"Hindu"

[bpj at netg.se]

At 12:19 16.6.1997, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>Namaste!  At 11:17 AM 6/16/97 BST, Mr B.Philip.Jonsson wrote:
>>At 22:01 15.6.1997, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>Namaste!
>>>One observes that when persons such as the one whose
>>>post appears below feel frustrated because, apparently,
>>>they are not capable of discussing the subject at hand,
>>>they resort to libel against others.  Is this the only
>>>way they know how to feel good about themselves?
>>>Pity, but help them.
>>
>>This is USENET stuff, and has no place on a serious mailing list!

[---]
>
>The judgment "this is USENET stuff" is as objective a study
>as another participant's "flights of fancy" froth.

[---]

I never claimed that judgment to be other than my opinion. The point is
that this is a forum where more judgment is deemed required in expressing
ones opinions, and more proof in ones 'objective claims' than what is
generally the case on USENET.  That's why you won't see my name on USENET,
btw.  If you like frothy arguments and loosely substantiated claims, then
enjoy USENET with my blessing, but please understand that different fora
have different requirements on proof. If your folk etymology of the word
"Hindu" has some kind of symbolic value to you, fine; it might even be
true, but it cannot be substantiated/proven in a scientific way.  If you
can find the word literarily written in stone in pre-muslim times and east
of the Indus I might reconsider, but NOT until then! It is notable that the
word doesn't appear through all the centuries of contest between Vedist and
Buddhist religion in India, either as a ethnic or as a religious or as a
geographical label.  The geographic term is invariably "aarya-bhuumi", or
something to that effect.  Only in dealings between Iranians and the Aryans
on the other side of Sindhu/Hindu river. FYI it is not uncommon that names
of peoples are xenonyms, since the peoples concerned wouldn't have had need
of a self-designation prior to contact with those that gave the name.

We may lament that historical fact not always fits nicely with our
religious or national pride (I for example have to admit that the Vikings
were a bunch of really nasty hooligans, and their religion was an appaling
barbarism, human sacrifices and all, and have to be ashamed as long as some
people glorify them and use them to their obscure ends), but by prefering
fabrication or unsubstantiated folktales to fact we harm the things we
purport to cherish.
        The greatness of ancient and medieval India is indisputable. It
doesn't need any fabricated fantasteries to prove itself.  If modern
Indians want to rehabilitate themselves of the effects of centuries of
foreign domination they should stop trying to out-English the English,
whining over lost glory, and instead do away with tribalism and amassed
social stagnation and injustices and again prove in practice the potential
of their great land and its inhabitants!

'Nuf ranted. I've said what I got to say...

BPJ