"Hindu"

[VB]

> >> . . . Combining hi (malaya) + (bi) ndu => hindu is a 
> >> flight of fancy quite typical of similar flights of 
> >> fancy that are regularly found in the Puranas. 
> >> . . . they did not have inkling of an idea about historical 
> >> linguistics and the relationship between languages on a 
> >> larger scale. Therefore, puranic statements of this kind have no 
> >> value whatsoever.

	What follows is my opinion (IMHO), humble because I'm not
trained either in sastras or in linguistics. So caveat reader :)
I'll try to give a series of explanations running from most
likely to least likely:

1. The combination hi(malaya)+(bi)ndu seems rather contrieved
 especially to name an entire culture/religion after. I'm not
 even sure if this literary device of cut&paste to form new stuff
 was practiced in ancient India.
	Are there any other examples of this sort in hindu/sanskrit
 scriptures (sruti or smriti)? Hmm.
	(Actually, I am aware of such a thing happenning: but its
not sanskrit and its in modern times - it is 'pakistan' derived
from the names of its constituent states.)

2. The circumstances of the "discovery" are rather suspect. Wasnt
 it around the same time (1913) that another sastra ("Vaimanika
Sastra? Art of Flight) was discovered/revealed-yogically, and that
talked about 'mercury based engines powering aircraft'; 
	The second decade of this century shows an emergence of
national conciousness among Indians and also a desire to assert
national heritage and identity. These discoveries could have been
a part and parcel of the general (in your face) mood prevailing
at that time.

3. Perhaps hi(malaya)+(bi)ndu is older than 20th century but not
verymuch. There was ample time in the second millenia for some-
one to sit down and think this up; Aryavarta and Dakshinapath
really truely came togeather as a unit only rather later in
history, say 1300 AD; (probably with muslim-invation of deccan,
and previous whirlwind tours of Sankara);

4. hi(malaya)+(bi)ndu is a genuinely old construct. For this to
be accepted, we need to date the appearence of "hindu" and 
"bindu-sarovar" in the literature. When was the Indian Ocean
(or, the sea south of the southern tip) identified as "bindu-
sarovar"? (While we are there, does anyone know who identified
the subcontinent as JambuDweep"? and how early was it?)

	All in all, I'd rather not accept hi(malaya)+(bi)ndu combo
without stronger evidence. Maybe someone could try and date
the 'discovered' sastra and I'm assuming a 20th century work
(even if the author tried imitating the very old scriptures
in language and idiom) should give itself away.  (perhaps
look for phrases coined in the second millenium?).

	Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. The
voices in the author's head (wasnt it a revealed book?) need
to be identified as truely ancient voices and not of the
next door politico (patriotic as he was) :-)

-Vijay Bandi