"Hindu"

[Peter Sargent]

On Mon, Jun 16, 1997 at 03:24:28PM +0000, Mr B.Philip.Jonsson wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

Since Jay Stevens is, as usual, posting under the assumed name of Dr.
Jai Maharaj, it might be useful, before expending more scholarly energy
on his contributions to this list, to consult his curriculum vitae,
the "Jai Maharaj FAQ," at http://www.loop.com/~taxi/jayfaq.txt. It's
an Internet classic and will cast some light on what's been happening 
here.

Peter