Wednesday, December 1, 2010

India or Bharat (Mata Bharata) How Bharat became India, Ancient culture of the Vedas! Sanatan Dharma, Hinduism.

 Bharat-Mata, Matru-Bhoomi, Puniya-Bhoomi, Dharma-Bhoomi, 

This is a huge topic, and I really do not have the time to go into any depth, but there was a post on my site regarding, Who owns Yoga??... Which personally I say India owns, it is a sanskrit term it originates as close as we know to Bharata... and then no body owns it. But being a sanskrit word lets just look a little deeper into the origins of India (Bharat), Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma)...

There were some comments that India was not just Hindu, and it got me thinking, India is not India, it actually is Bharat, the land of the ancient Vedas, the land of Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas, the language that is called as close to a perfected language to preserve the knowledge of the Vedas, a language so brilliant that what was said 10,000 years ago means the same thing today as it meant yesterday. 

Most other languages are changeable, but sanskrit by a trained sanskrit-ist is not as easliy changeable...

Not only does India (Bharat) have an indigenous name, language, spirituality, culture, it has existed in the land mass called India as recorded in the Vedas, in Sanskrit since before any other the other religions existed, and it deserves to be preserved, represented by the original peoples of the Land of India, Maa Bharat... The people qualified are the Indigenous lineage holders of India, the ones who have learned sanskrit and have the codes, the astronomical, astrological history. The people who preserved it, and the people also who traveled to India, studied under a Guru, a lineage for years, and years, the people who keep it as close as possible to the truth of what it was intended, to self realize. To become enlightened in the system of yoga which came from India, as described in the Bhagavad Gita, 5000 years ago by Krishna, and by Pantangali's in the Yoga Sutra's, in an unagreeable past history, but many many moons ago..

Islam, Christianity came to Bharat much later in history, Buddhism, Jainism come out India also but later. Most of the other religions that have invaded this land called Bharata or as it is now called "India", have come later after the Vedas, the Vedic culture. They have come for purposes of conversion. 

Indian's as they are now called are very tolerant, they allow others to practice their own religion, create their own version of what today is know as Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma, perhaps they never thought anybody would squeeze them out, or from years of being a conquered land, and people they developed an inferiority complex, just wanting to be accepted by everybody.

This has left me wondering, "IF" Indian's indigenous culture, the Vedic Culture, the Vedas, Sanskrit, Ayurveda, Mahabharat, Ramayana did not originate in Bharat (India) where did it originate, astrological, astronomical, sastra all point to Bharata, "India," so why can the land mass known as Indian, and Hindu culture not claim their history? 
To say India is not Hindu or Veda is to dismiss history. Did the indigenous people of India originate in Saudia Arabia, or Isreal, or Europe, no all the stories, ancient art, ancient sastra all point to the land mass now called India.

To say India is not Hindu is like saying Saudia Arabia and the middle east are not Muslim. India is Veda, from the beginning, Veda is Bharat, Bharta is Hindu, is Yoga, is Bharta Philosophy is Indian Philosophy is sanskrit, is Veda, is Bhagavad Gita, is Mahabharata, is Ramayana, is Upanishad, is Puranic is unlimited sastra, some older, some newer is Tantric texts written in sanskrit is India, yes some incorporate some persian but Tantra is a huge subject and includes Ayurveda, Jyotish, Indian Music ect.. all from an oral tradition is written in Sanskrit is Devanagri originating in Bharata. Yoga may be only practiced by a certain segment of India, and it certainly does not look like anything that is being practiced in the West today.. The yogi's, yogini's did their practices mostly in nature. Shiva is the greatest of all Yogis, he kept away from people on Mt Kailash...yes he had a wife.. Kali or Parvati, but he certainly did not live a nice comfy lifestyle, in the yoga studio, he was covered in ash, in silence.. That does not mean we can not adapt today, be in the world and not of the world, because times have changed. All is not what it seem anymore.
There may be some controversy about Pantajali's however, yoga has been a certral part of India tradition, as prescribed, described in the Bhagavad Gita... thus it is Indian.... Veda, Bharat, Sanantan Dharma, self realization, deep, and it is so much more than asana. Most people in the modern world call asana, posture yoga, it is a drop in the ocean of what the real yoga is.

Who has the rights to Bharata.. do Christians?? Do Muslims?? The muslims have already been given Pakistan, and taken Bangladesh, but I hear today they are taking Bengal also, on the borders of Bengal and in Bengal they are slowly forcing convertion of the Hindu's. The Christian missionaries are slowly converting all Hindu's ( indigenous people of Bharata) to this not the new way to conquer a county. This aside the Jains do not convert, the Parsi do not convert, Buddhists are far as I know do not convert, Jainism, and Buddhism are off shoots of the Vedas. 

So yes India allows all people the space to be what they want, just a as North America has become everything to everybody, however, there are Indigenous people in India, brilliant people, that have been preserving Yoga, (Tantra, Mantra, Yantra,) Sastra, Ayurveda, Jyotish, the Vedas, Sanskrit, as much as they can be but, under such extreme conditions of being over taken by just about every religion on the planet. India is incredibly multi cultural, but that does not negate or should not negate the origins of the indigenous people of Bharat or India as it is called today.

Mahatma Gandhi, he was a Jain, tried to preserve the Indian Bharata way of life and to give the people back to the culture of India(Bharata)... Ram Ram Ram Ram... are his last words, Ram comes from the Ramayana... Yoga comes out of this culture one way or another.. it is a Sanskrit word, it is not a Christian word, or a Muslim word, it comes from an oral tradition, and if you do not know the oral tradition, what Pantanjali's was saying in his short codes it is hard to understand, it is hard to understand even how it ties in with the Bhagavad Gita ect..

Just as there are Indigenous people of North America, and Australia, there are indigenous people of India who lived the Vedas, who the vedas were revealed to by God/dess. They have tried in all adversity to keep Sanatan Dharma preserved, now called Hinduism.  History has shown us their value, and what we do with indigenous cultures, how we value people of a land...
There is very little respect, or room for Indigenous people of the planet.??
Jai Bharata.. Jai Vedas... Jai Maa .. Jai Guru.. Jai Sanatan Dharma..

Bharata the ancient Land of the Vedas, how Bharata became known as India, Hindustan, and Hinduism.

Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and Christianity came later.

Bharata, or India is an invaded country, many times over. Devanagari, (the language of the Devas, sanskrit), the origins of Bharata are coded in Sanskrit, Sanskrit has been proven to be one of the best programing languages, because it changes very little over time, so what it meant 10,000 years ago, it still means today. It is one of the few languages that does not change over time. Before Books everything in Bharata, including the Vedas was transmitted orally, word of mouth and preserved in Sanskrit. 
Hindu , India, and Bharat...
The Story behind Word Origins... 
Several months ago, a friend asked me the origin of the word India and ? Hindu?.
That question spurred this brief piece of research.

Most experts agree today that the name ? India? was derived from the river Indus (in today?s Pakistan). But the name ?Indus? itself has a fascinating history behind it.

In ancient times, the entire Indus river system (along with its seven tributaries Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, Jhelum, Beas and the now extinct River Saraswati [i]) and � the area it covered, used to be called ? Sapta Sindhu [ii]? i.e. the land of seven
rivers (? Sindhu? means river in Sanskrit).

The word ? Sindhu? not only referred to the river system and adjoining area but also became the label to denote the culture that had developed along its valleys (In fact, continuing archaeological evidence suggests that the ? Indus Valley Civilization? should more accurately be called the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization considering the land mass where it developed).

The corruption of ? Sindhu? into ?Hindu? can be traced back to journeys made byearly Persian explorers from the Northwest who due to the peculiarities of their own language aspirated the ?S? sound in ?Sindhu? to make the word ?Hindu? Thus to world beyond, the area around the Saraswati-Sindhu rivers and its culturebecame to be known as the area of ? Hindus? (thus the name Hindustan whichliterally means the land of ?Hindus?)

This name stuck and became particularly prevalent after the invasion andconquest of ? India? by Mughals. The Mughals (based on the earlier Persian terminology) used the term ? Hindu? to refer to the original inhabitants of the land and this label became the way to distinguish native/indigenous/ancientculture form that of the invaders.

About 2500 years ago, when the Greeks first reached the river plains of Punjab, they borrowed the name of the region from the Persians and simply modified it to? Indos?. ? Indos? later morphed into? Indus? in Latin ? by which name the river is still known in the West. The Romans began to call the whole land mass after this river and thus the name ?India? came to stay ? which has been the form used byEuropeans over the ages.

It is clear from the above that the word ? Hindu? simply meant (someone living in
India) Indian or (something) related to India.

The term Hindu did not signify any religion or set of religious beliefs but was really a label for a specific land mass. At best the word simply implied someone associated with (or dwelling in) the geographical area the boundaries of which were roughly covered by the Saraswati-Sindhu rivers and their tributaries.

In the words of Dr Morales, ? the term Hinduis not a term that is inherent to the religion itself. Rather, the term is known to have been first coined by the ancient Persians, who were culturally, religiously, and perspectively extrinsic to the culture.

The term was first used by these ancient Persians in order to conveniently designate the ancient Vedic spiritual culture, and was mistakenly used to refer to the Vedic religion as primarily a geographic and ethnic phenomenon, more than as a religio-philosophical world-view.

To the ancient Persians, the word ? Hindu? simply referred to the culture, people, religion and practices of the peoples who lived on the other side of the Sindhu River. In the ancient Avestan Persian languages grammatically became known . Thus, the Persians pronounced the name of this river ?Hindhu?, rather than ?Sindhu?. Thus,ironically, the currently used word ?Hindu? is itself a corruption of the Persianword ?Hindhu?, which is in turn a corruption of the term ? Sindhu?, which is itselfonly referring to a river, and not a religion! Thus when the word ?Hindu? is usedtoday to refer to the ancient religion of India, the term is in actuality a corruption of a corruption of a word whose meaning is irrelevant to begin with.

Inhis essay, ?Word as a Weapon?, Dr Morales has further examined the labels ?Hindu? (and ?Hinduism?) and suggested alternative terms. In my review of his essay,  

I had offered the following suggestion, which I believe is even more relevant today: Let us henceforth decide to refer to ancient Indian achievements as Hindu achievements (which is what they are).  And let us all insist on calling our religions ?  Sanatana Dharma? rather than a sterile ?  Hinduism?.

?Bharat?, that is IndiaIndia?s ? official? name is Bharat ? and this is accorded equal primacy as the word India in the Constitution. In fact the First Clause of the Constitution begins with the words, ? India, that is Bharat?.

There is a general mis-conception that India (or to be more accurate, ?Bharat?) as a nation did not exist until the British brought hundreds of princely states and fiefdoms under central rule. This is false and historically inaccurate ?

Those of you who have read History would be aware that Samrat  (King) Ashok?s kingdom probably had the largest expanse of land of any kingdom in ancient times and of course included almost all of the Indian sub-continent ? i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of neighbouring states such as Nepal and Afghanistan.

In the words of Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman, ? For those who think that the nation of Bharat is a British creation, they should be reminded about Rigveda verse by Visvamitra RV 3.53.12: vis va_mitrasya raks.ati brahmedam bharatam janam, (this mantra of Vis vamitra will protect the nation of the people of Bharatam).

In Tamil bharatam (written pa_ratam) refers to the Hindu ra_s.t.ra.�

There are also references in ancient literature, including the ? Bhagavad-Gita? to large parts of the land mass that we now call India, as ?Bharat? or ?Bharata varsha?. See e.g. an article written by Shri Bhatnagar @  

From Scanto V of Srimad Bhagavatam -Chapter 19 -The description of Jambudwipa concluded: The people of Bharata varsa touch with their body too the water of these rivers, which purify them by their very names. (17) Candravasa Tamraparni, Avatoda,Krtamala, Vaihayasi, Kaveri, Veni, Payaswini, Sarkaavarta, Tungabhadra, Krsna,Venya, Bhimarathi, Godavari, Nirvindhya, Payosni, Tapi, Reva, Surasa, NarmadaCarmanvati (and) Sindhu, two big rivers
Andha (Brahmaputra) and Sona (Sone) Mahanadi, Vedasmrti, Rsikulya, Trisama, Kausiki, Mandakini, Yamuna, Saraswati,Drsadvati, Gomati, Sarayu, Rodhaswati Saptavati, Susoma, Satadru, Candrabhaga,Marudvrdha, Vitasta, Asikni (and) Viswa are (the names of) the principal rivers.(18)

But all this would be irerelevant if we ourselves forget our name ? so let us make an effort to remember (and to make others aware) that India does have an indigenous name ? ?Bharat? ? and let us be proud of it.