Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content Count

    10,158
  • Betting tokens

    0
  • Runs

    162,590 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Muloghonto


  1. 1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

    Do you have  a scanner the scans through "the Part of theology and distant past. Not big part of written history and a minor part of history of the last 2000 years." and come to the conclusion that Hindustan/India is more popular ? How come Bharat is popular in regional languages even in 2000 years of regional language history?

    Because of Mahabharata and Brahmo samaj to idegenize our history. You should know by now that nobody on this forum has accessed as much first hand historical sources- meaning coins, inscriptions, edicts, compilations of the said eras- than me. 


  2. Just now, zen said:

    As I said, you have made zero points 

     

    And as I said, you have made zero refutations and you cannot touch point a or b in previous post, even your fake God can’t save you.


  3. 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. 


  4. 5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

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

    Part of theology and distant past. Not big part of written history and a minor part of history of the last 2000 years.


  5. 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 .


  6. 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.


  7. 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. 

     


  8. 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.


  9. 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.


  10. 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.


  11. 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.


  12. 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. 


  13. 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.


  14. 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. 


  15. 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. 


  16. 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 !!


  17. 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 ?


  18. 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.


  19. 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:


  20. 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 ?


  21. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...