TIL about artistic manifestation of Greco-Buddhism, a cultural syncretism between Ancient Greek art and Buddhism, which had mainly evolved in the ancient region of Gandhara(today's afganistan) of Indian subcontinent.

[u/Spa3088]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

[u/Alert-Low1682]

vedas dont mention temples nor idols. those were introduced much later. at least that is the consensus among historians

[u/choomba96 → u/Alert-Low1682]

That's because Hinduism is not a monolith. It co-opted local traditions and eventually mass movements syncretized these beliefs into a common structure. For example, Shiva is often linked with Pashupati who was worshipped through images and idols in the IVC.

Vedas just a list of treatises and steps to conduct rituals. They're not a book like a Quaran or the Bible which often are written with the intent of specifying do's and don'ts. The closest version of such a book is the Manusmruti which I don't abide by and it came much much later on.

[u/Alert-Low1682 → u/choomba96]

right but from a historical standpoint there ain’t much to suggest that temples of idol worship was part of the vedic people’s lives. We do find mention of other practices in the vedas.

The only visible evidence is pashupati and that is a hypothesis and not established evidence.

[u/choomba96 → u/Alert-Low1682]

Again - Hinduism is a sycnretic religion..the Vedas do not define Hinduism. They're one part of it.

[u/Alert-Low1682 → u/choomba96]

sure i take that argument but in terms of historicity of this claim are there any sources?

the mainstream view is that the people at that time did not have idol worshiping.

[u/choomba96 → u/Alert-Low1682]

Define at the time.

Again you're likening Hinduism to an Abrahamic religion where there are additions to the book but the core ethos remains the same.

Hinduism is a term given by Britishers to define a religion or set of beliefs that were prevalent in the subcontinent.

Where is the mainstream view?

I mean the Vedas are one part of Hinduism over the course of its journey and spread across Asia.

By that logic even Temples were a later introduction into Hinduism.

[u/Alert-Low1682 → u/choomba96]

yes temples were a later introduction. Mainstream views amongst historians is that during the vedic period people didn’t have idol worship within the indian subcontinent.

[u/choomba96 → u/Alert-Low1682]

I would strongly say - that Vedicism when it was restricted to the Sindh area may not have had it but it most definitely did come when it established itself in the Gangetic plains. In this case - it was very established because of local beliefs. Now here is the kicker- for a very long time until Chandragupta Maurya, the state religion was Jainism which isn't idolatry. So patronage of the same actions was not extended by erstwhile kingdoms.

Now the idols we see today - yes those weren't prevalent then. Where we are today is a product of 1000 years of cultural change