Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mark wrote: I think your tendency to represent this debate as one between western scholarship vs Indian academics is deeply misleading.

Some of the strongest modern advocates of a modified migration theory from central Asia and opponents of the idea of a 'Vedic Harappan culture ' theory were Indian academics from the Hindu community.

Those ones are Western indoctrinated Marxist-nihilists who cannot even be called hindus, and it somewhat contradicts the use of the term "hindutva," but I understand your point and there is a grey area here.

Anyhow, I am finished with that argument.

Mark wrote: Varuna 2 wrote:
Quote:
"I take Ken's position that it is premature to state confidently that 27 or 28 is older than the other."

A wise move to now back our resident authority. After Ken's explanation of the current academic state of play I would have to agree too.

I have always been unsure of this nakshatra business especially in regards to dating goes.

Mark wrote: Still, I would remind you that all the existing astrological texts passed down to us (as opposed to ancient Vedic scriptures) seem to strongly favour 28 nakshatras rather than 27. I see no response on that issue.

The key phrase here is: "down to us." We are like paleontologists here. "Look at that 3-toe footprint and the rock layer is underneath this rock layer with a 4-toe footprint. Therefore, 3-toes came first." Nevermind that 99% of the evidence below and above and around those miniscule pieces had been destroyed or not dug up, and the 3-toes were around at the same time as the 4-toes.

This is why I do not respond to it. How can I respond? I do not know. Almost all of the currently available astrology literature does not even contain information on the 28 nakshatras, which I would be extremely interested in. Trying to apply dates to many things in India is a crazy pastime, to me. I only apply dates to counter other crazy dating attempts and primarily because history is a weapon used to control people, but certainly some dating types are valid such as archeo-astronomy - but I have seriously taken thought into going into retirement and observing rather than countering.

We have the Kalachakra, Sarvotabhadra Chakra, Kota Chakra, Surya Kalanala, Chandra Kalanala, and Shoola as charts using the 28 nakshatras but I have yet to find really any information in classical texts teaching how to delineate these things. I would want to find the appropriate use of these 28 nakshatra astrology charts.

Mark wrote: It is rather disconcerting though that all these writers uncritically assume the entire text we now know as the the Vedanga Jyotisa has passed down to us without any interpolations , accretion, or omission from 1400BCE!

Err...the Vedanga Jyotisha is likely a very late appendage in its present form and consists of a few verses and is likely younger than whatever these few verses are attached to.

Mark wrote: I think there is genuine uncertainty in the dating of this text. I also think the dating of Vedic texts is open to some debate too. However, there is a qualitative difference between the ambiguity on the chronology of this text, or the idea some of the Vedas could be a few hundred yeas older, and the suggestion the Vedas date from several thousand years BCE or that they are concurrent with the high point of the Harappan culture. That kind of typical Hindutva argument raises problems of a completely different order of magnitude.

I agree they are open to debate (my mind is already fixed, just as others are fixed), and they always will be, because there are no recorded dates. So we can keep going until the eternal end with this. I have already mentioned that zero evidence was used to create a fictitious date and now your implication that different dates that actually have evidence is a "typical Hindutva" argument is meaningless and beyond absurd. Shall we keep on until the thread is locked?

Mark wrote: Generally, this interpretation is rather out of favour amongst academics today

Can I do that 3 times? We agree on something! What you wrote is my mantra. I intentionally took that quote out of its original context because it is how I look at all of this monkey business including but not limited to: this thing is that old (invent some reasons), and that thing came before this thing (invent some reasons). Then later the fashions and winds change and a new truth arrives and everyone (or at least 1/3 of the egos) believes that truth as certain as they were before, and in the meantime all of them were false but believed true while it was fashionable. Which brings me to my next point:

Mark wrote: However, as Bill Mak suggests the preserved Jyotisa texts in China are a 'time capsule' of the development of Indian Jyotisa. We now know that early astrological texts seem to work with the 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi cakra. This trend carries on for hundreds of years into the common era.

Here is an analogy: It would be like finding Buddhist texts from India in China and concluding that India equals Buddhism.

In other words, we do not know that so-called 'early' astrological texts work with 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi chakra. What we do know is that those particular texts work this way and they were transmitted to China at this or that date. That is the only thing we know.

Ken wrote: The question of origins may be more complex than we imagine.

Mark wrote: Sadly, that thread doesn't seem to have generated much interest on the forum despite the profound significance of Bill Mak's ground breaking work on these texts.

That is very interesting. I would like to take part of that, but how can I? I don't know anything about it. This is all I can say about it.

Varuna 2 wrote:

Those ones are Western indoctrinated Marxist-nihilists who cannot even be called hindus, and it somewhat contradicts the use of the term "hindutva," but I understand your point and there is a grey area here.

I see. So when you stated earlier in this thread:

''I would encourage people to read the Indian academic literature''

You quite clearly have a very selective reading list in mind. Your world of academic acceptability is vanishingly small. Not content with castigating nearly all western scholarship you now apparently dismiss, without any serious discussion, the leading Indian historians on the ancient period too!

Evidently, these academics are the wrong kind of Indians for you. It now becomes clear your idea of the ?Indian perspective? is confined to only Hindutva writers and their fellow travellers you choose to agree with.

With such a dismissive attitude it seems transparent that a rational evaluation of all academic opinion on this topic is impossible for you. You are clearly too emotionally involved in this topic to step back and consider both sides of the debate.

Incidentally, I am not using the term 'Hindutva' as a shorthand for all Hindus. It is rather a description of the more extremist, nationalistic elements in the Hindu community. In political terms it represents parties like the BJP but the movement is wider than this.

In terms of its view of history it is characterised by a Hindu supremacist , revisionist approach in all periods not just the ancient era. I also use the term to describe westerners who have adopted the Hindutva attitude to ancient India such as David Frawley.

Varuna 2 wrote:

Anyhow, I am finished with that argument.

I don?t see anything resembling a rational or logical ?argument? against these Indian scholars.

Varuna 2 wrote:

The key phrase here is: "down to us." We are like paleontologists here. "Look at that 3-toe footprint and the rock layer is underneath this rock layer with a 4-toe footprint. Therefore, 3-toes came first." Nevermind that 99% of the evidence below and above and around those miniscule pieces had been destroyed or not dug up, and the 3-toes were around at the same time as the 4-toes.

This is why I do not respond to it. How can I respond? I do not know. Almost all of the currently available astrology literature does not even contain information on the 28 nakshatras, which I would be extremely interested in. Trying to apply dates to many things in India is a crazy pastime, to me. I only apply dates to counter other crazy dating attempts and primarily because history is a weapon used to control people, but certainly some dating types are valid such as archeo-astronomy - but I have seriously taken thought into going into retirement and observing rather than countering.

I accept your point that academic areas do go through ?fashions? as rival theories rise and fall. However, academic debates are usually fairly narrowly focused. I already cited the example of potential Babylonian influence at the end of the Vedic period (Pingree?s dating was around 500-400BCE).

The idea of Babylonian influence on Indian astral sciences in this period was generally accepted up until quite recently. However, since David Pingree?s death it has been suggested that Pingree overemphasized the degree of such influence. However, the discussion here is more about how much weight one gives this influence not whether it actually occurred.

Precise dating of texts in India is extremely difficult. Noone is denying that. That is why I keep bringing up Bill Mak?s research. The Jyotisa texts in China are dated! So it gives us something firmer to work on.

As for dating the Vedas a series of things have been used. Linguists have estimated that the diffusion of the Indo-European language began to spread into Pakistan/NW India around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Intriguingly, genetic research of current Indian populations corroborates the notion of a new genetic infusion into India in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. There is a also strong genetic link between high caste Indians and Europeans and SW Asians. This link is much less apparent amongst lower caste or Dalit Indians. How else do we make sense of this remarkable fact without a migration of population from central Asia to Pakistan/North India?

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/10/2277.full

So while scholarship may disagree on exactly how old a text like the RgVeda is we do seem to have a historical window provided by the diffusion of language and genetic markers.

Certainly, the Rigveda is by far the most archaic testimony of Vedic Sanskrit. In his article The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Edwin Bryant (2001) suggests the culture reflected in the Rigveda was pastoral , nomadic, mobile and centered on the Indo-Iranian Soma cult and fire worship.

The religious beliefs and practices and rituals depicted in the Rig Veda bear a striking resemblance to Avestan texts of ancient Iran. In particular, the common deity Mitra, priests called hot? in the Rgveda and zaotar in the Avesta, and the use of a hallucinogenic compound that the Rgveda calls soma and the Avesta haoma.

Several linguistic scholars have identified a strong similarity between the Avestan language of the G?th?s the oldest part of the Avesta and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda. The two show such similarity that the dating of the life of Zarathustra or at least the Gathas has been reassessed closer to the conventional dating of the Rgveda of 1500?1200 BC, i.e. 1100 BC, possibly earlier. It has even been suggested the date of the Avesta could also indicate the original date of the Rgveda.

The early Vedic culture therefore appears to have more characteristics in common with central Asia than the Harappan culture. For example the extensive use of chariots and horses used in the Vedic /Avestan cultures were lacking in Harappan culture. The use of mobile fire altars as opposed to fixed altars used in the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC). Lastly, the extensive urbanisation found in the IVC seems to have been initially lacking in what appears to be a migratory, rural, culture described in the Rgveda.

Varuna 2 wrote:

Err...the Vedanga Jyotisha is likely a very late appendage in its present form and consists of a few verses and is likely younger than whatever these few verses are attached to.

Unfortunately the Indian astronomical researchers discussed earlier don?t really engage with the dating of their sources which one would think would be a key issue for them. Instead they simply cite 1400BCE as if it is a historical given without any serious discussion. David Pingree dated the text about a thousand years later than this which would place it at the very end of the Vedic era roughly contemporary with the time of Buddha and Mahavira.

Varuna 2 wrote:

I agree they are open to debate (my mind is already fixed, just as others are fixed), and they always will be, because there are no recorded dates. So we can keep going until the eternal end with this. I have already mentioned that zero evidence was used to create a fictitious date and now your implication that different dates that actually have evidence is a "typical Hindutva" argument is meaningless and beyond absurd. Shall we keep on until the thread is locked?

As I mentioned above we have linguistic and genetic evidence to go on and strong similarities between the Rgveda and the ancient Avestan texts of Persia.

The argument for an indigenous origin of the Vedas has to explain all these factors. For example, it has to explain the spread of Indo-European languages into Northern India. Hindutva proponents such as David Frawley try to make the evidence fit by supporting the ?out of India? theory for the dissemination of these languages into central and western Asia. In other words out of India proponents like Frawley promote the theory that these languages spread out from India and not vice versa.

However, language researchers give very little credence to this theory since the distribution patterns of Indo-European languages all indicate the direction going the other way. The idea therefore has hardly any support in the academic community.

Varuna 2 wrote:

Here is an analogy: It would be like finding Buddhist texts from India in China and concluding that India equals Buddhism.

This is a false analogy. There is seems to be minimal Chinese input into these texts. What there is can be clearly separated from the Indian components. Moreover, this would hardly be the first time that materials via the Silk Road has given us valuable information about ancient India itself. For example archealogical finds in central Asia have discovered ancient Buddhist texts from India. Some of these were collated in China too. These are a highly useful source of information on Buddhist developments in ancient Indian Buddhism. I assume you are not aware of any of this.

But your other suggestion seems to be because these texts are preserved in Buddhist texts in China they can tell us nothing reliable regarding Hindu Jyotisa of this period? First, off you have to recognise Buddhism was a much more significant player in Indian religious culture in this period than it is today. Numbers are hard to quantify but the Buddhists must have made up a sizeable proportion of the overall Indian population. In that respect the texts were a good cross section of Indian society and its astrological beliefs.

Moreover, as Bill Mak reports the Buddhists commentators in China seemed almost embarrassed at the presence of these Indian astrological texts in the early phase. Texts like the ??rd?lakar??vad? , while adopted by the Buddhists, seems to contain astrological ideas that were originally Hindu.

We can also compare the material with what we do have in India and according to Mak the material seems to closely mirror astrological texts we have preserved in India. You wanted dates? Here is some hard evidence at last that doesn?t rely on speculation.

Varuna 2 wrote:

In other words, we do not know that so-called 'early' astrological texts work with 28 nakshatras alone without the rasi chakra. What we do know is that those particular textswork this way and they were transmitted to China at this or that date. That is the only thing we know.

We do know that the earliest nakshatra material doesn?t involve rasi chakra and still uses Krittika as the starting point.

But your point here seems to be about praxis. In other words do the 28 nakshatra work astrologically without being integrated with the rasi chakra?

I agree we probably need more detail on these early texts before we can form a better view on that in practical astrological terms. I accept there is probably not enough information available yet to really work with the more ancient understanding of the 28 Nakshatras astrologically. Still, even in Jyotisa today we still have widespread use of 28 nakshatras in electional and horary astrology do we not? It seems that Abhijit never quite disappeared!

Mark wrote:

Sadly, that thread doesn't seem to have generated much interest on the forum despite the profound significance of Bill Mak's ground breaking work on these texts.

Varuna 2 wrote:

That is very interesting. I would like to take part of that, but how can I? I don't know anything about it. This is all I can say about it.

I gave a link to the article by Bill Mak on the Indian Jyotisa texts preserved in China in this thread where I summarised it: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7645

Did you miss the link to Mak?s article? I admit the article is only a short summary of his initial findings and it would be fascinating to read a much fuller account of his research.

Here it is again:

http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/daikokai/ ... 20Mark.pdf


Bill Mak has two forthcoming works that don?t seem to be published yet:

1.Silk Road Transmission of Astrological Lore to China ? Indian, Chinese and Central Asian elements in Mah?sa?nip?tas?tra (T397)

2. Indian Jyoti?a literature through the lens of Chinese Buddhist Canon (Proceedings of the 15th World Sanskrit Conference Section: Scientific Literature. Jan 9, 2012)

- See more at: http://www.billmak.com/astronomy/#sthash.K2j3OMry.dpuf

Mark wrote:Varuna 2 wrote:

Those ones are Western indoctrinated Marxist-nihilists who cannot even be called hindus, and it somewhat contradicts the use of the term "hindutva," but I understand your point and there is a grey area here.

I see. So when you stated earlier in this thread:

''I would encourage people to read the Indian academic literature''

You quite clearly had a very selective reading list in mind. Your world of academic acceptability is vanishingly small. Not content with castigating nearly all western scholarship you now apparently dismiss, without any serious discussion, the leading Indian academics on the ancient period too!

I will not respond to you after this reply, because I wonder if you actually do not understand me or if you are intentionally trying to obscure by throwing meaningless words, and ad hominem insinuations, in the place of any argument in the hopes of associating my viewpoint with both ignorance and evil. This is hardly a fruitful debate tactic, but it is a very effective propaganda tactic - I will grant you that.

Those "leading Indian academics" are indoctrinated into a vast edifice that was invented using zero evidence by 19th century Western Orientalists, and those "leading Indian academics" are imitating those whose feet they grovel at. Of course they are going to agree with Western academics because everything they know about their own history was learned from Western academics. This is your debate tactic always, to throw the words 'academics' or 'leading' or such-like sophisticated seemingly authoritative terms in the hopes it actually has any meaning in an argument. Also, because something is popular does not mean it is true, and this is just as true of academia as it is of the general populace.

Mark wrote: Evidently, these academics are the wrong kind of Indians for you.

See the above explanation, besides this is an ad hominem attack.

Mark wrote: It now becomes clear your idea of the ?Indian perspective? is confined to only Hindutva writers and their fellow travellers you choose to agree with.

ad hominem

Mark wrote: With such a dismissive attitude it seems transparent that a rational evaluation of all academic opinion on this topic is impossible for you. You are clearly too emotionally involved in this topic to step back and consider both sides of the debate.

Another ad hominem attack. You do not know that I have studied the standard Western presentation and other presentations combined with my own thinking on these matters.

Mark wrote: Incidentally, I am not using the term 'Hindutva' as a shorthand for all Hindus. It is rather a description of the more extremist, nationalistic elements in the Hindu community. In political terms it represents parties like the BJP but the movement is wider than this.

This is another ad hominem attack. Label your opponents as extremists. This is also a violation of the UN Declaration on Indigenous People's Rights to their own culture and identity and history. All humans are indigenous to this earth, therefore all people have these natural human rights. Just to remind you, you are violating Natural Human Rights every time you use the term 'hindutva.' You certainly are free to deny people their Natural Human Rights, but don't be surprised when they someday return this ungenerosity.

Mark wrote: In terms of its view of history it is characterised by a Hindu supremacist , revisionist approach in all periods not just the ancient era.

This is another ad hominem attack to label opponents as supremacist. Then to label the evidence I presented in this thread as 'revisionist' is meaningless and another sly ad hominem attack (since revisionist is a negative label), in the hopes that both of these labels will stick in association with those who question the invention of Indian History in the West.

Mark wrote: I accept your point that academic areas do go through ?fashions? as rival theories rise and fall. However, academic debates are usually fairly narrowly focused. I already cited the example of potential Babylonian influence at the end of the Vedic period (Pingree?s dating was around 500-400BCE).

Pingree wanted to date the rg veda itself to 500 BCE that is why others rejected his entire Babylon theory, because it wrecked their own neat little story about Indian history and which none of them were present when things happened.

Mark wrote: As for dating the Vedas a series of things have been used. Linguists have estimated that the diffusion of the Indo-European language began to spread into Pakistan/NW India around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE.

No, that is not true. Only one reason was given for dating the vedas to about 1200 bc. The rest of that babble came later based on the fictitious date and to justify the fixed dates that had been decided upon and just assumed to be true since then.

Mark wrote: Intriguingly, genetic research of current Indian populations corroborates the notion of a new genetic infusion into India in the middle of the 2nd century BCE.

They have come a long way in genetic theory if they think they can isolate a century period of time. Yet, what does this have to do with the age of the vedas? Nothing.

Mark wrote: So while scholarship may disagree on exactly how old a text like the RgVeda is we do seem to have a historical window provided by the diffusion of language and genetic markers.

In your world, yes, you do have a neat historical window. None of which is able to "date" the rg veda.

Mark wrote: Several linguistic scholars have identified a strong similarity between the Avestan language of the G?th?s the oldest part of the Avesta and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda. The two show such similarity that the dating of the life of Zarathustra or at least the Gathas has been reassessed closer to the conventional dating of the Rgveda of 1500?1200 BC, i.e. 1100 BC, possibly earlier. It has even been suggested the date of the Avesta could also indicate the original date of the Rgveda.

That is your opinion, and I have my own opinion.

Mark wrote: The early Vedic culture therefore appears to have more characteristics in common with central Asia than the Harappan culture.

Do not forget to mention Mehrgarh at 7000 BCE. Anyhow, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct in this belief that the vedas were unfamiliar to the Mehrgarh culture: it still tells us nothing about the age of the vedas.

Mark wrote: Unfortunately the Indian astronomical researchers discussed earlier don?t really engage with the dating of their sources which one would think would be a key issue for them. Instead they simply cite 1400BCE as is it is a historical given without any serious discussion.

Actually they do, but you have to take the time to go through the academic papers in Indian academia in 2 specific areas: the departments of History of Science and Archeology, and I gave you two links with authors so if you search for those authors names you will continue finding information related to that subject and you can find Indian archeology easily enough. If you only read the Marxist-nihilist literature of the rulers of contemporary Indian thought, then yes, you will find the same beliefs as in Western academia because those Indians studied Western beliefs not their own.

Mark wrote: As I mentioned above we have linguistic and genetic evidence to go on and strong similarities between the Rgveda and the ancient Avestan texts of Persia.

We also have strong similarities with the earliest acknowledged Egyptian and Sumerian and Harappan cultures and similar timelines for them specifically. We also have older cities than these timelines throughout the regions below the last glaciation. We also have strong similarites with Western European peoples and Vedic culture. We also know or have strong reason to believe, most of Europe was covered with glaciers not very long ago.

Mark wrote: The argument for an indigenous origin of the Vedas has to explain all these factors. For example, it has to explain the spread of Indo-European languages into Northern India. Hindutva proponents such as David Frawley try to make the evidence fit by supporting the ?out of India? theory for the dissemination of these languages into central and western Asia. In other words out of India proponents like Frawley promote the theory that these languages spread out from India and not vice versa.

However, language researchers give very little credence to this theory since the distribution patterns of Indo-European languages all indicate the direction going the other way. The idea therefore has hardly any support in the academic community.

You misunderstand me. I am not suggesting Sanskrit is the mother tongue of Indo-European peoples which someone else thought, nor am I suggesting the supremacy and source of Indian culture for all other Indo-Europeans.

My theory is so rare that I do not know if I am the only one who has this theory. Most of the Indo-Europeans were clustered south of the last glaciation and ranging from Egypt to India, then some of them spread into Europe after the last glaciation period in Europe.

The linguist theory you mentioned of going the other way or either way into India is meaningless in regards my theory.

Mark wrote: Varuna 2 wrote:

Here is an analogy: It would be like finding Buddhist texts from India in China and concluding that India equals Buddhism.

This is a false analogy. First off the early texts found in China don?t seem to be Buddhist at all. As Bll Mak reports the Buddhists seemed almost embarrassed at the presence of these Indian astrological texts in the early phase. We can also compare the material with what we do have in India and according to Mak the material seems to closely mirror astrological developments in India. You wanted dates? Here is some hard evidence at last that doesn?t rely on speculation.

An analogy means I was comparing your presentation that the earliest astrology texts in India were 28 nakshatra things, with the idea that Buddhism was the only thing in India. The evidence of 28 nakshatra astrology with no rasis does not prove that other people in India were also using the same astrology, just as not everyone in India was Buddhist. I was not suggesting the astrology in Mak's work is Buddhist. I do not believe the same as you that 12 Aditya astrology was introduced by the Hellenists later than the Mak work timeline. I do not believe because some texts in China were of 28 therefore all astrology in India was 28 at that time.

Mark wrote: We do know that the earliest nakshatra material doesn?t involve rasi chakra and still uses Krittika as the starting point.

No. You may know that, but I do not know that. I do not believe the same history as you, that 12 house astrology was not in India until after this Mak timeframe.

Mark wrote: But your point here seems to be about praxis. In other words do the 28 nakshatra work astrologically without being integrated with the rasi chakra?

No, I was just confirming that I am interested in the nakshatras regardless of how many or when they are from. I do not care about the history as much as the things themselves.

Mark wrote: I agree we probably need more detail on these early texts before we can form a better view on that in practical astrological terms. I accept there is probably not enough information available yet to really work with the more ancient understanding of the 28 Nakshatras astrologically. Still, even in Jyotisa today we still have widespread use of 28 nakshatras in electional and horary astrology do we not? It seems that Abhijit never quite disappeared!

I do not know how widespread, but yes the 28 are sometimes found mentioned.


Yes, I remember the Mak presentation, but like I said I know nothing about it.

Hello Varuna,

Ok. Varuna. Thats it for me. This thread has become very tiresome and is now looking like a loop. I imagine many members decided that a while ago.

I have tried my best to engage with you. Even though you have sidetracked yet another Skyscript thread into your ongoing obsession with historical revisionism. I had been hoping for some considered comments about the view I expressed about the possible equatorial nature of the ancient nakshatras. However, I imagine the historical controversy here will put off more sensitive comments.

I decided to spend some time challenging your ideas here because you have been forcefully pushing your beliefs on the forum for a couple of years now. I felt it was time someone challenged you and effectively 'outed' your prejudices for all to see.

The problem is not that you put forward an alternative historical viewpoint. I am willing to accept Indian culture is possibly much older than the current dating for the Indus Valley Civilisation. I just dont think it was Vedic ,Indo-European speaking or even Hindu in the modern sense of the word.

What I do find problematic is your complete unwillingness to engage with ideas that contradict your own. Instead you blanket dismiss them without going into any detail. Or you present them in an outdated straw man way that noone upholds today. You also seem to have a deep seated resentment towards all things western. That includes any western academics or academics of Indian origin you deem contaminated by western ideas.

You also seem determined to present academic opinion today as if it is identical to a 19th century Victorian paradigm. I cant decide if this is a misunderstanding on your part or a willful attempt to misrepresent contemporary academics for polemical reasons.

In any case, such prejudices makes it impossible to have a serious discussion here.

I am afraid I neither have the free time or inclination to spend any longer conversing with you here. So if you want to continue the argument you will doing it on your own.

Mark

PS Many Indians have used the term Hindutva in the way I have defined it. I find your UN argument spurious since you are conflating just one particular political or philosophical position within Hinduism with an indivisible ethnic , religious or national identity.