Wonderful to see the crowd supporting Pakistan

[Sharjah-Harjah]

On 10/16/2023 at 12:50 AM, mishra said:

Check what Jainsism stands for. . Go and check number of wars raged by Asoka to spread Buddhism from India to China, to Malayasia to Srilanka. Check how Sanatan Dharma was revived in India which allmost but Buddhist land before that. Seriously Pakistani education system needs reform. No wonder, a lot of Indians have started thinking if Pakistan can ever get educated/enlightened.

I worry about both the state of education and enlightenment in both countries. Partisan view is a mental view and the mind can never be enlightened. 

 

First, Jainism and Buddhism are beautiful phenomena. They inspired me to become a vegetarian 3 years on.  

 

Second, our education systems are not setting us up to be skeptical about the stories we are told. We are too naive and we are easily conditioned and divided. The story of violence is not limited to a specific race, kind or faith. To say there was never a Hindu invader or conquerer defies everything we know about human psychology, evolutionary history and anthropology. History is not an exact science and history is written and rewritten to suit agendas of the time. We should never believe the historians unless apart from physical evidence like coins that can be carbon dated. Everything else is a story. 

The fact that Hinduism had followers all over the continent, and the fact that there were Hindu kinds, are enough facts to conclude that there was violence and plunder at some point in those times and regions. 

[bharathh]

30 minutes ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

I worry about both the state of education and enlightenment in both countries. Partisan view is a mental view and the mind can never be enlightened. 

 

First, Jainism and Buddhism are beautiful phenomena. They inspired me to become a vegetarian 3 years on.  

 

Second, our education systems are not setting us up to be skeptical about the stories we are told. We are too naive and we are easily conditioned and divided. The story of violence is not limited to a specific race, kind or faith. To say there was never a Hindu invader or conquerer defies everything we know about human psychology, evolutionary history and anthropology. History is not an exact science and history is written and rewritten to suit agendas of the time. We should never believe the historians unless apart from physical evidence like coins that can be carbon dated. Everything else is a story. 

The fact that Hinduism had followers all over the continent, and the fact that there were Hindu kinds, are enough facts to conclude that there was violence and plunder at some point in those times and regions. 

 

So why don't you name one that was like the Muslim tyrants? Fifth time I am asking. 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

1 hour ago, bharathh said:

 

So why don't you name one that was like the Muslim tyrants? Fifth time I am asking. 

Who is telling the story? Why do you believe him/her? What evidence do they have about what they are telling you other than oral tradition? 

[bharathh]

8 minutes ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Who is telling the story? Why do you believe him/her? What evidence do they have about what they are telling you other than oral tradition? 

 

At least give examples from oral tradition .

[ravishingravi]

4 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

I worry about both the state of education and enlightenment in both countries. Partisan view is a mental view and the mind can never be enlightened. 

 

First, Jainism and Buddhism are beautiful phenomena. They inspired me to become a vegetarian 3 years on.  

 

Second, our education systems are not setting us up to be skeptical about the stories we are told. We are too naive and we are easily conditioned and divided. The story of violence is not limited to a specific race, kind or faith. To say there was never a Hindu invader or conquerer defies everything we know about human psychology, evolutionary history and anthropology. History is not an exact science and history is written and rewritten to suit agendas of the time. We should never believe the historians unless apart from physical evidence like coins that can be carbon dated. Everything else is a story. 

The fact that Hinduism had followers all over the continent, and the fact that there were Hindu kinds, are enough facts to conclude that there was violence and plunder at some point in those times and regions. 

 

Yes we have an education issue. We don't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

[mishra]

15 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

I worry about both the state of education and enlightenment in both countries. Partisan view is a mental view and the mind can never be enlightened. 

 

First, Jainism and Buddhism are beautiful phenomena. They inspired me to become a vegetarian 3 years on.  

 

Second, our education systems are not setting us up to be skeptical about the stories we are told. We are too naive and we are easily conditioned and divided. The story of violence is not limited to a specific race, kind or faith. To say there was never a Hindu invader or conquerer defies everything we know about human psychology, evolutionary history and anthropology. History is not an exact science and history is written and rewritten to suit agendas of the time. We should never believe the historians unless apart from physical evidence like coins that can be carbon dated. Everything else is a story. 

The fact that Hinduism had followers all over the continent, and the fact that there were Hindu kinds, are enough facts to conclude that there was violence and plunder at some point in those times and regions. 

No, Apart from Christianity and specifically Islam, I dont think any opne got inspiration from Faith to become invader. For example, Alexander was invader but his conquest were not similar to what Spanish did in latin America. So If you have one example of Hindu ruler who invaded any country on faith, name him.

 

BTW LOL, Most indians are vegetarian and only changing now under western influence. They dont need inspiration from any where nor is it something they see as achievement.  We are traditionally culturally religiously what we are and thing like that comes to us naturally. If you can understand how far you are from ur roots

Edited October 18, 2023 by mishra

[Sharjah-Harjah]

14 hours ago, bharathh said:

 

At least give examples from oral tradition .

There were only kingdoms and empires. Per Hindu historians, Hindu kings would invade and conquer other kingdoms and empires, if possible and feasible for a variety of reasons like economic, military, security, religion, prestige etc. Might was right.

Did Hindu kings invade other empires and kingdoms. All the time and pretty much constantly.

 

If we take south India alone, there are a lot of examples of Hindu kings invading another country in Indian subcontinent.

 

Mauryan invasion of the south :

Mauryan empire was established by Hindu king ChandraGupta after invading most of the subcontinent.

 

Early Chola invasion of Sri Lanka :

The Cholas starting from Sangam times constantly engaged in invading Sri Lanka. The first Chola King to invade Sri Lanka was Ellala Chola. (We actually don’t know what religion Ellala followed, I assume him to be a Hindu)

Ellala (2nd century BCE ) ruled Sri Lanka until he was defeated by Sinhala prince Dutugamunu.

Dutugamunu built a monument for the fallen Chola to honor the just nature of the enemy king.

---

Some examples from medieval times :

Pallava invasion of Chalukyas:

The Battle of Vatapi was a decisive engagement which took place between the Pallavas and Chalukyas near the Chalukya capital of Vatapi (present day Badami) in 642. The battle resulted in the defeat and death of the Chalukya king Pulakeshin II and the commencement of Pallava occupation of Vatapi which lasted until 654.

Narasimhavarman I constructed a Mallikarjuna Temple at Vatapi to commemorate his victory. He also adopted the title "Vatapi-kondan" or "taker of Vatapi"

War Booty :

As per oral tradition, the icon of Vatapi Ganapati was brought booty from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi (presently known as Badami in northern Karnataka) by Paranjothi, the commander-in-chief of the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I. 

 

---

Rashtrakuta invasion of Cholas:

The Battle of Takkolam (c. 949 CE) was a military engagement between a contingent of troops led by Rajaditya, the eldest son of the Chola king Parantaka I (907–955), and another led by the Rashtrakuta king Krishna III (939–967) at Takkolam in southern India. The battle resulted in the death of Rajaditya on the battlefield and the defeat of the Chola garrison at Takkolam.

 

As per the Karhad copper plates of Krishna II, dated 959 AD, the king "uprooted the Cholas, distributed their territory among his followers, and extracted tribute from the Chera (Kerala) and Pandya kings" during his campaign.

---

Rajendra Chola’s invasions :

---

Chola - Chalukya wars :

 

When the north was facing Turkic invasions , south was in turmoil due to Chola - Chalukya wars :

The Chola–Chalukya wars were a series of wars fought from 992 C.E. to 1120 C.E. between the Chola and the Chalukya kingdoms causing massive death toll and damage to both sides 

 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

2 hours ago, mishra said:

No, Apart from Christianity and specifically Islam, I dont think any opne got inspiration from Faith to become invader. For example, Alexander was invader but his conquest were not similar to what Spanish did in latin America. So If you have one example of Hindu ruler who invaded any country on faith, name him.

 

BTW LOL, Most indians are vegetarian and only changing now under western influence. They dont need inspiration from any where nor is it something they see as achievement.  We are traditionally culturally religiously what we are and thing like that comes to us naturally. If you can understand how far you are from ur roots

I suggest that you guys read neutral and modern historians like Tom Holland. His book “In the shadow of the sword: Birth and Rise of Islam and Arabic empire”. He gets a lot of hate from Muslims for his book. But I think he’s spot on that the expansion was driven by greed and power, whereas religion was needed to provide impetus and indoctrination (as is always the case). 

Mughals were never interested in islam. They were interested in indulgence and power. They slaughtered their own family if they needed to. In islam, there is no king allowed i.e, kinship to power. In islam, there is caliphate, different from kingdom. A caliph does not have to be the son and he/she is appointed based on support from key leaders. This caliphate idea itself was adopted from pre-Islamic Persian empires. 

You have to understand that in mediaeval and late antique, all wars were inspired by religions and gods. Everywhere on world map, war was fought in the name of god but real motives were economic. 

About vegetarians, it is one thing to do something because you’re told, you’re supposed to, because you’ve been told it’s “right”. That way is conditioned and religiously/culturally imposed. 
It’s another way to understand and adopt it because you can understand and feel the pain of plants and animals. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Sharjah-Harjah

[bharathh]

7 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

There were only kingdoms and empires. Per Hindu historians, Hindu kings would invade and conquer other kingdoms and empires, if possible and feasible for a variety of reasons like economic, military, security, religion, prestige etc. Might was right.

Did Hindu kings invade other empires and kingdoms. All the time and pretty much constantly.

 

If we take south India alone, there are a lot of examples of Hindu kings invading another country in Indian subcontinent.

 

Mauryan invasion of the south :

Mauryan empire was established by Hindu king ChandraGupta after invading most of the subcontinent.

 

Early Chola invasion of Sri Lanka :

The Cholas starting from Sangam times constantly engaged in invading Sri Lanka. The first Chola King to invade Sri Lanka was Ellala Chola. (We actually don’t know what religion Ellala followed, I assume him to be a Hindu)

Ellala (2nd century BCE ) ruled Sri Lanka until he was defeated by Sinhala prince Dutugamunu.

Dutugamunu built a monument for the fallen Chola to honor the just nature of the enemy king.

---

Some examples from medieval times :

Pallava invasion of Chalukyas:

The Battle of Vatapi was a decisive engagement which took place between the Pallavas and Chalukyas near the Chalukya capital of Vatapi (present day Badami) in 642. The battle resulted in the defeat and death of the Chalukya king Pulakeshin II and the commencement of Pallava occupation of Vatapi which lasted until 654.

Narasimhavarman I constructed a Mallikarjuna Temple at Vatapi to commemorate his victory. He also adopted the title "Vatapi-kondan" or "taker of Vatapi"

War Booty :

As per oral tradition, the icon of Vatapi Ganapati was brought booty from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi (presently known as Badami in northern Karnataka) by Paranjothi, the commander-in-chief of the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I. 

 

---

Rashtrakuta invasion of Cholas:

The Battle of Takkolam (c. 949 CE) was a military engagement between a contingent of troops led by Rajaditya, the eldest son of the Chola king Parantaka I (907–955), and another led by the Rashtrakuta king Krishna III (939–967) at Takkolam in southern India. The battle resulted in the death of Rajaditya on the battlefield and the defeat of the Chola garrison at Takkolam.

 

As per the Karhad copper plates of Krishna II, dated 959 AD, the king "uprooted the Cholas, distributed their territory among his followers, and extracted tribute from the Chera (Kerala) and Pandya kings" during his campaign.

---

Rajendra Chola’s invasions :

---

Chola - Chalukya wars :

 

When the north was facing Turkic invasions , south was in turmoil due to Chola - Chalukya wars :

The Chola–Chalukya wars were a series of wars fought from 992 C.E. to 1120 C.E. between the Chola and the Chalukya kingdoms causing massive death toll and damage to both sides 

 

Thanks for the history lesson, but if this was a 10 mark question you would have gotten a 0. 

 

How are these comparable to Islamic tyrants? These are normal wars for political expansion... Not religious. 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

3 hours ago, bharathh said:

Thanks for the history lesson, but if this was a 10 mark question you would have gotten a 0. 

 

How are these comparable to Islamic tyrants? These are normal wars for political expansion... Not religious. 

Any historian of late antique and prehistoric times will tell you that all political/economic wars are religious, and all religious wars are political/Economic. Religious has always been used to motivate armies.  

Islamic conquests were fueled not just by religious zeal, but also by greed and power. Take the Mughals as an example – their lavish lifestyle showcased their desire for indulgence, but it was also about expanding territories and wealth. It was also about trade routes, like the Silk Road. Controlling these routes meant controlling wealth, and that was a huge driving force behind these conquests. Understanding this blend gives us a clearer picture of why history played out the way it did.

Now, let's flip the coin. Hindu rulers were no different. They, too, sought power, wealth, and control. Hindu kingdoms engaged in wars, built grand temples, and indulged in cultural patronage. Their motivations weren't solely religious; the thirst for power and economic prosperity drove their actions, much like their Islamic counterparts.

In essence, the pursuit of power and wealth is cloaked with religious flavor. 

[bharathh]

3 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Any historian of late antique and prehistoric times will tell you that all political/economic wars are religious, and all religious wars are political/Economic. Religious has always been used to motivate armies.  

Islamic conquests were fueled not just by religious zeal, but also by greed and power. Take the Mughals as an example – their lavish lifestyle showcased their desire for indulgence, but it was also about expanding territories and wealth. It was also about trade routes, like the Silk Road. Controlling these routes meant controlling wealth, and that was a huge driving force behind these conquests. Understanding this blend gives us a clearer picture of why history played out the way it did.

Now, let's flip the coin. Hindu rulers were no different. They, too, sought power, wealth, and control. Hindu kingdoms engaged in wars, built grand temples, and indulged in cultural patronage. Their motivations weren't solely religious; the thirst for power and economic prosperity drove their actions, much like their Islamic counterparts.

In essence, the pursuit of power and wealth is cloaked with religious flavor. 

 

Not in any of the dharmic religions. This is only for the Abrahamic religions because dharmic relgions do not consider spreading their religions to other peoples important. The Abrahamic religions do.

[Sharjah-Harjah]

41 minutes ago, bharathh said:

 

Not in any of the dharmic religions. This is only for the Abrahamic religions because dharmic relgions do not consider spreading their religions to other peoples important. The Abrahamic religions do.

Then how did dharmic religion spread across  Asia? Nothing happens automatically my friend. 

[bharathh]

6 minutes ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Then how did dharmic religion spread across  Asia? Nothing happens automatically my friend. 

You are welcome to watch some documentaries on this. Unlike Islam it was not by the sword. Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma was accepted as it chose to blend in with existing practices of the natives of the South East Asia rather than seek to destroy and supplant existing traditions. I know it must be hard for you to discern this.

 

There is enough and more information about this.

[Sharjah-Harjah]

11 hours ago, bharathh said:

You are welcome to watch some documentaries on this. Unlike Islam it was not by the sword. Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma was accepted as it chose to blend in with existing practices of the natives of the South East Asia rather than seek to destroy and supplant existing traditions. I know it must be hard for you to discern this.

 

There is enough and more information about this.

Who is making these documentaries? What is the source of their information? 
something that happened 2 days ago is hard to establish in county. How can you be sure what happened 2000 or 3000 years ago?

Written docs don’t survive that long. You are relying on oral traditions and honesty of people 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

Just now, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Who is making these documentaries? What is the source of their information? 
something that happened 2 days ago is hard to establish in the court. How can you be sure what happened 2000 or 3000 years ago?

Written docs don’t survive that long. You are relying on oral traditions and honesty of people 

 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

Common sense dictates that ideologies have always been enforced. Try changing the religious POV of your neighbor, or your sibling or parent even. You will hit a wall in 2 mins. Maybe a few people may convert willingly, but widespread changes are impossible to achieve without some use of force. The fact that Hinduism was widespread at some point is sufficient proof to conclude there must have been at least some use of force. It’s common sense. It doesn’t require historians. 
Moreover, it’s impossible to determine the real motives of invaders. Obviously all invaders claim a noble cause, which could be spreading religious or better culture (US claims to spread freedom, Hindus claimed better civilization). But we all know the underlying motives are always economic.
At this point, it’s impossible to know the real motives of invaders, but we know through common sense that greed and hunger for power drives ambition. 

[bharathh]

6 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

 

Here's one that I liked a lot. I am not sure who is a neutral or valid source according to you. This talks about the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism in these areas. 

 

 

[bharathh]

6 hours ago, Sharjah-Harjah said:

Common sense dictates that ideologies have always been enforced. Try changing the religious POV of your neighbor, or your sibling or parent even. You will hit a wall in 2 mins. Maybe a few people may convert willingly, but widespread changes are impossible to achieve without some use of force. The fact that Hinduism was widespread at some point is sufficient proof to conclude there must have been at least some use of force. It’s common sense. It doesn’t require historians. 
Moreover, it’s impossible to determine the real motives of invaders. Obviously all invaders claim a noble cause, which could be spreading religious or better culture (US claims to spread freedom, Hindus claimed better civilization). But we all know the underlying motives are always economic.
At this point, it’s impossible to know the real motives of invaders, but we know through common sense that greed and hunger for power drives ambition. 

 

According to knowledge of Abrahamic religion whose purpose was that. Not Dharmic religions. 

[Sharjah-Harjah]

1 hour ago, bharathh said:

Here's one that I liked a lot. I am not sure who is a neutral or valid source according to you. This talks about the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism in these areas. 

 

 

Okay let me circle back