Using Bharat over India

[Stradlater]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I believe his official proclamation was under the name of ‘ samraat hemchandra vikramaditya of hindustan’ 

Yeah but those were mere titles only considering he was sort of a regent.

I mean come on the guy had no following of himself. Surely you don't believe he actually managed to convince Afghans to choose him as their leader and fight for him. 

They were fighting for reinstating Sur rule over the area. 

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

On the contrary, by trying to glorify Asoka as the great, we have done the opposite. We have forgotten or not preserved a whole 1000 years of Indian history as we don't know about Guptas, Rashrtrakutas, Chalukyas, Kalingas, Andharas, Cholas, Pallavas, so we moved from Asoka to Mohd Bin Qasim. There are a lot of refutations to the Asoka story by both modern and past historians. British Historians did the connections hurriedly as Maurya dynasty was listed in Puranas, albeit much earlier. They might have done it to bring out the story of Buddhism being counter to Sanatana Dharma as it seemed to be a reformed or alternate  version of the Dharma. Altho, Dharmic historians could only list the main kings or we have lost some of the artifacts, unoike Greeks or Chinese. There is a sinhalese connection to Asoka as well. These refutations are not challenged in academia as it is owned by the custodians of the west and they have a coterie/army of academcians guarding their legacy.. All attempts to change it is called a RW conspiracy. Our guys also are not very smart and work on fantasy and myths, and not with facts. There are a lot of modern advances in science available to validate the chronolgy of the Dharmic scriptures. We have won the war on AIT, now the next task is to fix the Dharmic chronology.

Dude, the point is, our culture should NEVER have forgotten about the Mauryas or Guptas, period. This isn’t about which nitty gritty historian is correct re: finer details about Ashoka, this is about our cultural SHAME at forgetting our glorious empire of the past. Even the south is guilty of this: nobody remembered the Satavahans either.

This is solely our cultural shortcoming, nothing else 

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Yeah but those were mere titles only considering he was sort of a regent.

I mean come on the guy had no following of himself. Surely you don't believe he actually managed to convince Afghans to choose him as their leader and fight for him. 

They were fighting for reinstating Sur rule over the area. 

Arre baba, my point isn’t to debate the true nature of titles and what it really meant, whether daroga( from mongol Darugaruxi) is a more valid title than amatya.... it’s simply to demonstrate the fact that pre British era, hindustan was far more commonly used by our own Hindu ancestors than Bharat 

[zen]

19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Saying it’s irrelevant doesn’t make it so. History is culture and our own ancestors used it more than Bharat. This makes India more culturally aligned than Bharat. See, you have no logic and reasoning on your side, just ‘ I say so’ mentality. Good thing you don’t live in India 

Neither is "used more"  a key criteria .... nor does "used more" equate to being culturally more aligned  ....  but i will let you bath in your ignorance 

 

Tomorrow, a new word say for e.g.  "Agnivarsha" can gain prominence and people may think it is more culturally or tastefully aligned. 

 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

Neither is "used more"  a key criteria .... nor does "used more" equate to being culturally more aligned  ....  but i will let you bath in your ignorance 

It is a key criteria because that which is used more has more historical prevalence.

 

what has more historical prevalence is more culturally aligned.

11 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Tomorrow, a new word say for e.g.  "Agnivarsha" can gain prominence and people may think it is more culturally or tastefully aligned. 

 

And they’d be wrong. Some People think earth is flat and they are wrong. Tomorrow people may think that a new word is more culturally aligned than what is our cultural history and they’d be wrong too.

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

It is a key criteria because that which is used more has more historical prevalence.

 

what has more historical prevalence is more culturally aligned.

And they’d be wrong. Some People think earth is flat and they are wrong. Tomorrow people may think that a new word is more culturally aligned than what is our cultural history and they’d be wrong too.

To expand on other criterias: 

 

I can observe the importance of concept of Ram Rajya in the region to name the country say Ramarajya .... Or find River Ganga of symbolic cultural value to call it  Gangadesh .... I can look at HImalayas for inspiration and name the country Himalayavarsh  .... and so on 

 

History chronicles events. History can be recorded or passed down orally. There are people who record history and then there are people who create history. "Length of usage" can be of limited importance for many.  I have tried to explain to you that there are a multitude of possibilities and criterias while accepting that "length of usage" may be of importance to you but not for me so the exercise of trying to construct timelines is pointless (and therefore whether India or Hindustan (which is not an official name) or Bharat is used for the longest time) 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

45 minutes ago, zen said:

To expand on other criterias: 

 

I can observe the importance of concept of Ram Rajya in the region to name the country say Ramarajya .... Or find River Ganga of symbolic cultural value to call it  Gangadesh .... I can look at HImalayas for inspiration and name the country Himalayavarsh  .... and so on 

You can. And they will still be less aligned to our cultural history. 

Quote

History chronicles events. History can be recorded or passed down orally. There are people who record history and then there are people who create history. "Length of usage" can be of limited importance for many.  I have tried to explain to you that there are a multitude of possibilities and criterias while accepting that "length of usage" may be of importance to you but not for me so the exercise of trying to construct timelines is pointless (and therefore whether India or Hindustan (which is not an official name) or Bharat is used for the longest time) 

 

You are wrong and your methodology is wrong.

length of usage decisively links to cultural history. You can say cultural history isn’t important to you and that fine. But you can’t dismiss cultural history as a factor of cultural alignment. That’s illogical.

 

hindu methodology of history is inferior, hence we are rectifying one of our weaknesses. We are the culture that forgot the mauryas the shungas the rashtrakutas the satavahanas. So your orthodox Hindu methodology has objectively failed and therefore isn’t qualified to talk.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Muloghonto

[Stradlater]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Arre baba, my point isn’t to debate the true nature of titles and what it really meant, whether daroga( from mongol Darugaruxi) is a more valid title than amatya.... it’s simply to demonstrate the fact that pre British era, hindustan was far more commonly used by our own Hindu ancestors than Bharat 

No disputations there. 

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Dude, the point is, our culture should NEVER have forgotten about the Mauryas or Guptas, period. This isn’t about which nitty gritty historian is correct re: finer details about Ashoka, this is about our cultural SHAME at forgetting our glorious empire of the past. Even the south is guilty of this: nobody remembered the Satavahans either.

This is solely our cultural shortcoming, nothing else 

You are so generalizing. The akhand Bharat was a huge geographical area with a cultural cohesive identity. It was so decentralized in power, is one of the reasons why it survived Islamic or evangelical influence. A small area like Persia was Islamisized in 15 years, but it was not accomplished in India for 1300 years. To shame a collective civilization for the shrtcomings of  a nation state  that was decentralized is not warranted.  We were always a common cultural civilizational state, not a nation state like China to collectively be responsible to preserve a common history. The Badami Chalukyas thought they were descendents of a kshatriya race that ruled Ayodhya, that was the extent of the faith in a legacy that extended to large boundaries. You can't hold them responsible for forgetting a Asoka or a  Satavahans. It is delusional to expect them to preserve a history that was so separated in time and space.

[zen]

35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You can. And they will still be less aligned to our cultural history. 

You are wrong and your methodology is wrong.

length of usage decisively links to cultural history. You can say cultural history isn’t important to you and that fine. But you can’t dismiss cultural history as a factor of cultural alignment. That’s illogical.

 

The above highlights the issue here  -> You are telling others to rate a criteria, which is not too relevant for them, higher.  And when they are not even bothered if you rate your criteria high or low 

 

Also the folly of equating "length of usage" w/o understanding perspective and  importance in cultural history (for e.g. quality vs quantity)

 

 

Quote

hindu methodology of history is inferior, hence we are rectifying one of our weaknesses. We are the culture that forgot the mauryas the shungas the rashtrakutas the satavahanas. So your orthodox Hindu methodology has objectively failed and therefore isn’t qualified to talk.

 

Now we are at a stage where access to information is easier. Most things are catalogued and usually a few clicks away.  The idea of erasing, forgetting, etc., is becoming outdated 

 

What people remember or forget is subjective esp. when stories can be passed down orally too (as mentioned before). Also the ability and motivation to remember can depend upon different factors. You may like history but it does not mean everyone has to try to harp on Mauryas, Mughals, British, etc., so I do not see it as a negative.  What is important is not what they do not remember, but what they remember including Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc., highlighting what is more important for them 

Edited March 23, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

The above highlights the issue here  -> You are telling others to rate a criteria, which is not too relevant for them, higher.  And when they are not even bothered if you rate your criteria high or low 

you are entitled to disagree but that doesn’t make you right.

2 hours ago, zen said:

Also the folly of equating "length of usage" w/o understanding perspective and  importance in cultural history (for e.g. quality vs quantity)

nonsense. That which dominates history, is more relevant in history. 

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

Now we are at a stage where access to information is easier. Most things are catalogued and usually a few clicks away.  The idea of erasing, forgetting, etc., is becoming outdated 

sophistry. We erase by changing the term. 

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

What people remember or forget is subjective esp. when stories can be passed down orally too (as mentioned before). Also the ability and motivation to remember can depend upon different factors. You may like history but it does not mean everyone has to try to harp on Mauryas, Mughals, British, etc., so I do not see it as a negative.  What is important is not what they do not remember, but what they remember including Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc., highlighting what is more important for them 

Those who do not remember major things about their history have an inferior position on how to treat history vs cultures who do remember their history. Nobody in China forgot the Han or xia or sui dynasty. No Jew forgot the kings between David and Herod. Yet no Indian remembered 300 bc-1000 ad major dynasties for the most part. Ergo, Indian/ Hindu methodology of history is inferior by results.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

You are so generalizing. The akhand Bharat was a huge geographical area with a cultural cohesive identity. It was so decentralized in power, is one of the reasons why it survived Islamic or evangelical influence. A small area like Persia was Islamisized in 15 years, but it was not accomplished in India for 1300 years. To shame a collective civilization for the shrtcomings of  a nation state  that was decentralized is not warranted.  We were always a common cultural civilizational state, not a nation state like China to collectively be responsible to preserve a common history. The Badami Chalukyas thought they were descendents of a kshatriya race that ruled Ayodhya, that was the extent of the faith in a legacy that extended to large boundaries. You can't hold them responsible for forgetting a Asoka or a  Satavahans. It is delusional to expect them to preserve a history that was so separated in time and space.

I am shaming a civilization for forgetting its own history. Kannadigas forgot the Rashtrakutas and satavahanas. So did the Andhra. Bongs forgot the palas. Biharis forgot the mauryas,Shunga, Kanvas, guptas etc. This is a collective culture fail from us. No two ways about it.

[Gollum]

zen and mulo, both don't concede defeat.....this could run into 100s of pages 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

you are entitled to disagree but that doesn’t make you right.

Neither you 

 

Quote

nonsense. That which dominates history, is more relevant in history. 

Domination requires understanding. For e.g., someone could be subjugated and called a "donkey" for a long period by "others" On the other hand, he could be called a "horse" in his indigenous language, something that he prefers.

 

Now for a simpleton  - "donkey" is more prevalent. For someone who can understand complexities, "horse" could be more relevant   

 

 

Quote

 

sophistry. We erase by changing the term. 

Those who do not remember major things about their history have an inferior position on how to treat history vs cultures who do remember their history. Nobody in China forgot the Han or xia or sui dynasty. No Jew forgot the kings between David and Herod. Yet no Indian remembered 300 bc-1000 ad major dynasties for the most part. Ergo, Indian/ Hindu methodology of history is inferior by results.

 

That is just your opinion including overestimation of remembering history, which can be written by the winners, and random parallel/connection to position 

 

People do remember what they deem is important (not what others think what is important to remember) 

 

Basically, most of your points have been addressed before including your judging of issues from an unidimensional/limited perspective

Edited March 23, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Neither you 

unsubstantiated opinion.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Domination requires understanding. For e.g., someone could be subjugated and called a "donkey" for a long period by "others" On the other hand, he could be called a "horse" in his indigenous language, something that he prefers.

it doesn’t change the fact that this persons history is that if being identified as a donkey. Preference cannot erase that which is history.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Now for a simpleton  - "donkey" is more prevalent. For someone who can understand complexities, "horse" could be more relevant   

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

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

 

That is just your opinion including overestimation of remembering history, which can be written by the winners, and random parallel/connection to position 

sorry but those are facts. China didn’t always win, like us they too got conquered by outsiders a lot. Same with Jews. They remembered because in this particular thing- historical preservation- they are better than us.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

People do remember what they deem is important (not what others think what is important to remember) 
 

thanks for proving my point that our culture doesn’t consider history important, which is why you take a stance that’s insulting to our history.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Basically, most of your points have been addressed before including your judging of issues from an unidimensional/limited perspective

No point has been adddressed, they just have been disagreed by you without any substantiation. 

[zen]

9 minutes 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.

You crashed your whole argument by saying that and while displaying why an unidimensional perspective is laughable   

 

(though you probably won't realize what you did wrong above) 

 

 

 

 

On a side note:

Quote

sorry but those are facts. China didn’t always win, like us they too got conquered by outsiders a lot. Same with Jews. They remembered because in this particular thing- historical preservation- they are better than us.

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Those who do not remember major things about their history have an inferior position on how to treat history vs cultures who do remember their history. Nobody in China forgot the Han or xia or sui dynasty. No Jew forgot the kings between David and Herod. Yet no Indian remembered 300 bc-1000 ad major dynasties for the most part. Ergo, Indian/ Hindu methodology of history is inferior by results.

 

Appears as if making such statement constitutes as facts for you 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

You crashed your whole argument by saying that and why your unidimensional perspective is laughable    

nothing is crashed, my argument is consistent: that which gets used most often in history, is the most representative of history.

 

1 minute ago, zen said:

On a side note:

 

 

Appears as if making such statement constitutes as facts for you 

 

 

yes, quibble about semantics because your ignorant Hindu pride cannot deal with the notion that our Hindu civilization is inferior to China or the Jews when it comes to remembering history. The Chinese dynasties or the Jewish kings are common knowledge to their masses. Ours is not. Hence we are inferior at it. Hence Hindu doctrine on history is being modified by Hinduvta. Pretty clear. 

[zen]

Quote

nothing is crashed, my argument is consistent: that which gets used most often in history, is the most representative of history.

You can take pride in your consistency but not in your application of common sense .... Nothing needs to be said further (or taken seriously) when you write stuff 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.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

yes, quibble about semantics because your ignorant Hindu pride cannot deal with the notion that our Hindu civilization is inferior to China or the Jews when it comes to remembering history. The Chinese dynasties or the Jewish kings are common knowledge to their masses. Ours is not. Hence we are inferior at it. Hence Hindu doctrine on history is being modified by Hinduvta. Pretty clear.

 

Rather focus on being good human beings than worry about remembering history of gone/lost kings .... People remember what they think is important .... I hope that your issue is not that despite being subjugated by tyrants and foreigners, these people have eventually triumphed, moved on, and take pride in things that are important to them  

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

You can take pride in your consistency but not in your application of common sense .... Nothing needs to be said further (or taken seriously) when you write stuff as below:

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

3 minutes ago, zen said:

Rather focus on being good human beings than worry about remembering history of gone/lost kings .... People remember what they think is important .... I hope that your issue is not that despite being subjugated by tyrants and foreigners, these people have eventually triumphed, moved on, and take pride in things that are important to them   

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.

[zen]

 

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.