Using Bharat over India

[Muloghonto]

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:

 

 

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. 

[zen]

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.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

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

 

 

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. 

[zen]

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.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

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

 

 

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.

[zen]

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.   .... a display of desperation here (of course, your retort could be - no your is desperation ) .... and good to know that you still remember my checkmate lines (no originality)  

 

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.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

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.   .... a display of desperation here (of course, your retort could be - no your is desperation ) .... and good to know that you still remember my checkmate lines (no originality)  

Again what to expect from someone who types:

 

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. 

[zen]

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    .... 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     

 

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.

 

  

Edited March 26, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

55 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Use of dumb assumptions and thrown out points   
 

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. 

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     

 

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:

 

 

  

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 March 26, 2020 by Muloghonto

[zen]

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. 

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 

 

The word "Maha Bharat" is enough to own your sorry Hindu kicked butt .... 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.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

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 

you dont speak for hindus. 

1 hour ago, zen said:

The word "Maha Bharat" is enough to own your sorry Hindu kicked butt .... 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:

 

 

 

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

[zen]

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  

 

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.

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

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  

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:

 

 

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 March 26, 2020 by Muloghonto

[zen]

 

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 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Real McCoy]

This thread shows a typical NRI discussion. Living abroad and discussing what changes India needs to make 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 March 26, 2020 by Real McCoy

[zen]

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

 

[zen]

Another nice article below .... what a name 

 

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 18^th 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

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

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.

[Muloghonto]

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 

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:

 

 

 

 

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.

[Muloghonto]

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.