🀥

Cause,like, that's literally syncretism by definition,and it's not even like the tribal people were made to stop worshipping their own gods in most cases,most of the gods were just considered forms of Shiva,Vishnu or Shakti. It's also what happened between Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt (Zeus was considered Amun Ra, Artemis was considered Bastet,etc)

I don't even understand the basis behind that argument tbh😭

The basis is writing atrocity literature with the intention of framing the Hindus as inherently oppressive and Hinduism as an oppressive entity. In truth, Hinduism has no central authority to sanction such “brahmanisation” of a deity.

There are people who say Hindu goddesses like Kali and Durga are of tribal origins, ignoring the foundation for the devi inside the core Hindu scriptures themselves. Then there are those who frame the hindu gods and goddesses as aryan invaders and such. The academia on Hinduism is in absolute gutters.

Academic treatment of Hinduism gets worse and worse when they constantly ignore insider voices and exacerbate colonial trauma. They ignore the core tenets and philosophical meanings of these stories and we constantly see our scriptures being used to play oppression politics. There was a pro Mahishasur party in JNU or something where they raised slogans in support of a literal demon cuz a “fair skinned goddess named Druga killed a dark buffalo demon.” Completely ignoring the fact that Durga herself transforms into a dark skinned goddess called Kali to slay more demons.

There’s even support for Ravan, an antagonist who raped women and kidnapped Shri Ram’s wife and why? Because apparently Ram is an aryan invaders (even tho the Aryan Invasion theory is debunked now and Shri Ram himself was dark skinned) so yeah that’s how low the bar is set when it comes to what anyone can write or say about Hinduism.

Like there is an entire tribe that started calling itself the Asur tribe cuz they identify themselves with Mahishasur, the demon and they celebrate him as their ancestor. This change came about during the british colonial period which explains everything. Need I say more about how extensively appropriation, distortion and manipulation of Hindu scripture and myths has taken over whatever academia there is at present on the topic of Hinduism? @tomorrowwithme I think talked about this tribe once before.

I mean I am quite ready to accept that there probably was a cultural overlap and syncretism in the Indian subcontinent between different people groups when we first mixed with the populations and the Varna system itself was intended to be fluid so anybody could be a brahmin or anything else they wanted after graduation from a traditional Gurukul.

then of course, a certain sect of ppl associate hinduism (aka brahmanical religion) with hardcore patriarchy. so how can they originally worship a goddess? surely it must be borrowed from somewhere.

like we have devi suktam. even though the devi is not named in it, the lines clearly refer to our tridevi. also, Saraswati IS mentioned in the vedas. Like. literally. and she is integral in shaktism, the devi lover sect. also we do have mentions of other devis, like ushas, ratri, aditi, etc etc. these devis do come up in later hindu texts too, even if they are not being worshipped currently. aditi is mentioned in the puranas. ushas is devi sanjna/saranyu, since both of them are wives of surya, the story on sanjna does not mention ushas, and sanjna/sandhya also means dawn, apparently. so they can be seen as the same deity, i think. we cannot judge the entire religion based on what's happened in the past century. if they think durga or kali are tribal deities, then please bring forth said deities. like we can see a clear line from ishtar till aphrodite. there must be smth similar to that with durga/kali right?

i have seen this pattern. whichever deity is seen as "unconventional" as per these ppl, they are declared a tribal deity. haa if all of them began as non hindu deities, then who exactly was the hindu deity in the start? oh wait. it was the devas.

The Baghor stone is interesting, it echos some tantric practices of today and shows how old tantra really is in the subcontinent and yet we find echos of this faith in all of devi worship even today. I have seen my mother worship these formless stone devis at small shrines and offering pooja to them. Most goddesses in Hindu shrines begin as formless stone goddesses and eventually transform to forms with eyes and physical attributes.

then of course, a certain sect of ppl associate hinduism (aka brahmanical religion) with hardcore patriarchy. so how can they originally worship a goddess? surely it must be borrowed from somewhere.

A society can be deeply patriarchal and still find ways to worship the goddesses which is some nuance that these people lack in their thinking patterns, not to mention that the Vedic era was far better for women as compared to the later eras. Hinduism’s most foundational and sacred of texts like the Rig Veda has female contributors and we learn of these Rishikas who had the agency to proclaim the brahman as Devi, the supreme feminine reality as the origin of all.

Rishika Vak Ambhrini is credited with this sukta.

Her hymns are unique in Hindu philosophy: rather than praising a deity from the outside, they are an Atmastuti (self-praise). Having achieved total self-realization and oneness with the universe, she spoke entirely from the consciousness of the Divine Mother (Adi Parashakti).

Devi worship and worshiping the female divinity is seen throughout the Indo European culture at large. From the Lion riding goddess Nana of ancient Eastern Iran and earlier of Mesopotamia to the war goddesses of Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons.

Now coming to Mahishasur, there is not an iota of evidence that buffalo was not venerated by Vedic civilization. There may be a correlation between the buffalo like head-gear of the Harappan ‘yogi’ seal and the hymns of the Vedas invoking the imagery of buffalo with regard to Vedic divinities. Indologist Stella Kramrisch pointed out in her authoritative work on Siva:

“The buffalo horns gracing the head of this figure and other figures in human shape in Harappan art impart bovine grandeur and significance to their appearance. …Though the collection of the hymns of the Rig Veda was not completed before 1000 BC. Some of its myths originated in a far remote past. In the Rig Veda the bovine species whether as buffalo or bull, lends its glamour to the evocation of the gods. Agni, Indra, Soma, and Varuna, the principal Vedic gods are invoked as buffaloes. Much less frequently are they invoked as bulls? Indra is once praised as a buffalo great in bull powers (RV. 3.46.2), the buffalo obviously taking precedence over the bull.”

- RV. 3.46.2: mahām̐ asi mahiṣa vṛṣṇyebhir dhanaspṛd ugra sahamāno anyān | eko viśvasya bhuvanasya rājā sa yodhayā ca kṣayayā ca janān ||

So much for the so-called ‘Aryans’ of the Vedic society detesting the buffalo rearing native Dravidians. But what is even more interesting is that the slaying of Mahishasura myth has its origin in the Harappan civilization itself. Jane McIntosh an archaeologist from Cambridge University specializing in Harappa states:

“It seems that bovids and tigers, magnificent and powerful creatures, played a major and balancing role in the iconography of the Indus civilization, both individually and in combination. Both appear in later Indian religion, as vehicles of deity, as manifestations of gods in their more terrible forms, and as their opponents: for example, the goddess Durga riding a tiger and slaying the buffalo demon, Mahishasura. While the buffalo and bull, as well as unicorn, are depicted as unmistakably male, tigers are not and may perhaps have been female, another significant duality.”

Soviet scholars, who attempted the deciphering of Harappan seals, also had observed the depiction of an earlier version of the slaying of Mahishasura, not by Durga but by Skanda (as narrated in Mahabharatha):

In the scene depicted on the seal MII, 279; XCII, 11, one finds a personage slaying a buffalo with his spear. An evident parallel to this scene is found in an episode from the late mythology of the killing of the demon-buffalo Mahisha. This motif has many variants in the ancient Sanskrit monuments. The feat of killing Mahisha is ascribed to several deities, Skanda among them. According to the myth related in the Mahabharatha, Skanda appeared in this world in order to head the army of the gods in their struggle against various demons. Among other demons slain by Skanda one finds Mahisha. The details given in the Mahabharatha’s version of Mahishamardana (the killing of Mahisha) exactly correspond to the scenes on the Proto-Indian seal.

So if the anti Hindu party at JNU celebrating the imagined martyrdom of Mahishasura are right, then as a logical extension they should also claim that the architects of Harappan civilization were the original perpetrators of the massacre of native ‘Shudras’ lol.

krishna who? he is aryan invader. mahishasura was og ancestor. wo alag baat hai that the tale of the dravidian deity ayyappa has mahishi as the main antagonist. its totally unrelated. just the same way how mahishasura the tribal was killed by aryan invader cum tribal durga.

Also I think the mound of soil being worshipped as Devi may have roots in nature worshipping in Hinduism and can signify Bhu Devi or Prithvi Mata (Earth Mother). She is often invoked in tandem with Dyaus as the cosmic parents and the Sky father and Earth mother myth is rooted in Indo European cultures.

Cause,like, that's literally syncretism by definition,and it's not even like the tribal people were made to stop worshipping their own gods in most cases,most of the gods were just considered forms of Shiva,Vishnu or Shakti. It's also what happened between Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt (Zeus was considered Amun Ra, Artemis was considered Bastet,etc)

I don't even understand the basis behind that argument tbh😭

The basis is writing atrocity literature with the intention of framing the Hindus as inherently oppressive and Hinduism as an oppressive entity. In truth, Hinduism has no central authority to sanction such “brahmanisation” of a deity.

There are people who say Hindu goddesses like Kali and Durga are of tribal origins, ignoring the foundation for the devi inside the core Hindu scriptures themselves. Then there are those who frame the hindu gods and goddesses as aryan invaders and such. The academia on Hinduism is in absolute gutters.

Academic treatment of Hinduism gets worse and worse when they constantly ignore insider voices and exacerbate colonial trauma. They ignore the core tenets and philosophical meanings of these stories and we constantly see our scriptures being used to play oppression politics. There was a pro Mahishasur party in JNU or something where they raised slogans in support of a literal demon cuz a “fair skinned goddess named Druga killed a dark buffalo demon.” Completely ignoring the fact that Durga herself transforms into a dark skinned goddess called Kali to slay more demons.

There’s even support for Ravan, an antagonist who raped women and kidnapped Shri Ram’s wife and why? Because apparently Ram is an aryan invaders (even tho the Aryan Invasion theory is debunked now and Shri Ram himself was dark skinned) so yeah that’s how low the bar is set when it comes to what anyone can write or say about Hinduism.

Like there is an entire tribe that started calling itself the Asur tribe cuz they identify themselves with Mahishasur, the demon and they celebrate him as their ancestor. This change came about during the british colonial period which explains everything. Need I say more about how extensively appropriation, distortion and manipulation of Hindu scripture and myths has taken over whatever academia there is at present on the topic of Hinduism? @tomorrowwithme I think talked about this tribe once before.

I mean I am quite ready to accept that there probably was a cultural overlap and syncretism in the Indian subcontinent between different people groups when we first mixed with the populations and the Varna system itself was intended to be fluid so anybody could be a brahmin or anything else they wanted after graduation from a traditional Gurukul.

then of course, a certain sect of ppl associate hinduism (aka brahmanical religion) with hardcore patriarchy. so how can they originally worship a goddess? surely it must be borrowed from somewhere.

like we have devi suktam. even though the devi is not named in it, the lines clearly refer to our tridevi. also, Saraswati IS mentioned in the vedas. Like. literally. and she is integral in shaktism, the devi lover sect. also we do have mentions of other devis, like ushas, ratri, aditi, etc etc. these devis do come up in later hindu texts too, even if they are not being worshipped currently. aditi is mentioned in the puranas. ushas is devi sanjna/saranyu, since both of them are wives of surya, the story on sanjna does not mention ushas, and sanjna/sandhya also means dawn, apparently. so they can be seen as the same deity, i think. we cannot judge the entire religion based on what's happened in the past century. if they think durga or kali are tribal deities, then please bring forth said deities. like we can see a clear line from ishtar till aphrodite. there must be smth similar to that with durga/kali right?

i have seen this pattern. whichever deity is seen as "unconventional" as per these ppl, they are declared a tribal deity. haa if all of them began as non hindu deities, then who exactly was the hindu deity in the start? oh wait. it was the devas.

The Baghor stone is interesting, it echos some tantric practices of today and shows how old tantra really is in the subcontinent and yet we find echos of this faith in all of devi worship even today. I have seen my mother worship these formless stone devis at small shrines and offering pooja to them. Most goddesses in Hindu shrines begin as formless stone goddesses and eventually transform to forms with eyes and physical attributes.

then of course, a certain sect of ppl associate hinduism (aka brahmanical religion) with hardcore patriarchy. so how can they originally worship a goddess? surely it must be borrowed from somewhere.

A society can be deeply patriarchal and still find ways to worship the goddesses which is some nuance that these people lack in their thinking patterns, not to mention that the Vedic era was far better for women as compared to the later eras. Hinduism’s most foundational and sacred of texts like the Rig Veda has female contributors and we learn of these Rishikas who had the agency to proclaim the brahman as Devi, the supreme feminine reality as the origin of all.

Rishika Vak Ambhrini is credited with this sukta.

Her hymns are unique in Hindu philosophy: rather than praising a deity from the outside, they are an Atmastuti (self-praise). Having achieved total self-realization and oneness with the universe, she spoke entirely from the consciousness of the Divine Mother (Adi Parashakti).

Devi worship and worshiping the female divinity is seen throughout the Indo European culture at large. From the Lion riding goddess Nana of ancient Eastern Iran and earlier of Mesopotamia to the war goddesses of Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons.

Now coming to Mahishasur, there is not an iota of evidence that buffalo was not venerated by Vedic civilization. There may be a correlation between the buffalo like head-gear of the Harappan ‘yogi’ seal and the hymns of the Vedas invoking the imagery of buffalo with regard to Vedic divinities. Indologist Stella Kramrisch pointed out in her authoritative work on Siva:

“The buffalo horns gracing the head of this figure and other figures in human shape in Harappan art impart bovine grandeur and significance to their appearance. …Though the collection of the hymns of the Rig Veda was not completed before 1000 BC. Some of its myths originated in a far remote past. In the Rig Veda the bovine species whether as buffalo or bull, lends its glamour to the evocation of the gods. Agni, Indra, Soma, and Varuna, the principal Vedic gods are invoked as buffaloes. Much less frequently are they invoked as bulls? Indra is once praised as a buffalo great in bull powers (RV. 3.46.2), the buffalo obviously taking precedence over the bull.”

- RV. 3.46.2: mahām̐ asi mahiṣa vṛṣṇyebhir dhanaspṛd ugra sahamāno anyān | eko viśvasya bhuvanasya rājā sa yodhayā ca kṣayayā ca janān ||

So much for the so-called ‘Aryans’ of the Vedic society detesting the buffalo rearing native Dravidians. But what is even more interesting is that the slaying of Mahishasura myth has its origin in the Harappan civilization itself. Jane McIntosh an archaeologist from Cambridge University specializing in Harappa states:

“It seems that bovids and tigers, magnificent and powerful creatures, played a major and balancing role in the iconography of the Indus civilization, both individually and in combination. Both appear in later Indian religion, as vehicles of deity, as manifestations of gods in their more terrible forms, and as their opponents: for example, the goddess Durga riding a tiger and slaying the buffalo demon, Mahishasura. While the buffalo and bull, as well as unicorn, are depicted as unmistakably male, tigers are not and may perhaps have been female, another significant duality.”

Soviet scholars, who attempted the deciphering of Harappan seals, also had observed the depiction of an earlier version of the slaying of Mahishasura, not by Durga but by Skanda (as narrated in Mahabharatha):

In the scene depicted on the seal MII, 279; XCII, 11, one finds a personage slaying a buffalo with his spear. An evident parallel to this scene is found in an episode from the late mythology of the killing of the demon-buffalo Mahisha. This motif has many variants in the ancient Sanskrit monuments. The feat of killing Mahisha is ascribed to several deities, Skanda among them. According to the myth related in the Mahabharatha, Skanda appeared in this world in order to head the army of the gods in their struggle against various demons. Among other demons slain by Skanda one finds Mahisha. The details given in the Mahabharatha’s version of Mahishamardana (the killing of Mahisha) exactly correspond to the scenes on the Proto-Indian seal.

So if the anti Hindu party at JNU celebrating the imagined martyrdom of Mahishasura are right, then as a logical extension they should also claim that the architects of Harappan civilization were the original perpetrators of the massacre of native ‘Shudras’ lol.

Cause,like, that's literally syncretism by definition,and it's not even like the tribal people were made to stop worshipping their own gods in most cases,most of the gods were just considered forms of Shiva,Vishnu or Shakti. It's also what happened between Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt (Zeus was considered Amun Ra, Artemis was considered Bastet,etc)

I don't even understand the basis behind that argument tbh😭

The basis is writing atrocity literature with the intention of framing the Hindus as inherently oppressive and Hinduism as an oppressive entity. In truth, Hinduism has no central authority to sanction such “brahmanisation” of a deity.

There are people who say Hindu goddesses like Kali and Durga are of tribal origins, ignoring the foundation for the devi inside the core Hindu scriptures themselves. Then there are those who frame the hindu gods and goddesses as aryan invaders and such. The academia on Hinduism is in absolute gutters.

Academic treatment of Hinduism gets worse and worse when they constantly ignore insider voices and exacerbate colonial trauma. They ignore the core tenets and philosophical meanings of these stories and we constantly see our scriptures being used to play oppression politics. There was a pro Mahishasur party in JNU or something where they raised slogans in support of a literal demon cuz a “fair skinned goddess named Druga killed a dark buffalo demon.” Completely ignoring the fact that Durga herself transforms into a dark skinned goddess called Kali to slay more demons.

There’s even support for Ravan, an antagonist who raped women and kidnapped Shri Ram’s wife and why? Because apparently Ram is an aryan invaders (even tho the Aryan Invasion theory is debunked now and Shri Ram himself was dark skinned) so yeah that’s how low the bar is set when it comes to what anyone can write or say about Hinduism.

Like there is an entire tribe that started calling itself the Asur tribe cuz they identify themselves with Mahishasur, the demon and they celebrate him as their ancestor. This change came about during the british colonial period which explains everything. Need I say more about how extensively appropriation, distortion and manipulation of Hindu scripture and myths has taken over whatever academia there is at present on the topic of Hinduism? @tomorrowwithme I think talked about this tribe once before.

I mean I am quite ready to accept that there probably was a cultural overlap and syncretism in the Indian subcontinent between different people groups when we first mixed with the populations and the Varna system itself was intended to be fluid so anybody could be a brahmin or anything else they wanted after graduation from a traditional Gurukul.

Even the Native Americans were in war for centuries even before European colonization,like the Iroqois fighting each other,for example.

I personally don't mind goddesses like Durga and Kali being seen as originally tribal goddesses,cause although the Devi Suktam does exalt the divine energy as a feminine energy,the names of Durga and Kali are not mentioned,so,maybe they did come from tribal worship. My main problem is when people frame it as a form of oppression or whitewashing, considering we don't have much knowledge on what happened,and it's not like the goddesses were changed to be less ferocious or that their worship was forbidden,infact,their worship significantly would've increased if they were infact tribal goddesses.

All religions are derived from tribal religions or other more ancient religions in my opinion. Take Pre Islamic Arabia for example. It was highly polytheistic,and we even have a script that says

"He lost (a) sheep,o,Allat,help him to find it"

Allat here actually refers to a goddess. Worshippers of Allat were considered to be tribal nomadic people, and it is believed that this is the origin of the word "Allah" and why Islam has a lot of pagan practices.

I have also seen some theories that the story of Jesus was derived from the story of Osiris(although I could not find any proper papers on it) and both Islam and Christianity are heavily derived from Judaism.

Also Kali and Durga not being in the Vedas doesn’t necessarily has to mean that they have tribal/non vedic origins, that’s purely assumption based pseudo history.

The name Kali first appears in the Atharva Veda— specifically the Mundaka Upanishad (which stems from the Atharva Veda), "Kali" is explicitly named as one of the seven flickering tongues of the sacred yajna (fire ritual) used to consume oblations. Portions of the Atharva Veda dedicated to Ratri (Night) contain poetic descriptions of the "guarding dark". These verses serve as early precursors to the archetypal energy that would later coalesce into the deity known as Kali. (Also notice the tongue references cuz Kali is famously displayed in her iconography as having her tongue out and a fierce expression on her face)

While the personified deity of Kali (associated with time, destruction, and the consort of Shiva) is primarily associated with later Puranic and Tantric texts, her etymological roots are embedded in the Vedic era.

I haven't read the Atharva Veda yet,but this is nice to know.

Cause,like, that's literally syncretism by definition,and it's not even like the tribal people were made to stop worshipping their own gods in most cases,most of the gods were just considered forms of Shiva,Vishnu or Shakti. It's also what happened between Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt (Zeus was considered Amun Ra, Artemis was considered Bastet,etc)

I don't even understand the basis behind that argument tbh😭

The basis is writing atrocity literature with the intention of framing the Hindus as inherently oppressive and Hinduism as an oppressive entity. In truth, Hinduism has no central authority to sanction such “brahmanisation” of a deity.

There are people who say Hindu goddesses like Kali and Durga are of tribal origins, ignoring the foundation for the devi inside the core Hindu scriptures themselves. Then there are those who frame the hindu gods and goddesses as aryan invaders and such. The academia on Hinduism is in absolute gutters.

Academic treatment of Hinduism gets worse and worse when they constantly ignore insider voices and exacerbate colonial trauma. They ignore the core tenets and philosophical meanings of these stories and we constantly see our scriptures being used to play oppression politics. There was a pro Mahishasur party in JNU or something where they raised slogans in support of a literal demon cuz a “fair skinned goddess named Druga killed a dark buffalo demon.” Completely ignoring the fact that Durga herself transforms into a dark skinned goddess called Kali to slay more demons.

There’s even support for Ravan, an antagonist who raped women and kidnapped Shri Ram’s wife and why? Because apparently Ram is an aryan invaders (even tho the Aryan Invasion theory is debunked now and Shri Ram himself was dark skinned) so yeah that’s how low the bar is set when it comes to what anyone can write or say about Hinduism.

Like there is an entire tribe that started calling itself the Asur tribe cuz they identify themselves with Mahishasur, the demon and they celebrate him as their ancestor. This change came about during the british colonial period which explains everything. Need I say more about how extensively appropriation, distortion and manipulation of Hindu scripture and myths has taken over whatever academia there is at present on the topic of Hinduism? @tomorrowwithme I think talked about this tribe once before.

I mean I am quite ready to accept that there probably was a cultural overlap and syncretism in the Indian subcontinent between different people groups when we first mixed with the populations and the Varna system itself was intended to be fluid so anybody could be a brahmin or anything else they wanted after graduation from a traditional Gurukul.

Even the Native Americans were in war for centuries even before European colonization,like the Iroqois fighting each other,for example.

I personally don't mind goddesses like Durga and Kali being seen as originally tribal goddesses,cause although the Devi Suktam does exalt the divine energy as a feminine energy,the names of Durga and Kali are not mentioned,so,maybe they did come from tribal worship. My main problem is when people frame it as a form of oppression or whitewashing, considering we don't have much knowledge on what happened,and it's not like the goddesses were changed to be less ferocious or that their worship was forbidden,infact,their worship significantly would've increased if they were infact tribal goddesses.

All religions are derived from tribal religions or other more ancient religions in my opinion. Take Pre Islamic Arabia for example. It was highly polytheistic,and we even have a script that says

"He lost (a) sheep,o,Allat,help him to find it"

Allat here actually refers to a goddess. Worshippers of Allat were considered to be tribal nomadic people, and it is believed that this is the origin of the word "Allah" and why Islam has a lot of pagan practices.

I have also seen some theories that the story of Jesus was derived from the story of Osiris(although I could not find any proper papers on it) and both Islam and Christianity are heavily derived from Judaism.

Also Kali and Durga not being in the Vedas doesn’t necessarily has to mean that they have tribal/non vedic origins, that’s purely assumption based pseudo history.

The name Kali first appears in the Atharva Veda— specifically the Mundaka Upanishad (which stems from the Atharva Veda), "Kali" is explicitly named as one of the seven flickering tongues of the sacred yajna (fire ritual) used to consume oblations. Portions of the Atharva Veda dedicated to Ratri (Night) contain poetic descriptions of the "guarding dark". These verses serve as early precursors to the archetypal energy that would later coalesce into the deity known as Kali. (Also notice the tongue references cuz Kali is famously displayed in her iconography as having her tongue out and a fierce expression on her face)

While the personified deity of Kali (associated with time, destruction, and the consort of Shiva) is primarily associated with later Puranic and Tantric texts, her etymological roots are embedded in the Vedic era.