Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    69d 17h 48m 17s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Says the guy who is displaying his religious propaganda. You can keep exposing yourself as the idiot who thinks all Ashokan pillars were erected by random monks as fraud.
  2. Sure, a monk carved rock, pillar, etc. edict from Kandahar all the way to Karnataka & Bengal. Sure. You can believe what you want, but educated people go by archaeological evidence. And all of them are carved within a 10 year period too. You know how we know ? SCIENCE. FYI, all historians consider archaeological evidence more decisive than tales in a book that can be re-written over and over again. My knowledge comes from academia. Which means non-hinduvta BS. if you believe in VHP/RSS nonsense, thats the Hindu equivalent of Noah's ark BS. So i understand where your allergy to empiric information comes from. If you don't know history, i suggest you shut up and learn, instead of letting your imagination run wild. Sangam literature isn't Kumari Kandam BS, its the literature spanning myths, poems, history, ballads, etc from 400s BC to 600s AD Tamil culture. Its a period of history. And i don't care if its Chinese buddhists or Indonesian hindus, they were foreign travellers who didn't give a F about India. So no reason to falsify records. When Huen Tsang says the Buddhist ruler of Assam (Bhaskaravarman) treacherously invaded the kingdom of Sasanka's son Manama, he is lying too, correct ? Coz that is denigrating Buddhists by a Buddhist. See, this is why idiots like you are easy to expose- you form opinions based on religious brainwashing instead of actually READING. Almost a dozen spread over 1000 years is plenty. False. When Buddhist monks say that what is Madhya Pradesh was mostly Jain, they have no reason to lie. FYI, Jainism is the oldest evidenced religion in India, not hinduism. Besides, we have plenty of archaeological remains of Buddhist stupas & Jain temples all over India. When we tally up the head counts of monks giving numbers of Buddhist, Jain and Brahmins in cities, its pretty easy to see that Buddhism, Jainism & hinduism were in THAT order between 200-900s AD India. It didn't go 'tits up' during Buddha's age. Buddha and Mahavira almost freed India from the most evil concoction of Brahmins - caste, but did not succeed, as evidenced by the creep of caste system through India with the rise of Hindu dynasties and Hinduism in the last half of 1st millennium CE. We have epigraphical records of that too. Oh and Kulin Brahmins do not cook up lineage- maybe a butt-hurt non Brahmin may think that, but there is a reason why we are allowed to override other Brahmins in Hindu temples- its because we preserve our lineages better than even the Rajput royalties of India. As a speaker of multiple Indian languages, i understand the limitations of translations. Since i am not tracing linguistic transformations of Early, middle or late Indo-European languages, i don't need to read original text in original sanskrit/pali/ardhamagadhi. Not to mention, your suggestion is ridiculous, because there isn't anyone around who is fluent in all three of the above-mentioned languages to fully read original material of Buddhist, Jain and Hindu works.
  3. I don't have to be a buddhist to read. And there is nothing wrong with translations. Maybe a little context is lost here or there, but you arnt going to convince anyone that 'anti-caste' Buddhism is 'pro-caste' Buddhism due to translations. Incase you forgot, i am an Indian too, i understand what is lost in translations for an Indian language to English or vice versa.
  4. Your disagreement would mean something, if you actually had any knowledge on Buddhism. Since you don't, its no different than a muslim saying all other religions suck coz his book said so.
  5. Also, Goras are interested in Buddhism today for the same reason Indians, Chinese were interested in Buddhism 1000+ years ago: they were/are exceedingly rich, better educated and living in lands of abundance. Buddhism promotes enquiry, empiricism and shuns caste divisons, ritualism, blind faith. Those principles are far easier to grasp and verify for educated& rich minds than poor illiterates.
  6. 1. Epigraphical evidence from 2250 years ago isn't nothing. It's the decisive, overriding evidence. 2. I am not a commie, so what commies say is a strawman argument. Attrocities committed by the Hindu rulers against Buddhists/Jains is primarily evidenced from Sangam literature and chronicles of Chinese & Indonesian monks travelling through India in the 6th-12th century AD. 3. Ashokan pillars isn't fake evidence, especially since the rock inscription in Orissa mentions the name Ashoka, decisively confirming that the pillars were made by Ashoka. 4. We have plenty of evidence , via foreign travellers that suggest India was 50-60% Buddhist & Jain till 1000s AD. Ashoka wasn't the last patron of Buddhism, all Gupta emperors patronized Buddhism along with Vaishnavism, Harsha was a staunch Buddhist and so were the 400 year long Pal dynasty. In the south, Pallavas, Vakatakas, Satavahanas & Kalabhras were patrons of Buddhism & Jainism, the Rashtrakutas were patrons of Jainism predominantly. 5. The reason Bharat was reconverted as Hindu is predominantly due to Islam wiping away Buddhism, Hinduism better equipped to survive it, due to Hinduism being the preferred religion of central Asian Indo-Iranics such as the Hepthalites( ancestors of Afghans), Gujjars( ancestors of Rajputs) and due to violent spreading of Shaivism by the Cholas. 6. You are just butt hurt that the most influential Indian in history is a non-Hindu. Which is why you engage in denigrating non-Hindus in your misguided notions of Hinduvta. And the irony is, the person arguing against you, is a Kulin brahmin( me), who are the Brahmins with the most ancient proven lineages in India. PS: As a cultural Hindu, who's read most of the scriptures, let me say that I find more empiric truth in one chapter of Tripitaka than I find in the entire Gita. But then again, there was a reason why India was #1 in the world in education and science when it was predominantly Buddhist & Jain, not Hindu. I'd also advice against indoctrinated views arising from your own ego driven ignorance. If you wish to denigrate Buddhism as plagiarized Hinduism, the least you can do is actually read the Buddhist texts before forming an opinion, which you clearly have not. Otherwise you end up sounding like an ignorant Hindu version of a mullah.
  7. Is Mamta Banerjee's West Bengal becoming a mini Pakistan?

    1. I am from Bengal and i was there just a few months ago. Let me say that 1 month won't do anything. The root of the problem are the few districts that are muslim majority. They do whatever they want and if the government/police tries to stop them, they mobilize muslims from other districts to blow up the issue to 'state level' proportions, at which the state government goes 'shit shit, its too much, coverup, coverup'. Thats the modus operandi. In 1 month, you are not going to change demographics of districts, you are barely going to go beyond registering FIR for sectarian violence. Even the court proceedings won't be done. 2. What West Bengal/India needs to be taught, is western style police enforcement. We don't care who you are, what religion you are, if you are on the streets past curfew, you will go to jail. If you are rioting and destroying public & private property, you will go to jail. This type of enforcement is impossible in india due to our low paying law enforcement jobs leaving everyone working in those fields vulnerable to corruption. Not to mention, India does not have the logistical setup or police capability to pull this off either. 3. BJP is stupid to trust TMC. It will find out the hard way that to crack WB, it needs to get its own grass-root support in WB and the only way they are going to do that, is they ditch the 'sati-savitri/patit-pavan-sita ram' model of morality. Like i said before, West Bengal hindus are not interested in resurrecting ancient practices coz they were hindu practices, worship every aspect of hindu life, lead ultra-conservative hindu lives etc. That model works in the Hindi-Marathi-Gujju belt, it does not in Bengal. Which is why BJP has never been a force in Bengal. We see it as if BJP wins, the VHP/RSS will spread its tentacles in WB and we will be left with a hindu version of Sharia. Until BJP overcomes its own conservative Hindu mentality or atleast tweaks it for Bengal, it won't amount to squat in Bengal.
  8. LOL Ashokavadana. You do realize, it isn't considered a historical document because of so many errors in it, correct ? Of the top of my head i will point a few out, one of which is present in the very text you quoted: a) The Ashokavadana referes to Pushyamitra as a descendant of the Mauryas (which is contradicted by every other source) b) The Ashokavadana refers to all subsequent dynasties after Mahapadma Nanda as Shudras, which again is contradicted by all other sources c) Indians did not know of 'Dinara' before the Indo-Roman trade, which began with the conquest of Egypt by the Romans in 40 BC. Ie, 200 years after Ashoka lived. Like i said, stick to epigraphical evidence - Ashokan pillars leave a great detail on his economic & social reform.
  9. You don't need proof to declare someone NOT a mass murderer. Dude, basic logic 101. You don't prove a negative. You prove that he IS a mass-murderer. Of that, we have no evidence. And when you say 'buddhist propaganda' you expose your lack of knowledge of what Ashokavadana/Divyavadana etc (the ORIGINAL buddhist sources on Ashoka) say of him- thus exposing your propaganda. Buddhists actually over-vilify his pre-Buddhist past & over-glorify his post-Buddhist life to drive home the 'evil-to-good' transformation. I am talking the actual historic perspective formed from examining the FACTS of the original sources. All evidence we have of him, is that he crushed an armed rebellion in Taxila, killed off Sushima & some of his siblings who tried to murder him, then waged war on Kalinga- which apparently kept churning out army after army, after likely producing an early version of a draft, then went all pacifistic. This does not make one a 'mass murderer'. Epigraphical as well as original sources state his nation-building experience in detail- he commissioned public funded guest houses, designating protected species, protected forests. And if we can disqualify Dipavamsa/Mahavamsa as first hand sources because they were written by Buddhists, we can also then disqualify ALL history of Hindu rulers before the arrival of the Mughals, too. Heck, in convergence of original sources, Ashoka is way ahead in quality of evidence than the likes of Prithvi Raj Chauhan/Rana Sanga, etc. I can see a scenario of conversion to pacifism after: a) conquering all there is left to conquer ( The source as well as epigraphical evidence points that Ashoka controlled directly all the lands from Kandahar-Kabul to Bangladesh-India border, Kashmir to Kerala-Tamil Nadu, with the eastern-most India & southern-most India being his direct vassals. When you got nothing left to conquer/lands logistically impossible to conquer, it can make pragmatic sense to adopt a non-violent principle to try and bridge the gap of culture & ethos of this enormous land thats never been connected politically before b) can also inspire a certain change in certain people- preferring pacifism after a brutal war is not *just* Ashoka's view in history, though his probably was the most famous/extreme manifestation of it.
  10. Is Mamta Banerjee's West Bengal becoming a mini Pakistan?

    Yes, but most people are believers because they simply have not been exposed to other religion/non-religious thoughts. Which is why the world is getting more and more irreligious because of exposure to it via the internet.
  11. Is Mamta Banerjee's West Bengal becoming a mini Pakistan?

    Easier said than done. India is a democracy. You need just cause to declare President's rule. Saying 'muslims are running roughshod over that state' may be true, but isn't a politically viable option for it. Remember, Modi/BJP needs atleast 2 terms coz the ruling party in Lok Sabha nominates members of Rajya Sabha and until both Rajya Sabha & Lok Sabha are BJP-majority, we cant change the constitution. Which is ultimately Modi's aim, which means, until next elections, he will put up with this kinda shyte to win the next election.
  12. 1. Ashoka wasn't a mass murderer. He won a war killing soldiers. 2. Ashoka is infinitely greater than Shivaji because he instituted economic reforms, infrastructure reforms; protected species and forests. First time ever in human history. He also is one of the strongest candidates, along with Augustus Caesar & Emperor Wu Di as the strongest administrative policy-makers in human history . Shivaji is a big fat zero in the most important benchmark for a successful ruler. 3. All Shivaji did was fight the Mughals. Did not beat them, did not have any infrastructure impact and his never-ending war made the region poorer. 4. Saying we are not Muslim because of Shivaji is laughable since the Muslims ruled us for 700 years before Shivaji and less than a 100 years later the British beat them all. 5. Nehru, Gandhi etc were all significantly more accomplished than Shivaji in policy. Whether thats for better or worse, it puts them both ahead of a guy (Shivaji) who's administrative policies are non-existent in comparison. Shivaji is nothing more than a Hindu marauder, who like all marauders cared about personal enrichment and fiefs- a fact reflected in subsequent medieval and backwards Maratha political structure. I am am happy that India was rescued from the Marathas by the Brits because if it weren't for them, India would look like an ethnic shithole like Africa. Because that's how bad Maratha policies were.
  13. Is Mamta Banerjee's West Bengal becoming a mini Pakistan?

    I agree that things will get a lot worse before it gets better, especially in localized hot spots, i am going to stand by my statement that in about a 100 years, Islam will be a tiny rump of what it is today. We have record number of people leaving Islam, especially in the west & in Arabia. 20 years ago, i never thought i'd meet an arab in arabia who'd say 'i used to be muslim but now i am not' but i've met them (in arabia) over the years frequently. Atheism is the fastest growing idea in the world and has been over the past 20-30 years. Just like how extremism is propagated via the internet and is exploding in numbers, so is atheism. These days, there are almost as many muslims world-wide who are leaving Islam as non-muslims converting to Islam. And that trend will only accelerate over time, as people's beliefs get challenged. You have to remember, before the internet, nobody had the balls to challenge Islam in Islamic nations, now thanks to internet, we can talk to muslims in super-muslim countries and challenge their belief system. Even here, when we discussed God, not a single muslim could stand up to the challenge of proving God exits or that the definition of God in their holy book is absurd.
  14. Is Mamta Banerjee's West Bengal becoming a mini Pakistan?

    Because despite what VHP/RSS/BJP might claim, India is not a Hindu nation. It is a secular democracy. Which means it is a nation of any/all religions. Your query would be valid, if India was a hindu nation, like Pakistan is a muslim nation. Since we are not, your question is invalid. We are not desperate to prove our credential as secular- we *are* secular. Most hindus are hindus for festivals & personal important days (naming day, weddings, etc). Most muslims sit around, chanting the Namaz 5 times a day. Most hindus don't sit around singing bhajans all day long. We are fundamentally more secular and India has more true secular/irreligious people than it has muslims. I identify culturally as a Hindu. I am proud of my heritage/culture. But i will be the first one to laugh when someone claims Rama was a God or Vishnu wills this or that. So people like me, we fight those who try to bring religious influence into society- be it Muslim or a right wing Hinduvta. Theoretically true, but practically irrelevant. Currently, there are just over 1 billion Hindus in India. Their average growth rate over 10 year period from 2001 -2011 is 16.76%. Which means between 2001-2011, we added 144 million Hindus to the total. Meanwhile, there are 172 million muslims in India. Their average growth rate is 24.60%. Which means in the same period, we added 34 million muslims to the total. At the current rate, it would take more than a thousand years to even begin approaching 2:1, let alone 1:1 And i don't think religion- any religion- will survive another 100-150 years. So in practice, this alarmist thought has no merit.
  15. NYPD Sikh officers can now wear Turban

    If you wear Patka and then helmet on top, i have no problems. But if you wear the regular turban + Patka + no helmet while you are flying a fighter jet or dressing in riot gear/riding motorcycle, then i have a problem with it, because its putting religion above safety & common sense.
  16. Who names their kid knowing that the name is that of a tyrant?

    By the way, this fair skin worship is a pretty sad and petty concept but to be fair, it's present in all cultures. Even South Indians prefer fair skin and Tamils who are as fair as Punjabis are often complimented for their skin by other Tamils. I know of this personally. Even in middle of nowhere Africa, China, Polynesia, fair skin is seen as a plus. Sociologists have often wondered about this phenomenon and there is a lot of papers in this. One commonly accepted theory, is that fair skin, in any culture, is associated with people who don't spend a lot of time outdoors. Which means upper class/businessmen/rulers coz these are the people who are sitting inside their whole lives, while poor people, such as farmers, hunters,vagabonds spend most of their lives outdoors and get darker. There is no evidence for it but this theory makes sense in terms of why every culture thinks fair skin is good.
  17. Who names their kid knowing that the name is that of a tyrant?

    I disagree, in this case. Timur is not a muslim name. It is a pure Turko-Mongol name. So if Saif was ethnically A turk/Mongol, i'd understand the choice of name having nothing to do with Tamerlane. But Kareena said that Saif chose that name coz he is interested in history. Well, there is only ONE Timur in history that stands out. Rest are only passing mentions, minor noblemen here and there. And that is Tamerlane. So what conclusion are we supposed to drive off of that ? If you name your kid Adolf and say its due to historic reasons, what conclusion do people get from that, given that we only know of one Adolf 'through historical reasons' ? The concept of India has existed for the last 2500 years atleast. Obviously not as a nation, since nation itself is a concept from 300-400 years ago but India as a concept through history is similar to Asia or Europe as a concept - a geopolitical civilizational entity.
  18. Who names their kid knowing that the name is that of a tyrant?

    This is typical south indian misguided nationalism. I am from the north and i have come across more Southies who peddle this Aryan-Dravidian crap than Northies who gloat about this. Oh and another thing- the Aryan invasion/migration theory is mostly defunct now. it was started by British colonialists to divide India and people like you are proof that it succeeded. We have decisive genetic evidence that there was no invasion/mass migration into India at any point in the last 10,000 years. We have famed archaeologists like BB Lal write papers that there is also no material evidence of this immigration : the quantity of BMAC (Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex, seen as the 'homeland' of the Aryans) artefacts found in Northern India is consistent with amounts of Indian artifacts found in mesopotamia, BMAC goods found in other cultures, indicating trade rather than migration. Hell, we have famed archaeologists like Sarianidi point out that a Dravidian migration north in historic times is more probable explanation of dravidian pockets in Northern subcontinent : perfect example is Brahui language. Early AIT proponents and Dravidian nationalists point it out as evidence of 'remnant Dravidian roots' in the north, but completely ignore the FACT that Brahui language has loan words in Baloch language, not early or middle Persian. We also know as a FACT that the Baloch tribe originate in the Zagros mountain region & migrated into Baluchistan in the last 1200 years. So if Brahui's migration was earlier than that, we'd see loanwords in Brahui from Persian, not Baloch. This is quite consistent with historical events in South Asia during 1500-1000 years ago, when Chalukya, Rashtrakuta & Chola invasions of the north brought forth many Dravidian communities into the north, most famous being the Sens of Bengal. Not to mention, your AIT/AMT theory is disputed - there is no dispute that Timur was a mass murderer who gloated and relished his mass murderer tag. And lastly, there was a concept of India during the time of Timur. We have decisive historical evidence of it as well
  19. Is Mamta Banerjee's West Bengal becoming a mini Pakistan?

    The big difference between the west & india, re: police, is that every officer has to make log entries to account for their time on duty. Nobody keeps a hawkish eye on it anyways- not unless you are high level RCMP. They are also always partnered up. Like, if you EVER respond to a call or make any interaction with civilian without partner nearby, you better explain yourself well. This regime of log-keeping is what keeps most officers straight as well (not to mention, really good salaries) - its always a risk to make false entries & get busted and it always acts as a damper for the careless ones/not brave enough to be corrupt ones atleast. But all this requires money. If we cannot increase budget significantly for law & order + police (and i am talking about 2x + expansions, given the scale and scope of India), then take it from the military. Indian military definitely needs upgrading for the long-term future, but right now, we need to first match China/west in law & order + infrastructure before we can effectively match them on the battlefield posturing.
  20. NYPD Sikh officers can now wear Turban

    you mean over their patka. Yes, true. But i mean whole turban. There are helmets that go above/under the whole turban ? Not that i am doubting you, but how come i've never seen a single Sikh use this in Kolkata, and there are plenty of Sikhs in kolkata ?
  21. NYPD Sikh officers can now wear Turban

    Don't kid yourself. I've never seen a sikh guy who is wearing a turban, wearing a helmet underneath or a helmet to fit over a turban. The latter option isn't even safe (your bike helmet, for e.g., needs to fit snugly around your jaw. Or else it gets tossed when you hit the kerb. And nobody makes bike helmets that fits in 2x the size of your head. Same goes for riot gear helmet. The face shield needs to fit snugly - loose enough that you can breathe but snug enough that nobody can launch stuff upwards from an underhand motion & still get your face. Again, can't think of a single helmet manufacturer who makes it for heads 2x the size of normal ones). And there is no way you are going to convince an engineer that there are ways to wrap a piece of cloth around your skull that would provide the same amount of blunt trauma protection as Kevlar or fibreglass. At best you can argue that you can wear a 'patta' underneath the helmet- which is true. But anytime you see a proper turban, its simply not safe to ride a bike or riot gear helmet. The fact that in Ontario, I can get a ticket for riding a motorcycle without a helmet, while a Sikh guy can go scot-free by wearing a turban and no helmet, is plain old pandering to religion 101.
  22. NYPD Sikh officers can now wear Turban

    When you wear a turban, you can't wear a helmet. When you can't wear a helmet, you cant be operationally safe in riot gear. Which is an operational hazard. I have the same views about Ontario legalizing turbans as alternative head gear for motorcycles. A turban is not safe enough to survive being thrown from your motorcycle, like a bike helmet is. So i don't agree with it.
  23. NYPD Sikh officers can now wear Turban

    Nowhere in your Koran does it say a woman has to cover her face.The Koran only says that a woman has to cover her bosom & her head. Which is hijab. Not Burqa, which is un-islamic and invented by insecure, un-manly men who fear women. Agree, all religions should be treated equally - as in, they should be tossed into the dustbin when they get in the way of practical considerations. A female cop wearing a burqa is a security issue, since we cannot see her face, so we have no idea if they are who they claim they are. A cop is required to deliver clear instructions to civilians and a face-mask gets in the way of delivering clear instructions. If she is a part of SWAT team with face coverings, then its fine. Similary, a turban gets in the way of a helmet, when in riot gear. So no turbans should be allowed either.
  24. NYPD Sikh officers can now wear Turban

    don't like it. religious pandering compromising operational safety...again!
  25. Who names their kid knowing that the name is that of a tyrant?

    See, this is why i think naming your kid 'Timur' as an Indian is so wrong- just as wrong as Pakistanis celebrating those who raped, killed & enslaved their ancestors by naming their missiles after these barbarians like Ghori, Ghaznawi, etc. Saif isn't mongol or Turkic to lay claim to the name 'Timur' in an ethnic sort of way, he is simply naming his kid that to glorify a mass-murdering genocider who was hated for his genocides, even in his day, by both hindus and muslims.

Guest, sign in to access all features.