifiable
How when the Vedas mention multiple?

>some native religion

when you read about African paganism you have gods for every thing

>they're basically atheism with some rituals.
No. It can be like this, or it can be without any rituals. But generally it's nothing like "atheism".
t. Actual Hindu who does Puja most days

Because the interpretation of what entails a "distinct god", doesn't work the way you think.
From Vedanta to Arya Samaj, the idea of unitarity, i.e. Paramatman, or Brahman, etc. is very much Vedic in origin. And it's not just in mention of Brahman. The whole metaphors involving Hiranyagarbha etc. are all referencing this idea.

Yes, and? Just because there's more than one god doesn't mean it's philosophically similar, or as simple, as "African paganism".
Hinduism has aspects of simplistic worship of many gods, yes. And many average Hindus actually end up treating it this way at times. But unlike these "pagan" religions, Hinduism (like Zoroastrianism btw) had some thousands of years of philosophy overlaid on this.

By the way, I'm not implying here that Aryasamaj is right in their interpretation of monotheism. I'm rather just saying, that the idea is there in the Vedas. Personally, myself and my family are part of the Advaita Vedanta school.

Generally, Muslim and Christian suppression of whatever pre-existing faiths they encountered in places they spread to centered around destroying holy sites, keeping people from worshiping them, and pushing them into churches or mosques, depending on the appropriate religion. Most people's religious convictions simply aren't that firm or that well grounded in theology. They worship whatever because they always did it that way, and if you stop the rituals, you stop the worship.

HinDOO worship centers around bathing in their own shit in the local river, of shitting in the streets and fields, of watching each other poo, and generally being unhygenic. It is literally linked to greater levels of child mortality even to this day. ftp.iza.org/dp4009.pdf

Quite frankly, nobody wanted to go to wherever the HinDOOS had stacked with both cow and human shit to extirpate the religion, so it survived, a testament to its own filth.

0/8

>thinks hinduism or the vedic religion was/is polytheistic
even in the rig veda you find plenty of mentions of one god. and also obviously in the upanishads, with the principal ones predating "hinduism" proper. one epithet that gets repeated often when describing the One is "the one without a second".
>They call Him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,
and even the swift winged celestial bird Gautaman. The learned speak of the One Reality in many ways. They call Him Agni, Yama and Matarisvan. (Rig Veda I. 164.46)
>Who is our Father, our Creator, Maker, Who every place doth know and every creature; By whom alone the gods were given their names, To Him all creatures go, to ask Him. (Rig Veda X 82.3)

>convert to Christianity
become a globalist cosmopolitan multicultural egalitarian utopia/hell hole
>maintain national/ethnic religion
keep you culture and identity
superpower by 2030

Vedic scripture still teaches the Sanatana Dharma, it's just that people today are interpreting scripture and thus various sects and branches have risen up that are collectively known as 'Hinduism' even though they have no scriptural basis.

The Vedas clearly state that Vishnu/Krishna is supreme. Demigods are still Krishna but in a different from. It is like how curd is nothing but milk, but curd is not milk.

“Vishnu is the supreme, and those who are actually learned think only of his lotus feet” (Rigveda 1.2.20)

"Vishnu is the most ancient of all, yet also the most recent. Nothing and no one creates Vishnu, yet Vishnu creates everyone and everything." (Rigveda 1.156.2)

"Vishnu is the supreme amongst devatas." (Taittiriya Samhita 5.5.1)

"You (Krishna) are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me." (Bhagavad Gita 10.2)

"I saw a cowherd boy (Krishna). He never falls from his position; sometimes he is near, and sometimes far, wandering on various paths. He is a friend, decorated with a variety of clothes. He comes again and again to the material world." (Rig Veda 1.164.31)

"All the lists of the incarnations of Godhead submitted herewith are either plenary expansions or parts of the plenary expansions of the Supreme Godhead, but Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28)

Attached: beautiful_krishna4.jpg (2474x2440, 726K)

here come the gaudiya isk-cucks

Krishna also states that by worshipping the demigods, a person is merely just indirectly worshipping him:

"Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone. Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." (Bhagavad Gita 7.22-23)

Attached: Krishna-and-Balarama-play-as-cow-herds-boys-in-Vrindavan-and-enjoy-loving-pastimes-with-their-devote (911x1219, 601K)

The Vedas are a pretty subtle thing though, it's easy to get lost in all the slokas which simply give praise or tell about some ritual, especially when working with English translation. In Sanskrit, not only is the masterful use of the language for poetry and metaphor evident, but also the point is made more clearly.

The phrase "the One" is really "eka id", which identifies it as very specifically, not just one, but THE ONE, the one in question, the one who is being emphasized.

>that Vishnu/Krishna is supreme
No. Please stop.

>>everyone
that's cool and all but why didn't Hindus convert to Islam or Christianity? Was there any persecution under foreign rulers?

>“Vishnu is the supreme, and those who are actually learned think only of his lotus feet” (Rigveda 1.2.20)
That is Rig Veda Book 1, Hymn 2, verse 20?

There's no verse 20 in Hymn 2, and Hymn 2 is about Agni, of the actual main gods of the Rig Veda.

sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi01.htm

>Srimad Bhagavatam
Puranic bs written hundreds of years AD and (poorly) based on other, older (and better) Puranas, such as Vayu and Markandeya.

Srimad Bhagavatam is a bad retcon.

I shit on the Srimad Bhagavatam.

>The phrase "the One" is specifically THE ONE
...yes. sanskrit is chill. im going to start learning it soon, once i am able to dedicate more time consitently to learning it. i dont want to half-ass it, you know?
>Puranic bs
yup. ive read a few of the puranas and theyre mostly late and basically normie-tier.

While Christian missionaries were always encouraged and protected in the British Empire the Brits didn't try and forcibly convert populations to Christianity.

I don't know much about the Muslim Empires in the Indian Sub-continent to be able to tell you. Clearly large parts of the population did convert to Islam.

The scribes who wrote Srimad Bhagavatam were the ISKONites of their day.

Prabhupada's translations are shit meant to fool white Western retards.

He was also an antisemite and supported Hitler.

He supported the caste system.

I shit on Prabhupada.

He was probably a pedo as well.

youre doing god's work.

>He was also an antisemite and supported Hitler.
wtf I love Prabhupada and Krishna now.

Where do I sign in?

I only worship Indra. All the others are faggots.

They did, what is Pakistan and Bangladesh?
> persecution under foreign rulers?
Yes, there was a lot at times. Brits more suppressed and damaged the culture, but let the religion be. Still, many Indians were converted by christian missionaries.
> why didn't Hindus convert to Islam or Christianity
Because their culture was strong and the religion is highly tied to the culture.
You might ask then, why did Zoroastrians all convert? Iran and Middle East had a quite different interaction with Islam. They were entirely conquered and marginalized. India was never completely conquered, the religion was very decentralized, etc. Certainly entire traditions were wiped out in Pakistan, and Buddhism in the North died completely to Islam. But it's not like it was a single conquest, a single period, etc. It's far more complex than that.

>i dont want to half-ass it, you know?
Don't worry about that. Just start. Learn the script if you don't know, learn a little vocab every day, practice pronunciation, etc.
The grammar is hard and takes some legitimate study, but you will not enjoy having to learn it if you know no vocab and have trouble with the phonology.
Are you Indian?

This, unironically.

Attached: 1472392407958.jpg (954x727, 119K)

Or I should say most learned guru Phabhupada and Lord Krishna.

Kys.

>Are you Indian?
no, which might make the learning harder but i speak and write in multiple languages and i learned two japanese scripts in university so learned the script shouldnt be toooooo hard.

Not really, they believe in one totality.
They just charecterize it as a god so that primitive westerners can rap ot around their heads and finally rup their babies in poop like civilized humans.

All Hinduism did was like the liberating insights of authentic mystics like the Buddha and the Tantric sages and co-opt it into a system of oppression that legitimizes the ruling classes.

Before that the Vedic religion was polytheistic horse sacrifice and soma-drinking.

Guys, why can't we have more legit threads on Indian and related cultures/history, and on Dharmic religions? There seems to be some legitimate interest and knowledge on this board.

Yeah, so in that case you really should just try to expose yourself to the vocab, it's going to be very hard to actually understand Sanskrit without a base in Indian culture and an Indian language.
The script (Devanagari) is extremely easy and clear, though I prefer to write Sanskrit in my native script.

> a system of oppression that legitimizes the ruling classes.
Lol.
> Vedic religions was just sacrifices and soma
Also lol. Also, Hinduism is far more than Vedic+philosophy, lmao. Much of it's content isn't even from Vedic influence, nor can be attributed to some "great sages".

Attached: guruvayur.jpg (900x600, 510K)

Tantra was the legitimate autochthonous religion of India practiced by the peaceful Dravidians of the Indus Valley civilization before the savage Aryans arrived and enslaved them and co-opted their culture and religion.

STFU you white supremacist.

HOL UP

Because the Mohammedans knew they were vastly outnumbered, and the British were tolerant of and intrigued by Hinduism

>an indian is a white supremacist for not thinking that hinduism is just a system of a opression
rofl
youre possibly 40% right, but youre still going with the indo-aryan invasion theory which is more or less debunked now
i know, thats why im trying to take classes at the local ashram and learn on my own as well. potentially looking at doing a sankrit/indology degree somewhere in india because im that interested in the language/field.

I'm not white, nor do I care about whites.

Dravidians had a patchwork of cults just like Hinduism, they weren't one group.
Tantra, like many Indian philosophical and religious movements (gods/cults also), has certainly some Dravidian influence.
Aryans didn't co-opt anything, at least purposefully. The Dravidian influences on Hinduism certainly increase with time, they didn't just all appear at once. The two cultures and religions mixed, and Dravidians continued with their own thing in Bengal and the South for quite a while for example, and still very much live on, in culture, and in religion (assimilated).

Why are you this interested?
Yeah learning on your own is pretty tough, if there are Sanskrit classes at the ashram, they should be good.

>Why are you this interested?
because ive spent a few years studying and practicing buddhism, then i got into yoga and hinduism and tantra, and i love all this stuff tremendously. i want to read it in the original languages (i guess id also have to learn pali as well, which would be pretty sweet). and the fact that theres soooo much untranslated stuff gives me a raging boner.

>Mohammedans
this is so cringey

Uncle Tom.

Moslems?

Not American, don't get the reference, but apparently this means "a black man considered to be excessively obedient or servile.". What exactly, are you implying here?

Well good luck I suppose. There's a lot of "untranslated" stuff mostly because it's only really Indians who'd ever be interested in this sort of stuff.

thank you. let me know where you live so that when i come to india to study we can poo in the same street and talk about pujas and stuff.

It means that you're probably part Dravidian but you defend the system of oppression set by the Aryan colonizers.

>t. western piggu who doesnt know what hes talking about
always good for a chuckle

> system of oppression
I am probably a large part Dravidian, and speak a Dravidian language. Don't know why this would bother anyone, Dravidian culture is pretty great.

Got any more productive things to say?

Yeah. I don't mind. Call them goat fuckers or muds or whatever. Justpointing out how forced this mohammedans stuff sounds

Not forced, just old-fashioned.

Hinduism is the result of the Indo-Aryan religion, brought to those coming from an eastern offshoot of the Corded-Ware culture. They invaded India and over time mixed local Dravidian customs untill what is now Hinduism was formed.

Indians get very sensitive about this, claiming the invasion theory as debunkt whereas in fact it is being increasingly more accepted due to new genetic research.

Attached: Scythians3.jpg (770x561, 90K)

feel free to post evidence and sources

ps, genetic evidence doesnt automatically mean "invasion", it just means some people fucked some other people.

> Scythians
> Blonde
Wew. And there's a difference between invasion and migration.

>youtube.com/watch?v=2Zq-3A4xnxs

> hindu paganism
> the oldest surviving religion
the absolute state of /his

>According to David Anthony, the Old Indic religion probably emerged among Indo-European immigrants in the contact zone between the Zeravshan River (present-day Uzbekistan) and (present-day) Iran.[33] It was "a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements",[33] which borrowed "distinctive religious beliefs and practices"[34] from the Bactria–Margiana Culture.[34] At least 383 non-Indo-European words were borrowed from this culture, including the god Indra and the ritual drink Soma.[35]
>main god wasn't even Indo-European
Bravo, indo-niggers. I wouldn't be surprised if the term Aryan wasn't originally Indo-European, lol.

harappan vedic religion could be older than egyptian and sumerian religions, so it isn't the most ludicruous statement.

>Vedic culture originated in India
>Sanskrit is the oldest language in the world
>PIE is derived from Sanskrit, not the other way around

Attached: D36FA26C-A9EC-41A9-887B-9A2CA43E79AA.jpg (211x239, 14K)

Aryan comes from the proto-Indo-European word Heryos, which means "of his own tribe", the example still persist today in the German word Herr (lord), the Greek word Aristocracy and the Irish word Éire

>thinks vedic culture didnt originate in india
>thinks sanskrit isnt the oldest language in the world
>thinks sanskrit is derived from PIE and not the other way around

Attached: d27.png (645x729, 56K)

You are both full of shit, there are no cognates of this word, especially none used in the same fashion. There's no evidence anybody besides Indo-Iranians used it.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/áryas

Eh read Comparative Mythology by Jaan Puhvel.

The term Aryan has been reconstructed by Professor J. P. Mallory from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root heryos meaning "member of one's own group". Mallory (2006) further adds that:

"The evidence suggests that the word was, at least, initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider"

There are many more cognates of Aryan, as they appear in Indo-European branch languages. For example the Hittite ara means "member of one's own group, peer, friend", while the Lycian arus means "citizens", the Old Irish aire "freeman", while the Avestan airya and the Sanskrit arya also denote an exalted or ruling class (the Indo-European root word, "Ar", translates literally as "noble"). Laurence Waddell (1927: 15) further has traced this term:

"Celt — Arhu, command. Co. Aire, chief. GI. AS. — Hearra, lord, master. (Eorl, a chief, leader, hero, man of rank or valour). OE — Erl, a lord. (Erl, a chief, a man of rank or valour). E. — Aryan, as a racial ruling title."

Waddell also discusses the "Ar" prefix, and its related meanings:

"lofty, exalted ones, loftiness, majesty fame, chiefs, governors, mistress, goddess, one who goes up, mankind, man, noble, master, lord, one of the exalted ruling race, better, stronger, braver, hero, freeman, famous, warrior, gentleman, leader, honourable, man of rank or valour, etc."

The term Aryan therefore means an ethnic group, caste, or ruling elite. Nelson's encyclopaedia adds that: "the Indo-Iranic word Arya is probably represented in the Hellenic Aristos, in the Teutonic name Arivovislus, and in Old Irish Aire or Airech (principes)". The "Ar" prefix is the root behind the word aristocracy, from the Greek aristokratia. The term Aryan is also traceable to many ancient epigraphically-attested references. Darius the Great (522-486 BC) for example who ordered to write an inscription on his tomb in which he introduces himself as:

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.

Iran also means "land of the Aryans", while Ireland is also believed to come from same word root as Iran and Aryan.

>Jaan Puhvel
>some irrelevant Estonian
You know this shit isn't commonly accepted by other linguists?

linguists are basically autistic and they make shit up all the time, so who gives a shit. keep up the speculative work that isnt grounded in reality, im sure it might almost be worth it someday when linguistics gets out of its autistic infancy.

>Laurence Waddell
>1927
This Waddell?

>Waddell attempted to show the Sumerian language was of Aryan (Indo-European) root.
>many cultures and ancient civilizations were the product of Aryan Sumerian colonists such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Minoan Crete, Phoenicia, and Dynastic Egypt.
Hardly a good source.

Anglos didn't enforce their religion. But in Goa there's tons of Catholics because of the Portuguese.

But there main reason the countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh exist is because of Hindu/Buddhist converts to islam. Its just that India has such a massive population it would have taken another 1000 years to convert them all. Not to mention for the most part the Muslim dynasties didn't hold all of India

Just because it is an old source does not mean he was entirely wrong on anything. Furthermore, professor J. P. Mallory is a respected researcher still active at the university of Belfast.

Is he a hack too?

The gods are all simply different aspects of the God. Brahman, the ultimate reality:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Yeah, but Mallory only stated that "The evidence suggests that the word was, at least, initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider".

Waddell and Nelson's encyclopaedia are both very old and outdated sources.

Is Vedic period a meme? I can't find anything impressive from that period. There is no art, no ruins of cities, nothing.

Read the statement again:

The term 'Aryan' has been reconstructed by Professor J. P. Mallory from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root heryos meaning "member of one's own group". Mallory (2006) further adds that:

"The evidence suggests that the word was, at least, initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider". (J.B. Mallory and D.Q. Adams in The Oxford Introduction To Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World)

He makes both claims that Heryos is the predecessor of Aryan and that it means someone of his own group and not an outsider.

Aryan is a borrowed concept but every Indo-European language has a modern succesor word they make use of. For example, in Dutch we say Heer, for lord, having given it a more noble meaning than just member of one's own tribe, just as the Veddic people have done with Aryan, with both having Heryos as common origin.

Not according to Wikipedia.

>From Middle Dutch hêre, from Old Dutch hērro, hēro, from Old High German hēriro, hērro, the comparative form of hēr (“noble, venerable”) (German hehr), by analogy with Latin senior (“elder”). The Old High German word originally meant "grey, grey-haired", and descends from Proto-Germanic *hairaz (“grey”), making it cognate with English hoar, Old Norse hárr.

>Wrote the Hittite Etymological dictionary
>Irrelevant
Keep being a shit poster.

I have found no sources in Dutch that comfirms that Heer is derived from the word "Gray". If you nitpick about my earlier sources than you should come with something better than wikipedia.

I don't think you understand, the order of most to least legitimate goes:
>Random Youtube video
>Random website
>Unsourced Wikipedia
>Sourced Wikipedia
>Academic Research Paper
So he's got you beat with that unsourced wikipedia. Better get on youtube.

Well for my Heryos-Aryan relation I referred to an academic, he then started to nitpick on one of the other statements I said myself, which I had doubts were true.

I'm making a joke. So far it has been that anything academic or people respected in Indo-European linguistics are being retardly dismissed while unsourced wikipedia articles are apparently canon.

No derailing, but is it possible to restore PIE religion in the 21st century?

Not really. We just have different branches of its evolution. There could be a pseudo-revival, but we lack details of all the rituals and mythology.

No, how? We have completely forgotten what that religion is.

Sure you had the Vedas, about the closest recorded texts related to said religion but this is seen and recorded many many years after the branch off.

It's like the christian trinity with just more aspects

Nice way to put it. The Hindu pantheon is a polytiny. Same essence, different persons, just like Christianity. The bonus is that you don’t have to give your wife to Jamal and Mohammad and adopt African babies in order to be a good Hindu.

Anytime anybody important starts a new religion the indians claim he's another incarnation of vishnu. Jesus buddha krishna, all the same person.

Why do they think he's doing that?

Don't ask questions just go to temple. Bring money.

Muslim Invasions saw widespread destruction and looting of Hindu religious sites . But burning down a temple, a university, and killing a few thousand people will not destroy a religion which can be transmitted through Oral traditions.

The texts of Vedas/Puranas/Upanishads/Advaita survived due to the prevalence of an intellectual class devoted to learn it verse-by-verse, being accurate to the point of intonation and pronunciation.
The prevalence and respect given to the intelletual/scholar varna of Brahmins in Indian Society is also the reason why it survives to this very day.

Yeah, Cons do claim that.
If you fall for that LARP, like millions do, I'll not be surprised.

Converting them all to Islam means losing a jizya tax farm.

Jizya was hell though. Real mission of Jizya was to tax you until you become so poor that you have to convert.