Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zen

Using Bharat over India

Recommended Posts

 

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

common sense says that which gets used most frequently in history has greater historical usage and greater cultural history.

 

Which means zilch if not preferred and if nuances of perspective/context not understood 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sorry but no. Remembering history is key to having a civilizational narrative. My issue is our people forgot their history and have no historical consciousness and it’s a civilizational flaw that plenty of other conquered people don’t have. The Greeks didn’t forget Byzantium despite 8 centuries of direct ottoman rule. Jews didn’t forget their history despite being scattered. Neither did the Chinese. But Indians did, Iranians did, Sri Lankan’s did, etc. There is no shame in admitting our cultural weaknesses and rectifying them. 

 

Remembering or not remembering history is not a concern at all 

 

 

Quote

Thank you for proving my point that your entire position is anti history and anti cultural history.

 

What you have proved is that you need a psychological evaluation 

 

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

common sense says that which gets used most frequently in history has greater historical usage and greater cultural history.

Sorry but no. Remembering history is key to having a civilizational narrative. My issue is our people forgot their history and have no historical consciousness and it’s a civilizational flaw that plenty of other conquered people don’t have. The Greeks didn’t forget Byzantium despite 8 centuries of direct ottoman rule. Jews didn’t forget their history despite being scattered. Neither did the Chinese. But Indians did, Iranians did, Sri Lankan’s did, etc. There is no shame in admitting our cultural weaknesses and rectifying them. 

Thank you for proving my point that your entire position is anti history and anti cultural history.

Wrong analogy. Where are the Greeks and  Persians now? Romans and Greek civilizations were wiped by Christianity as they burnt all pagan culture. Also Persians Zoroastrians lost out to Muslims in a similar way. Jews and Indians were scattered and hence survived. RomansGreeks were as old as Vedic civilization. We have survived because we were scattered and remembered our history  for generations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

Which means zilch if not preferred and if nuances of perspective/context not understood 

no amount of nuance and contextualizing will change the past and the fact that what dominated our past, defines our cultural history more.

Quote

Remembering or not remembering history is not a concern at all 

it is. It’s a far bigger concern than picking a name you like coz u just feel like it. I am sure your ancestors would’ve been glad to know that you consider remembering our history and civilizational history to be of no consequence at all.

Quote

 

 

What you have proved is that you need a psychological evaluation 

 

 

 

:lol:

Sorry but I have proven, thanks to you, that your entire position is anti Indian history and anti Indian cultural legacy. Hence India >> bharat. And always will be.

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

Wrong analogy. Where are the Greeks and  Persians now? Romans and Greek civilizations were wiped by Christianity as they burnt all pagan culture. Also Persians Zoroastrians lost out to Muslims in a similar way. Jews and Indians were scattered and hence survived. RomansGreeks were as old as Vedic civilization. We have survived because we were scattered and remembered our history  for generations. 

We were scattered ?? Lol.  Greeks did remember their history of Alexander, the diadochi period, Roman conquest, etc. Despite being conquered by Christianity and then Islam. This proves that being conquered is no excuse to forget ones history. Nobody conquered the Tamils or mallus till literally the British. Yet they forgot about kalabhras. It’s because our civilization has been dominated by the likes of zen who think remembering history is of no concern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

no amount of nuance and contextualizing will change the past and the fact that what dominated our past, defines our cultural history more.

nuances/context explain what went into making an event/history 

 

 

Quote

it is. It’s a far bigger concern than picking a name you like coz u just feel like it. I am sure your ancestors would’ve been glad to know that you consider remembering our history and civilizational history to be of no consequence at all.

There are no issues here at all whatsoever except in your imagination 

 

 

Quote

Sorry but I have proven, thanks to you, that your entire position is anti Indian history and anti Indian cultural legacy. Hence India >> bharat. And always will be.

 

In your imagination .... but if you think that you have proven something, let's see you provide your name and position :orderorder: 

 

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zen said:

nuances/context explain what went into making an event/history 


 

doesmt change the fact that which dominates history, is of greater historicity.

13 minutes ago, zen said:

There are no issues here at all whatsoever except in your imagination 

forgetting ones history is an issue to many of us. 

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

In your imagination .... but if you think that you have proven something, let's see you provide your name and position :orderorder: 

you have said yourself that what s remembered or not remembered is of no consequence. Therefore you are saying remembering your ancestors and history is of no consequence. Busted.

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

 

:hysterical:

Facts don’t care about your feelings. That which is more prevalent in history is more historical. Simple. Your example backfired and now you can only laugh but present no logical counter. As usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

doesmt change the fact that which dominates history, is of greater historicity.

but irrelevant if not from the right perspective 

 

Quote

forgetting ones history is an issue to many of us. 

 

Could be for some .... also whether history is really forgotten (legitimacy of your claim), how relevant it is (even an issue if forgotten), etc. remain unanswered :winky: .... with a sensible poster, I could have taken up this points but not with an unidimensional clueless wonder like you 

 

 

Quote

you have said yourself that what s remembered or not remembered is of no consequence. Therefore you are saying remembering your ancestors and history is of no consequence. Busted.

 

Remembering and not remembering has various nuances 

 

 

Quote

Facts don’t care about your feelings. That which is more prevalent in history is more historical. Simple. Your example backfired and now you can only laugh but present no logical counter. As usual.

 

Human being care about feelings .... a comment like you made below is usually made by someone with a childish brain or a psychological imbalance 

 

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, zen said:

but irrelevant if not from the right perspective 

facts are facts, facts don’t care about right or wrong perspective. What is historically more prevalent is a fact and it is a fact that what is more prevalent historically is more definitive historically.

14 minutes ago, zen said:

Could be for some .... also whether history is really forgotten (legitimacy of your claim), how relevant it is (even an issue if forgotten), etc. remain unanswered :winky: .... with a sensible poster, I could have taken up this points but not with an unidimensional clueless wonder like you 

waving white flag before even the battle, just like some of our coward ancestors, we see. 

14 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

Remembering and not remembering has various nuances 

a fail is a fail. Failure to remember is a failure to remember. You said remembering or not remembering is of no consequence- meaning or history is of no consequence to you. Thus proving my point that you don’t care about our history.

14 minutes ago, zen said:

Human being care about feelings .... a comment like you made below is usually made by someone with a childish brain or a psychological imbalance 

It’s made by one who cares for objective facts and don’t use feelings to hide or twist facts like you do.

14 minutes ago, zen said:

:rofl:

Nice counter. Aka I win by default, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

facts are facts, facts don’t care about right or wrong perspective. What is historically more prevalent is a fact and it is a fact that what is more prevalent historically is more definitive historically.

waving white flag before even the battle, just like some of our coward ancestors, we see. 

a fail is a fail. Failure to remember is a failure to remember. You said remembering or not remembering is of no consequence- meaning or history is of no consequence to you. Thus proving my point that you don’t care about our history.

It’s made by one who cares for objective facts and don’t use feelings to hide or twist facts like you do.

Nice counter. Aka I win by default, thanks.

mature human beings try to understand what goes behind facts .... for an immature mind like you a horse could be a donkey as  it is called donkey more by someone who does not want the horse to think of it a horse. For a mature mind, it is a horse and has a right to be called what it pleases to ask for a better future 

 

But yeah, one cannot expect  sense from a guy who writes (probably from a mental asylum):

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

:hysterical:

 

 

I doubt if anyone takes you seriously here

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

We were scattered ?? Lol.  Greeks did remember their history of Alexander, the diadochi period, Roman conquest, etc. Despite being conquered by Christianity and then Islam. This proves that being conquered is no excuse to forget ones history. Nobody conquered the Tamils or mallus till literally the British. Yet they forgot about kalabhras. It’s because our civilization has been dominated by the likes of zen who think remembering history is of no concern

What good is Greek Roman and Persian history being remembered in museums and mausoleums, while ours is a living civilization? Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

What good is Greek Roman and Persian history being remembered in museums and mausoleums, while ours is a living civilization? Think about it.

How does that relate to the point that they are way better at remembering history than us and we have to rectify it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zen said:

mature human beings try to understand what goes behind facts .... for an immature mind like you a horse could be a donkey as  it is called donkey more by someone who does not want the horse to think of it a horse. For a mature mind, it is a horse and has a right to be called what it pleases to ask for a better future 

mature human beings don’t ignore facts and history because they were brutal or unsavoury. For a mature mind, the past is an objective fact: if you have called a horse a donkey for 2000 years, then objective fact is, it’s identity is that of a donkey for 2000 years. It’s pleasure or displeasure is irrelevant to this fact. Not to mention, more than one person has made it clear that unlike your horse and donkey example, we LIKE the tag India and we WANT it to define us.

15 hours ago, zen said:

 

But yeah, one cannot expect  sense from a guy who writes (probably from a mental asylum):

 

:hysterical:

 

 

I doubt if anyone takes you seriously here

 

That’s why my posts in this threads have more likes than yours :phehe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

mature human beings don’t ignore facts and history because they were brutal or unsavoury. For a mature mind, the past is an objective fact: if you have called a horse a donkey for 2000 years, then objective fact is, it’s identity is that of a donkey for 2000 years. It’s pleasure or displeasure is irrelevant to this fact. Not to mention, more than one person has made it clear that unlike your horse and donkey example, we LIKE the tag India and we WANT it to define us.

That’s why my posts in this threads have more likes than yours :phehe:

mature beings understand the information behind "facts" .... while immature ones, who cannot deep dive, post:

 

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

 :rofl:

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, zen said:

mature beings understand the information behind "facts" .... while immature ones, who cannot deep dive, post:

 

 :rofl:

Understanding facts don’t change the facts. The why doesn’t change the is. Your cultural identity history is whatever has been used most often historically by you and others. No amount of trying to twist this simple fact will change the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

What use is it to glorify civilizations in museums?

Is that why you specifically side stepped my example of Jews and Chinese ?? Their civilization is intact. Like us, China got invaded a bazillion times and ruled by invaders who butchered them. And worse than us, most Jews got kicked out of their homeland and lived like Dalits in a boonie village of India. Yet they remember their history. We don’t. Why are you so afraid to admit the simple fact that hindus and Indians totally suck at remembering their history ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Understanding facts don’t change the facts. The why doesn’t change the is. Your cultural identity history is whatever has been used most often historically by you and others. No amount of trying to twist this simple fact will change the fact.

Understanding facts and perspective allow to take better decisions :winky:  .... As explained a simpleton like you will not understand the deeper concepts and rely on irrelevant criterias and when, as explained, even a brand new term can be coined .... and of course will posts things such as below:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

:hysterical:

 

 

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, zen said:

Understanding facts and perspective allows to take better decisions  .... As explained a simpleton like you will not understand the deeper concepts and rely on pointless criterias and when, as explained, even a brand new term can be coined ... and posts things such as below:

:hysterical:

 

 

As expected, a simpleton with no arguments has nothing cogent to contribute against the simple fact THAT WHICH DOMINATES YOUR HISTORY, IS YOUR HISTORY. taking better decisions and learning from history involves not modifying history due to your own insecurities and learning history objectively. 
 

a brand new term can be coined and that brand new term will not be representing cultural heritage because cultural heritage is determined by past prevalence, not whitewashing the past. 
 

 

you can only laugh because you have zero logical counter to the simple factual statement. Like your whole logically vacant position on India just because you are a historically ignorant Hindu who wants an historically obscure modern times popularized term like bharat to dominate because of your cosmetic needs.shame !!

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

As expected, a simpleton with no arguments has nothing cogent to contribute against the simple fact THAT WHICH DOMINATES YOUR HISTORY, IS YOUR HISTORY. taking better decisions and learning from history involves not modifying history due to your own insecurities and learning history objectively. 
 

That shows you have zero originality. If someone calls you a simpleton, you respond by calling them simpleton .... you have no other concepts other than "history", maybe a subject you spent too much unwarranted time on

 

Quote

a brand new term can be coined and that brand new term will not be representing cultural heritage because cultural heritage is determined by past prevalence, not whitewashing the past. 

Already explained that there are multiple ways of aligning with culture .... and folly of unnecessarily imagining past being whitewashed .... in short, every statement and assumption of yours is a hogwash  .... but again what can you expect from someone who types:

 

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:rofl:

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zen said:

 

That shows you have zero originality. If someone calls you a simpleton, you respond them by calling simpleton .... you have no other concepts other than history, maybe a subject you spent too much unwarranted time on

Obviously the historically ignorant person who thinks history is irrelevant thinks it’s unwarranted. Maybe you should spend less time on worshipping that unproven, silent, unknown God delusion of yours.

16 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Already explained that there are multiple ways of aligning with culture .... and folly of imagining past being whitewashed .... in short, every statement and assumption of yours is a hogwash  .... but again what can you expect from someone who types:

 

 

:rofl:

Every statement of yours is hogwash because mine are backed up by logic, yours are just empty pronouncement. You can laugh because that’s all you can do and you cannot counter the logic. That which aligns with the history of our culture and our ancestors, aligns with culture. Our ancestors themselves preferred India and its Persian derivative more than bharat. Respect your ancestors legacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Obviously the historically ignorant person who thinks history is irrelevant thinks it’s unwarranted. Maybe you should spend less time on worshipping that unproven, silent, unknown God delusion of yours.

Every statement of yours is hogwash because mine are backed up by logic, yours are just empty pronouncement. You can laugh because that’s all you can do and you cannot counter the logic. That which aligns with the history of our culture and our ancestors, aligns with culture. Our ancestors themselves preferred India and its Persian derivative more than bharat. Respect your ancestors legacy. 

more hogwash but again what to expect from a guy who wrote:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zen said:

more hogwash but again what to expect from a guy who wrote:

 

 

:hysterical:

As usual, you have no logical counter, just empty judgements of things you don’t like and when you are proven wrong via logic. India is more important to our culture than bharat. All explanations given, not a single refutation via logic or facts have been presented by you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

As usual, you have no logical counter, just empty judgements of things you don’t like and when you are proven wrong via logic. India is more important to our culture than bharat. All explanations given, not a single refutation via logic or facts have been presented by you. 

a display of a flawed line of thinking .... again not surprising from someone who wrote:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zen said:

a display of a flawed line of thinking .... again not surprising from someone who wrote:

 

 

:hysterical:

The flawed thinking is from you, since yo can only laugh and not counter logic. But since you are on record saying you don’t care about history, you have zero authority to talk about what represents the culture of India- as that is based on history. Checkmate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

The flawed thinking is from you, since yo can only laugh and not counter logic. But since you are on record saying you don’t care about history, you have zero authority to talk about what represents the culture of India- as that is based on history. Checkmate.

A delusional notion and unawareness of what has actually happened .... discussing relying on childish tricks such as if someone says flawed thinking, zero logic and so on, you say no yours is flawed logic, etc. :lol:  .... a display of desperation here (of course, your retort could be - no your is desperation :rolleyes:) .... and good to know that you still remember my checkmate lines (no originality) :rofl: 

 

Again what to expect from someone who types:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical:

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zen said:

A delusional notion and unawareness of what has actually happened .... discussing relying on childish tricks such as if someone says flawed thinking, zero logic and so on, you say no yours is flawed logic, etc. :lol:  .... a display of desperation here (of course, your retort could be - no your is desperation :rolleyes:) .... and good to know that you still remember my checkmate lines (no originality) :rofl: 

Again what to expect from someone who types:

:hysterical:

 

Name calling and saying delusional and there are other ways and this isn’t right etc. Is not logic, it’s just whining. Which is all you have, which is why you cannot axiomatically challenge the thing you are laughing at. Because it is right and just and fair and has also precedence in world culture for continuity. Yours is anti- culture because you are anti history. Those who are anti history can never be pro culture to any real effect. For they are violating culture by violating its living truth. Again, checkmate. Cannot call yourself culturally more aligned and then dismiss history as a must-have in determining culturally aligned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Name calling and saying delusional and there are other ways and this isn’t right etc. Is not logic, it’s just whining. Which is all you have, which is why you cannot axiomatically challenge the thing you are laughing at. Because it is right and just and fair and has also precedence in world culture for continuity. Yours is anti- culture because you are anti history. Those who are anti history can never be pro culture to any real effect. For they are violating culture by violating its living truth. Again, checkmate. Cannot call yourself culturally more aligned and then dismiss history as a must-have in determining culturally aligned. 

 

Use of dumb assumptions and thrown out points  :winky:  .... Kicked out by Hindus so turned an atheist. Fighting the name Bharat because it feels like Hinduism .... Dragging in VHP w/o any reasons as if representing it while failing to provide name and position  :lol:   

 

but again what can you expect from someone writing the below to crash his own case:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical: 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Use of dumb assumptions and thrown out points  :winky: 
 

you cannot throw out anything without refutation and be called rational. So. Nothing thrown out.

Quote

 

 

.... Kicked out by Hindus so turned an atheist.
 

false allegation. Nobody kicked me out and there is no evidence or claim to back up kicking out a kulin Brahmin. Neither is such a thing possible. :facepalm:

Quote

Fighting the name Bharat because it feels like Hinduism
 

because it’s less aligned to culture because it’s less aligned to history proudly used by our people. We ourselves prefer Hindustan in the past. That is decisive.

Quote

 

.... Dragging in VHP w/o any reasons as if representing it while failing to provide name and position  :lol:   

 

but again what can you expect from someone writing the below to crash his own case a long time ago and probably from a mental asylum:

 

 

:hysterical: :hysterical::hysterical: 

Crashing case allegation has not been substantiated. You spend million hours saying nonsense, bullshit, thrown out, dismissed and less than 30 seconds arguing the point. Coz u have no point and no challenge. We can all see. So you can only laugh and not challenge logic. Coz u can’t and u r anti Indian culture because u r anti Indian history. As I said, checkmate.

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

you cannot throw out anything without refutation and be called rational. So. Nothing thrown out.

false allegation. Nobody kicked me out and there is no evidence or claim to back up kicking out a kulin Brahmin. Neither is such a thing possible. :facepalm:

because it’s less aligned to culture because it’s less aligned to history proudly used by our people. We ourselves prefer Hindustan in the past. That is decisive.

Crashing case allegation has not been substantiated. You spend million hours saying nonsense, bullshit, thrown out, dismissed and less than 30 seconds arguing the point. Coz u have no point and no challenge. We can all see. So you can only laugh and not challenge logic. Coz u can’t and u r anti Indian culture because u r anti Indian history. As I said, checkmate.

 

After you were kicked out by Hindus .... you probably resorted to trying to tell them how they were ruled by Muslims and British (though everyone in the region was). But Hindus did not care and took pride in their history, in vedas, etc., so you started to cry that they do not even remember their history :hysterical:

 

The word "Maha Bharat" is enough to own your sorry Hindu kicked butt :winky: .... but you cannot expect someone who "claims" to be with VHP w/o providing name and position and who writes like below to know it:

 

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:rofl: 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zen said:

 

After you were kicked out by Hindus ....

lying as usual.  coz you lost.

1 hour ago, zen said:

you probably resorted to trying to tell them how they were ruled by Muslims and British (though everyone in the region was). But Hindus did not care and took pride in their history, in vedas, etc., so you started to cry that they do not even remember their history :hysterical:

you dont speak for hindus. 

1 hour ago, zen said:

The word "Maha Bharat" is enough to own your sorry Hindu kicked butt :winky: .... but you cannot expect someone who "claims" to be with VHP w/o providing name and position and who writes like below to know it:

one book that is a smriti, amongst many. Our ancestors used Hindustan, aka persianized version of India, far more commonly. That is fact and therefore it’s more culturally aligned. Why do you hate the term Hindustan so much ? It’s a term that originates with sindhu being our own periphery and ‘Sindh paar’ meaning foreigner in even post independence era. 
 

you have been proven to be anti Indian culture because you said you don’t care for history. Anyone who doesn’t care for history is anti culture, period.

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

 

:rofl: 

More evidence of your inability to debate logically coz you don’t have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

lying as usual.  coz you lost.

you dont speak for hindus. 

one book that is a smriti, amongst many. Our ancestors used Hindustan, aka persianized version of India, far more commonly. That is fact and therefore it’s more culturally aligned. Why do you hate the term Hindustan so much ? It’s a term that originates with sindhu being our own periphery and ‘Sindh paar’ meaning foreigner in even post independence era. 
 

you have been proven to be anti Indian culture because you said you don’t care for history. Anyone who doesn’t care for history is anti culture, period.

More evidence of your inability to debate logically coz you don’t have a point.

 

Govt has chosen two official names - Bharat and India.  Since ancient Hindu books refer to the region as Bharat, the Hindu hater, who was kicked out by Hindus, is upset. Therefore, the he imagines that India and Hindustan, which is not even an official name and outside the scope of discussion, are important because "foreigners" called the the region so more .... and when no one cares as even a new term can be coined  :rofl:

 

You try to enter into discussions that are too big for your boots .... but what to expect from a guy who writes stuff like below:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical:

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zen said:

 

Govt has chosen two official names - Bharat and India.  Since ancient Hindu books refer to the region as Bharat, the Hindu hater, who was kicked out by Hindus, is upset. 

 

stop lying. Nobody kicked me out ad I am a hindu myself. Just not a theist one. Kicking out kulin Brahmins....that’s a first. But good job lying and slandering coz you got no logical arguments

Quote

Therefore, the he imagines that India and Hindustan, which is not even an official name and outside the scope of discussion, are important because "foreigners" called the the region so more .... and when no one cares as even a new term can be coined  :rofl:

because our local ancestors left far more books and inscriptions calling it Hindustan, which is Persian form of India, same word cognate, than bharat. A new term can be coined. And a new term is less aligned to our culture than our culturally historically accepted term by everyone. India and Hindustan are the same word root, one in Greek, one in Sanskrit  in origin

Quote

You try to enter into discussions that are too big for your boots .... but what to expect from a guy who writes stuff like below:

 

 

:hysterical:

That’s why you are the one failing to present a logical counter and only hiding behind emojis coz you are defeated by logic and have no counter argument, o indian culture hating cosmetic Hindu.

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

54 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

stop lying. Nobody kicked me out ad I am a hindu myself. Just not a theist one. Kicking out kulin Brahmins....that’s a first. But good job lying and slandering coz you got no logical arguments

because our local ancestors left far more books and inscriptions calling it Hindustan, which is Persian form of India, same word cognate, than bharat. A new term can be coined. And a new term is less aligned to our culture than our culturally historically accepted term by everyone. India and Hindustan are the same word root, one in Greek, one in Sanskrit  in origin

That’s why you are the one failing to present a logical counter and only hiding behind emojis coz you are defeated by logic and have no counter argument, o indian culture hating cosmetic Hindu.

 

let’s get into how you first started to get your butt kicked by Hindus. You read some books and made some dumb parallels. You told Hindus to show you the proof that God existed. The nice ppl explained you but you said that for something to exist, you should be able to see it and since no God was shown to you, God does not exist. The nice folks kicked your fat butt hard and threw you out. Being a tool, you spent the rest of your life hating Hindus for doing the right thing of kicking your dumb butt :lol:

 

And here too you are unsuccessfully trying to act smart but again getting your sorry kicked butt kicked  .... But what other result to expect for someone who writes:

 

8 hours ago, zen said:

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.


:hysterical: 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread shows a typical NRI discussion. Living abroad and discussing what changes India needs to make :no:This just shows the privilege of living in a western country. If they tell the western people this needs to happen in their own country, they will be told to fcvk off and pack their bags home. But they do this to uncultured Indians and hence this thread. India tolerates these people and is a old age home for these people who didn't even work in India during their prime

 

Edit: This is also coming during difficult times because of coronavirus. Note this point where others are discussing the issue at hand while these people are discussing something that is definitely not important to the country nor is it practical

Edited by Real McCoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice article in the Hindu:

 

How many countries have two names, one constitutionally documented and another probably an English translation for people who cannot pronounce it?

 

People speaking English or any other European language often have a problem pronouncing eastern names. So in the past they would change names according to their convenience, and we blindly accept those.

 

Look at us: we operate with two names, the original name Bharat, and the given name, India. The invaders of Bharat who came up to the river Sindhu somehow managed to pronounce Sindhu as Hindu, and then Indus. And finally India is stuck on us for centuries now.

 

Historians should give a satisfactory explanation for the evolution of this name ‘India’, or trace its origin. I could not find anywhere in the Vedas, Puranas, Itihaasa or even Amarakosa the word or name ‘India.’

 

The scriptures say “jambu dweepe Bhaarata varshe….” And from time immemorial a meaningful Samskrita ‘padham’ Bhaarat, has been in vogue: no one can deny this. Yet, our Constitution included the name India and liberally allowed everyone to use it even after attaining Independence from foreign invaders.
 

When we speak in our regional languages or Rashtra bhasha, we proudly use the name Bharat or Bharata Matha. But while addressing the nation in English, people refer to it as India, like a translation for the original name for non-Bhaaratiyas to understand.

 

Sri Lanka eschewed the name Ceylon long ago. But we cling to the name left behind by the invaders. Should we really need two names? Can we not stick to the name Bharat and let others understand that we are switching back to the original name Bharat?

 

I don’t know whether I am right or wrong, some writers say that after Independence Mahatma Gandhi wanted to dissolve the Indian National Congress and form a party with an indigenous name. Probably for fear of an identity crisis, the then leaders did not pay much attention to Gandhiji’s advice and continued to fight the elections in the same name of Indian National Congress.


Link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nice article below .... what a name :dance:

 

There are lots of wonders seen here; may be an architectural or as a highly developed civilisation in ancient India or an amazing history of much conquered nation, India has always made her presence felt as a great nation. Since ancient times our nation has been termed as Bharat (Sanskrit original name). There are some stories of various historians which fascinate us and explain How India got the name Bharat.

 

According to the History of India’s Geography; the land of seven rivers, the Rig Veda’s 18th hymn of seventh book describes about the terrible war which is known as ‘Dasharajna’ or battle of ten kings. The war was fought between ten powerful tribes who plotted to overthrow King Sudasa of the Bharata tribe of Trtsu Dynasty. This battle took place on the river Ravi in Punjab. As a result, Sudasa achieved a great thumping victory over the confederacy of ten kings. Which further led to the popularity of King Sudasa and people eventually started identifying themselves as members of the Bharata tribe. The name ‘Bharata’ stuck on the mouth of people and ultimately named as Bharat Varsha’ meaning the land of Bharata.

 

According to Mahabharata the popular story states that India was called Bharatvarshaafter the king named Bharata Chakravarti. Bharata was a legendary emperor and the founder of Bharata Dynasty and an ancestor of the Pandavas and Kauravas. He was son of King Dushyanta of Hastinapur and Queen Sakuntala. Also, a descendant of Kshatriya Varna. Bharata had conquered all of Greater India, united in to a single political entity which was named after him as “Bharatvarsha”.

 

Excerpt of Vishnu Purana ---- “This country is known as Bharatvarsha since the times the father entrusted the kingdom to the son Bharata and he himself went to the forest for ascetic practices”

 

Uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhāratī yatra santatiḥ

 

This shloka means: “The country (Varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata.

Therefore, it is also said that the name Bharata is derived from the ancient Indian texts, the Puranas which refers to the land that comprises India as Bharata Varsam. They used this term to distinguish it from other varsas or continents.

 

Third is according to Sanskrit, the origin of Bharat:

 

Bharata is the official Sanskrit name of the country, Bharata Ganarajya. The Sanskrit word Bharata describes Agni. This term has Sanskrit root bhr means “to bear/ to carry” i.e. “to be maintained” (of fire). It also means“One who is engaged in search of Knowledge”.

 

Fourth is According to Jain Dharma:

 

India’s real name is Bharat and it was kept after the name of Bharat Chakravarti the eldest son of First Jain Tirthankar & it is said that it is solely gift of Jainism in terms of name Bharat and its original source of Civilisation of Bharat today called India.

 

Link

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Is that why you specifically side stepped my example of Jews and Chinese ?? Their civilization is intact. Like us, China got invaded a bazillion times and ruled by invaders who butchered them. And worse than us, most Jews got kicked out of their homeland and lived like Dalits in a boonie village of India. Yet they remember their history. We don’t. Why are you so afraid to admit the simple fact that hindus and Indians totally suck at remembering their history ?

Hard to focus on all Spam posts, both of you (and @zen ) keep your discussions on facts and leave out personal insults. 

 

I had a ready proof for Romans and Greeks where the modus operandi was similar to India. The Brits start calling out the Hindu civilization as primitive and ritualistic, just like Greeks and Romans were paganised by Christians. Muslims did it to the idolatory pagans in the ME. Indians survived mainly because they were spread over a  large georgraphical area and the religion itself was decentralized and plural. Your argument that Hindus don't have a sense of history is wrong at least till the 7th century. Badami Chalukyas thought they were descendents of a Ayodhya kings. Every King had a connection to a royal race from Ikshvaku/Puru/Suryavamsha etc. Since the advent of Islam. because of Islamic  Iconoclasm and the destruction of temples, universities and billions of manuscripts that were lost, a lot of Historical sense was lost. There is proof of east Asians coming down to number of universities in Nalanda to get educated and civilized.  With Adi Shankara, and the Bhakti movements, there was a sense of vedic lineage reivial,culturally and religiously, but politically were all so scatterred with each region having had to fight amongst themselves and Islamic invasions. 

 

The Brits did dig out some of the history of the ancient India, but they selectively did it to keep the AIT in tact and also their supremacy of empire and religion. The loss of a sense of History was due to a break in political scenario, since the 7th century. I am glad that post Brits, there is a revival of Vedic History being done the right way (and not the western myopic way). Dharam Pal, R.C Majumdar and lot of 20th century historians have corrected course and have dug out a lot of lost historical facts, that the Marxists and western Academia is ignoring. They want to keep their legacy. In short, your binary view of generalizing Hindus not having a sense of history is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

Chinese had a sense of common root to ancient ethnic roots, different dynasties though fought amongst each other, but still believed in the Chinese commonality. Indians were divided ethnically as well. Modern Chines kep the western Academia out of Chinese studies, that makes a lot of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

let’s get into how you first started to get your butt kicked by Hindus.
 

false claim, fake Hindu. You are a western rice bag convert seeking Christian. That’s why you hate our history so much and want to erase it.

12 hours ago, zen said:

You read some books and made some dumb parallels. You told Hindus to show you the proof that God existed. The nice ppl explained you but you said that for something to exist, you should be able to see it and since no God was shown to you, God does not exist
 

lol. That was from YOU. NOT ‘ Hindus’. I asked you for evidence, you ran away like a rice bag convert and refused to talk. And that’s also a false claim. I said show evidence, not make god appear in front of my eyes. 

 

12 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

. The nice folks kicked your fat butt hard and threw you out. Being a tool, you spent the rest of your life hating Hindus for doing the right thing of kicking your dumb butt :lol:

you ran away and I trapped you so hard that you ended up blocking me. Coz u r a fake Hindu.

12 hours ago, zen said:

 

And here too you are unsuccessfully trying to act smart but again getting your sorry kicked butt kicked  .... But what other result to expect for someone who writes:

 


:hysterical: 

 

 

Nobody is kicking my butt because you cannot counter my points. You said history does not matter. Meaning you are anti Indian history and you seek to trivialize our heritage. Someone who trivializes our history is against our culture. Checkmate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Hard to focus on all Spam posts, both of you (and @zen ) keep your discussions on facts and leave out personal insults. 

 

I had a ready proof for Romans and Greeks where the modus operandi was similar to India. The Brits start calling out the Hindu civilization as primitive and ritualistic, just like Greeks and Romans were paganised by Christians. Muslims did it to the idolatory pagans in the ME. Indians survived mainly because they were spread over a  large georgraphical area and the religion itself was decentralized and plural. Your argument that Hindus don't have a sense of history is wrong at least till the 7th century. Badami Chalukyas thought they were descendents of a Ayodhya kings.
 

that is not a sense of history, that is a sense of mythology. Plenty of history fails like the Parthians, Samnites, etc claimed mythological origins. Chalukyas make ZERO mention of the Satavahana kings from just 300 years ago. Meanwhile China had written a compendium of their king list by 50 AD, same with Egypt and the Jews.

10 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Every King had a connection to a royal race from Ikshvaku/Puru/Suryavamsha etc. Since the advent of Islam. because of Islamic  Iconoclasm and the destruction of temples, universities and billions of manuscripts that were lost, a lot of Historical sense was lost. There is proof of east Asians coming down to number of universities in Nalanda to get educated and civilized.  With Adi Shankara, and the Bhakti movements, there was a sense of vedic lineage reivial,culturally and religiously, but politically were all so scatterred with each region having had to fight amongst themselves and Islamic invasions. 
 

this is a poor excuse. Jews got scattered but preserved their history. China got utterly annihilated by the Mongols in 1240s and kept all their history. Your rationale is proven false by cultures with much stronger sense of history. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zen said:

Another nice article below .... what a name :dance:

 

There are lots of wonders seen here; may be an architectural or as a highly developed civilisation in ancient India or an amazing history of much conquered nation, India has always made her presence felt as a great nation. Since ancient times our nation has been termed as Bharat (Sanskrit original name). There are some stories of various historians which fascinate us and explain How India got the name Bharat.

 

According to the History of India’s Geography; the land of seven rivers, the Rig Veda’s 18th hymn of seventh book describes about the terrible war which is known as ‘Dasharajna’ or battle of ten kings. The war was fought between ten powerful tribes who plotted to overthrow King Sudasa of the Bharata tribe of Trtsu Dynasty. This battle took place on the river Ravi in Punjab. As a result, Sudasa achieved a great thumping victory over the confederacy of ten kings. Which further led to the popularity of King Sudasa and people eventually started identifying themselves as members of the Bharata tribe. The name ‘Bharata’ stuck on the mouth of people and ultimately named as Bharat Varsha’ meaning the land of Bharata.

 

According to Mahabharata the popular story states that India was called Bharatvarshaafter the king named Bharata Chakravarti. Bharata was a legendary emperor and the founder of Bharata Dynasty and an ancestor of the Pandavas and Kauravas. He was son of King Dushyanta of Hastinapur and Queen Sakuntala. Also, a descendant of Kshatriya Varna. Bharata had conquered all of Greater India, united in to a single political entity which was named after him as “Bharatvarsha”.

 

Excerpt of Vishnu Purana ---- “This country is known as Bharatvarsha since the times the father entrusted the kingdom to the son Bharata and he himself went to the forest for ascetic practices”

 

Uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhāratī yatra santatiḥ

 

This shloka means: “The country (Varsam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata.

Therefore, it is also said that the name Bharata is derived from the ancient Indian texts, the Puranas which refers to the land that comprises India as Bharata Varsam. They used this term to distinguish it from other varsas or continents.

 

Third is according to Sanskrit, the origin of Bharat:

 

Bharata is the official Sanskrit name of the country, Bharata Ganarajya. The Sanskrit word Bharata describes Agni. This term has Sanskrit root bhr means “to bear/ to carry” i.e. “to be maintained” (of fire). It also means“One who is engaged in search of Knowledge”.

 

Fourth is According to Jain Dharma:

 

India’s real name is Bharat and it was kept after the name of Bharat Chakravarti the eldest son of First Jain Tirthankar & it is said that it is solely gift of Jainism in terms of name Bharat and its original source of Civilisation of Bharat today called India.

 

Link

 

 

 

Yet overwhelming majority of Hindu literature in the last 1500 years use the word Hindustan way more than bharat. 
your religious hogwash to erase our history is an insult to our culture and is anti Indian culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

false claim, fake Hindu. You are a western rice bag convert seeking Christian. That’s why you hate our history so much and want to erase it.

lol. That was from YOU. NOT ‘ Hindus’. I asked you for evidence, you ran away like a rice bag convert and refused to talk. And that’s also a false claim. I said show evidence, not make god appear in front of my eyes. 

 

you ran away and I trapped you so hard that you ended up blocking me. Coz u r a fake Hindu.

Nobody is kicking my butt because you cannot counter my points. You said history does not matter. Meaning you are anti Indian history and you seek to trivialize our heritage. Someone who trivializes our history is against our culture. Checkmate.

Zero points made .... bad assumptions .... dumb deductions ....  even a child would not buy that .... but again what can you expect from someone who wrote the below:

 

Quote

No, because what is relevant to history is what it was. If donkey was used way more often, then donkey is more historically relevant.

 

:hysterical:

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yet overwhelming majority of Hindu literature in the last 1500 years use the word Hindustan way more than bharat. 
your religious hogwash to erase our history is an insult to our culture and is anti Indian culture.

SPAM

 

a) Bharat is the official name of the country chosen after evaluating various factors 

b) Use of Hindustan or any other name does not negate the importance of Bharat (see point "a" too)

c) A new word can be coined to to name a country as well 

d) HIndustan is not an official name of the country but people still know it (a proof against your point of history being erased)

e) No history is being erased except in your dumb head 

 

You have wasted so much time but made zero points  :lol:

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yet overwhelming majority of Hindu literature in the last 1500 years use the word Hindustan way more than bharat. 
your religious hogwash to erase our history is an insult to our culture and is anti Indian culture.

You keep claiming this. What is Hindu literature for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, zen said:

Zero points made .... bad assumptions .... dumb deductions ....  even a child would not buy that .... but again what can you expect from someone who wrote the below:

 

:hysterical:

All my points came with logic, all your points are empty assertions like above, rice bag convert fake Hindu. You said history doesn’t mean much. That is anti Indian history and therefore anti Indian culture. Checkmate and as usual you cannot refute .

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

All my points came with logic, all your points are empty assertions like above, rice bag convert fake Hindu. You said history doesn’t mean much. That is anti Indian history and therefore anti Indian culture. Checkmate and as usual you cannot refute .

You have wasted so much time but made zero points :lol: 

 

To summarize my position:

 

a) Bharat is the official name of the country chosen after evaluating various factors 

b) Even a new name can be coined for a country. There can be a multitude of factors in play

c) On one hand, you claim (a foolish one) that by making Bharat, an official name, predominant, country's history is being erased. On the other hand, you say that Hindustan, a name that is not even official, is more popularly used. Which shows that making one name more predominant does not change the status of other names (but I do not expect you to know the contradictions in your own points, which are automatically nullified) 

d) Other unrelated comments are a figment of your imagination and/or due to a lack of understanding of matters 

 

/discussion 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zen said:

You have wasted so much time but made zero points :lol: 

 

To summarize my position:

 

a) Bharat is the official name of the country chosen after evaluating various factors 

nobody disputed that. But it is secondary to India

Quote

b) Even a new name can be coined for a country. There can be a multitude of factors in play
 

and it will be less aligned to culture because it’s less aligned to history.

Quote

 

 

c) On one hand, you claim (a foolish one) that by making Bharat, an official name, predominant, country's history is being erased. On the other hand, you say that Hindustan, a name that is not even official, is more popularly used.
 

Hindustan and India are the same damn name, idiot. One is in Greek, other is in Farsi, both about using Sindh/Indus as the boundary marker.

Quote

 

 

Which shows that making one name more predominant does not change the status of other names (but I do not expect you to know the contradictions in your own points, which are automatically nullified) 

d) Other unrelated comments are a figment of your imagination and/or due to a lack of understanding of matters 

 

/discussion 

Yet banal assertion with no refutation. You can’t refute the points:

 

a) that which has greater prevalence in history is more representative of history.

b) if you think history is inconsequential, then you are anti history and being anti history is anti culture, because you cannot have culture without cultural history.
 

 

it is YOU that lacks understanding, which is why you cannot touch these points directly. Not even your God can inspire enough honesty in you to address this or integrity to concede. coz YOU ARE A FAKE HINDU, mr. Thomas. 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...