Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Yep, useless term.
Also, Hindus are all bipeds.
Also, Hindus are all bipeds.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yep, useless term.
Also, Hindus are all bipeds.
Hindu's quite useful, if nothing else for the cohesion it brings. Have you ever been to India?
The total opposite of cohesion, possibly one of the most fragmented, divided, chaotic, messy, polluted, dirty, uncivil and corrupted places I have ever been to.
Animals are walking about on the street like cows, monkeys and occasionally elephants(!) there is animal and even human excrement all over, loads of rubbish littered all over the streets, urine and paan stains everywhere, people pushing and shoving each other(this is a country where mass stampedes happen annually and kill hundreds) and everyday people quarreling and fighting on the streets and homes(and also portrayed in Indian television soap operas) Children watching porn in internet cafes; widespread crime and excessive use of vulgar language and great apathy for suffering of other people.
Btw I went to an obscure rural place in India in Jaiselmer, the obscure rural village was practicing the caste system, women were not allowed to speak in front of men, and untouchables could had to stay meters away from you and never make eye contact with you, lest the defile the other castes...
Kindess? Right.....
Go to obscure rural areas in India, where you see real kindness, communal spirit, much less garbage, etc., and ask people if they are Hindu. What answer do you think you'll get all across India?
In the spirit of this, I request your contribution to the thread.If you've learned something or gained understanding of others' points of view, then I've accomplished my goal.
I see you've not traveled much in the Caribbean, Africa or the rest of South & Southeast Asia.
Man, as a Neopagan I feel like I could have some good contributions to this to clarify on the Pagan end of things, but this thread is in a DIR so... I'm not sure if I should do that. I figure if you wanted perspectives from contemporary Pagans you'd ask in there or put it in non-DIR (e.g. "comparative religion"). Until asked or a thread moves I shall keep my silence. >_>
Get in here, this is the Hindu DIR. It's a lot more... easygoing.Man, as a Neopagan I feel like I could have some good contributions to this to clarify on the Pagan end of things, but this thread is in a DIR so... I'm not sure if I should do that. I figure if you wanted perspectives from contemporary Pagans you'd ask in there or put it in non-DIR (e.g. "comparative religion"). Until asked or a thread moves I shall keep my silence. >_>
Do members agree or disagree with the opinion that using "Pagan" for "non-Abrahamic" religions renders the word "Pagan" to be pretty much useless?
Word Hindu comes from:
The civilization spreading from the Himalyas and up to the sea (Sindhu), down south.
It is a useful and self-explanatory term.
Makes sense. The only thing that comes to my mind when I think of "Pagan" is European pagan groups though; probably because they use it as an umbrella term; I've never known a Hindu to use it. Nor do I think they need to use it: the word Hindu is big enough already.I agree, when used by non-Abrahamics it's a useless word. However, I think it renders it pejorative and derogatory when used by Abrahamics.
OK here we go again. Epic linguistic failure is a failure.
Correct version:
Hindu is the Old Persian pronunciation of Sindhu, using the regular sound shift of /s/ in Sanskrit to /h/ in Old Persian. The Old Persian used Hindu as an ethnonym for the people across the Sindhu river. Greek dropped the initial aspiration /h/ and tacked on its own nominative masculine singular case-ending of /ós/. And it would not be 'Perhia' because Persia is a Greek word.
Greek Indós =>Latin Indus =>English India.
I really tire of repeating this.