Guest dada_rocks Posted August 27, 2008 Posted August 27, 2008 http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20080912251806500.htm The Upanishads, composed in the 8th or 9th century B.C., form the basis of all major faiths that originated in India. SANCHI, SCULPTED TORANAS, 1st century A.D. This most significant Buddhist art was created under the rule of the Satavahana kings, who personally revered Hindu deities. The first 600 years of surviving art with Buddhist themes was all made under the rule of Hindu kings. Other early cultures of the world present numerous representations, in their art, of warfare, war memorials and prisoners. The Indus Valley Civilisation of the 4th and 3rd millennium B.C. is unique in not providing even one such image in its many artistic depictions. This is the only civilisation where archaeology has not unearthed evidence of weapons of war or barracks for an army or police. Historians are also fascinated that all evidence points to a thriving, cooperative system and not a conventional kingship. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of ancient Indian history is the humility of rulers. Even a king whose territories were as vast as Asoka’s, covering practically all of the subcontinent, hardly, even in his numerous edicts and inscriptions, mentions his own name. He is just described as “devanampiya piyadassiâ€, “beloved of the divine†and “one whose vision is filled with adorationâ€. This is not a title he had given himself; it is a term used for his father, his grandfather, other Indian kings and even for kings beyond Indian shores. This is the same period of time when a thousand years of art does not have one portrait of a king, in sculpture or painting. The only exception was the period of the Kushanas, who hailed from southern China. They had portraits made of themselves in the 1st century A.D. After them, Indian art reverted to its traditions and the first portrait to come was 700 years later, in the time of the Pallavas, at Mamallapuram. It is marvellous to see that kings of early times in India gave equal support to all faiths of people they ruled. As an instance, from the earliest Buddhist art of the 2nd century B.C onwards, until at least the 5th century A.D, all ancient Buddhist art was produced during the rule of kings who worshipped Hindu deities. Best of all, while a king worshipped Siva or Vishnu, his wife freely worshipped the Buddha or Mahavira. In the meantime, his generals and ministers also freely followed the Buddha, Mahavira or any other deity they chose to. The earliest Buddhist art of the world are the sculpted railings of stupas of the 2nd century B.C. Asoka’s pillars had only images that were common to all Indic faiths, such as the chakra, which stands for the cosmic order and is very common in the Jaina art of the early period.
CC1981 Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 The Upanishads, composed in the 8th or 9th century B.C., form the basis of all major faiths that originated in India. ** Hinduvta propaganda alert ** This most significant Buddhist art was created under the rule of the Satavahana kings, who personally revered Hindu deities. Satavahana dynasty lasted 400+ years. The latter Satavahans were Hindus, the early Satavahans were Jains - Independent source ( Greek and Chinese) records this. Sorry, but indy source trumps hinduvta boolsheet. . The first 600 years of surviving art with Buddhist themes was all made under the rule of Hindu kings. ** More hinduvta boolsheet alert ** This is the only civilisation where archaeology has not unearthed evidence of weapons of war or barracks for an army or police. Even more boolsheet...All IVC cities have a citadel. But thats not the point- i agree IVC certainly represents a level of technological and societerial development unparalleled for its time, but its rather silly to think that a civilization prospered without the need of army or police - that is just ridiculously funny, because no police equals bandits galore. hardly, even in his numerous edicts and inscriptions, mentions his own name. Boolsheet. ** More Hinduvta twistings alert ** Emperors throughout Indian history have found mention in their coinage, their edicts inscriptions and stelae. Rulers from before Ashoka ( Chandragupta, Bimbisar) and after Ashoka ( Vikramaditya, Gautamiputra Satakarni, etc) have found ample mention. Ashoka is not mentioned by his name because Ashoka is NOT his name ! Ashoka is a name/title given BY THE PEOPLE and it is mentioned in every text that it was a term the subjects conferred on him and at no point did he officially adopt the name. Ashoka, like his father and his grandfather, used the Imperial Mauryan title 'Devanampriya' in ALL his edicts and his 'personal' epithet (the closest thing to Ashoka's real name we have) along with it : Priyadarsani. This is the same period of time when a thousand years of art does not have one portrait of a king, in sculpture or painting. More boolsheet. There are numerous paintings and carvings throughout India that potray kingly figures - we've just lost such a huge volume of records through the invasion periods that we have no idea which kings were depicted where. Suffice to say, MOST indian rulers inscirbed their names on their coins. The only exception was the period of the Kushanas, who hailed from southern China. INCORRECT. 'Kushan' is an anglo-term. The Chinese term for the SAME people are 'Gui-shun'. They didnt live in southern China, they lived in north-western China, in what is today Sinjiang province and lived in the silk-route trade cities of ancient lore : Kashgar( Kashi), Urumuqi, Khotan, Yarkand, etc. While their language is dead, they most likely called themselves Tocharians and the ancient Indians referred to them as the Tusharas - and the Tusharas were very much 'Indian' or at the least, culturally and linguistically very closely related to the Indo-Iranian bloc. It is marvellous to see that kings of early times in India gave equal support to all faiths of people they ruled. Indeed. all ancient Buddhist art was produced during the rule of kings who worshipped Hindu deities. **More hinduvta Boolsheet alert ** Most of the Buddhist art produced in India during the 2nd century BC till the rise of the guptas in 3rd century AD is done by the early Satavahana ( who were Buddhist and Jains) and by the extremely developed Greco-Indian and Bactro-Indian dynasties which ruled the western half of India (including much of modern day Paksitan and eastern Afghanistan). Best of all, while a king worshipped Siva or Vishnu, his wife freely worshipped the Buddha or Mahavira. In the meantime, his generals and ministers also freely followed the Buddha, Mahavira or any other deity they chose to. Yes, this is true for the most part, though there are numerous examples of kings and emperors (predominantly Hindu, though some Buddhist and Jains too) who persecuted a certain religious or philosophical stream.
sandtest Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 DR, you can ask CC to stay away from your created threads, if you ant to avoid mud-fest, his one liners without providing explanation and word play with keyboard will make a Zakir Naik out of this, He is obssessed with "comarative" study with only aim of "mine is bigger than yours". Indic dharma is not all about "comparative" study else it will remain no different than Abrahamic idiocy. In the previous thread about re-incranation, the same guy trashed Hinduism by selectively throwing his limited googling theft which is actually Dvaita. I have ignored him to save time out of busy schedule. fact that Budhism in India once thrived and slowly it's influence reduced is a good example of peaceful rise and fall. Swami Vivekanada has described Budhism as a rebel child of Hinduism....he said there is really nothing which a Hindu or Budhist should worry about if any of these two Dharma rise at space of other. Ideologically, why Hinduism survived and Budhism reduced in south asia is obvious due to invasions and sharp differences bewteen ability to adapt/evolve bewteen two dharma -- At peacetime, Hinduism can hold Patanjali's Yoga Sutra, Kriya Yoga and meditation/Mind control of Upanishads and be a purely "Sadhana" based spirituality of a "Mumukshu"-- one seeking Moksha or Nirvana. While if attacked by Abrahamic or similiar violent ideologies, it can hold on to Arjun's self-realization in Bhagwadgita or a Hanuman's self-realization to uphold Dharma by not being shy of countering it with brute force and thus the mahavakya "Dharmo rakshati Rakhshitah" -- Protect Dharma and Dharma will protect you! The problem with Budhist ideology is that it got herself stuck with one man's realization and his realized philosophy -- That is why even today Budhists in Tibet so far under Dalai Lama's influence abhor any countreing by force even though they are wiped out by communists of China's blood and gore. While Hinduims has no such problem. It has several Budhas -- i.e. self realized Rishis and their realized philosophies to guide the humankind...Hinduim is not a one man ideology and that why I feel it is ALSO great. Starting from Vamadeva, Atri, Bharadvaja, Angiras, Vashishta till Vyasa, Anukramani, Vishwamitra, Gautama, Jamdagni , Kashyap Hinduism can hold many and thrive and continue to produce many in modern time like Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Nisargadutta as when peace prevails in India. Hinduims will not stuck with one Jesus, Mo or even Budhha, she can incarnate many even you or me or anyone who achieves freedom from "senses" or maya.
CC1981 Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 He is obssessed with "comarative" study with only aim of "mine is bigger than yours I find it far more discriptive of YOU and YOUR ILK, given you guys go around thumping your chest in 'india is the greatest, blahblahblah' comparative fashion with only aim of 'mine is bigger than yours'. I don't start such threads, neither do i espouse such views. So good pandit, take thy own medicine. his one liners without providing explanation Vatz, i exist here to espouse my views- not to be interrogated or to present a thesis. I see plenty of one-liners from you and your ilk as well and i don't take issues with that- for nobody posts each and every post, replete with citations and quotations. As your lord said, 'ask and ye shall recieve' - so too, must you, vatz- if you ask nicely to explain which comments you'd like substantiation for, i will oblige - just like i did with the IAF related thread, where you asked for proof that you were bool*****ing and i provided so. In the previous thread about re-incranation, the same guy trashed Hinduism by selectively throwing his limited googling theft which is actually Dvaita. Vatz, what is 'googling theft' ? You seem to be upset at the fact that we can access information at the press of a few buttons and that 100s of millions can do so- i guess the millenia old intellectual dishonesty of the pandit-giri brahmanic traditions duely feel threatened because their so-called 'authority in knowledge' exists no longer. Furthermore, i find your gall at calling a former hindu brahman 'ignorant' to be laughable - what you and your ilk cannot wrap your skull around is the FACT that just like you, i was brought up on the boolsheet dosage of mahabharatas, ramayanas, upanishads and panditgiri - i gave it up because of the boolsheet content of it and YOUR comments on the difference of reincarnation in hinduism vs buddhism has no merit, since you know zilch about buddhism. While you tried to obfuscate my summary in the sub-categorization of hindu boolsheet under dvaita or advaita, i informed you in crystal clear term that the fundamental difference is ALL forms of hinduism embraces the concept of Atma (which is unsubstantiated boolsheet) and Buddhism does not. ....he said there is really nothing which a Hindu or Budhist should worry about if any of these two Dharma rise at space of other. And on this, i disagree with Swami Vivekananda. Hinduism like all religion, is a cause of worry because it fills the mind with boolsheet concepts. Concepts such as God, brahman, atman, are utter boolsheet. And hinduism, just like other religions, seek to reinforce these boolsheet concepts through predatory organisations like VHP, RSS etc. While there are many philosophical similarities between buddhism and hinduism, my vote rests firmy in the side of Buddhism because as i said, it has less assumptions and far less boolsheet than Hinduism. bewteen ability to adapt/evolve bewteen two dharma -- Pity then that your this hinduvta tilt ( ability to adapt) is blown apart by the simple fact that Buddhist China stopped the spread of Islam decisively in Chinese lands. If i were to make such ridiculous judgments about 'ability to adapt', i'd certainly give Buddhism higher marks as there exists a culture (China) which, despite being under heavy influence of Buddhism, terminated the eastward march of Islam. There certainly is no hindu culture or civilization that managed to halt the growth of Islamic influence in its own lands so if such 'adaptation' issues are thrown around, HInduism certainly comes off poorer. There exists China, which is the most successful old world civilization of all time and has a very deep buddhist past and present - a nation on the rise and which dwarves our own in terms of political,military and international power. There exists Japan and Korea - two nations where Buddhists form the largest majority of faiths and they are modern, first world nations with extremely impressive human development and growth. Hinduism ?!? oh right - nomatter which hindu country you look at, you wont find one that isnt a cesspool of mediocrity - the same is true for Islam and i guess its ironic that two religions with such mediocre records are slugging it out today in one of the most populous part of the world- i guess these two faiths deserve each other. The problem with Budhist ideology is that it got herself stuck with one man's realization and his realized philosophy -- That is why even today Budhists in Tibet so far under Dalai Lama's influence abhor any countreing by force even though they are wiped out by communists of China's blood and gore. This is simply because Buddhist intellectuals tend to look at the bigger picture better than the Hindu intellectuals ( a shortcomming of hindu religion because afterall, it is a religion which borrows philosophy from the Jains and Buddhists rather than being a philosophy for most part ala Jainism or Buddhism). These Tibetans understand perfectly that violence will definitely not get the result in their favour right now and since Buddhists arnt egomaniacs ( fundamental tenet of Buddhism relies on lessening/elimination of ego) like the characters of hindu reverence, it doesnt become an issue of ego-tussles. It has several Budhas -- i.e. self realized Rishis and their realized philosophies to guide the humankind...Hinduim is not a one man ideology and that why I feel it is ALSO great. Which is why hinduism is far more self-contradicting, mish-mash hodge-podge of simple shamanistic practice to borrowed buddhist/jain philosophies that is one big fat mess of discriminatory and socially irresponsible culture. It lacks the empiricism of a consistent philosophy which Buddhism and Jainism represents. Starting from Vamadeva, Atri, Bharadvaja, Angiras, Vashishta till Vyasa, Anukramani, Vishwamitra, Gautama, Jamdagni , Kashyap Hinduism can hold many and thrive and continue to produce many in modern time like Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Nisargadutta as when peace prevails in India. And majority of those names are boolsheet make-believe fantasy. I find it no coincidence that the bulk of Hinduism's venerated characters, rishis and mahayogis are purely fantasical and mythical characters lacking any historicity whatsoever- this is consistent with hinduism's tradition of plagiarizing other sophisticated philosophies ( jainism,buddhism, ajivika,etc) and lacking any real creativity in itself on philosophical levels. While Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika, etc. relies on the teachings, testimonials etc. of real historic figures, hinduism is basically reliant on purely fictitious characters to espouse its views. In this respect, even the Mohammedan faith is more functional and empirically authentic.
sandtest Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 Your idiocy has really started to stink now, first you started your lunatic rant with this --- Quote from DR-- The Upanishads, composed in the 8th or 9th century B.C., form the basis of all major faiths that originated in India. CC luntic one liner --- ** Hinduvta propaganda alert ** Did you provide any information to refute this....or will you provide any NOW...without indulging in further semantics? Then you continuing with more mud-slinging rant with this -- i informed you in crystal clear term that the fundamental difference is ALL forms of hinduism embraces the concept of Atma (which is unsubstantiated boolsheet) and Buddhism does not. Firstly stop spreading your stinking smell of using "boolsheet" and other similiar words at drop of hat, you seem to be really frustrated man who has been given a keyboard to indulge in "boolsheet" debate. If you want to discuss , take it with civility and civil way.....we Hindus consider civility in spiritual discourse as the first step to explore the absolute. And it's not a political debate. The reason why I withdrew from Re-incarnation thread is the same fact that a lame google choor like you can't walk without "boolsheet" and your other stinking words will digress it no matter what are the civil views others holds. informed you in crystal clear term that the fundamental difference is ALL forms of hinduism embraces the concept of Atma (which is unsubstantiated boolsheet) and Buddhism does not And yet you know not the very basis of ADVAITA Vedanta the widely recognised philosophy even in west and it's core concept of "NO differnce" bweteen Supreme Consciousness ( Brahaman) and Atman. I doubt even you know what Atman (self-consciousness) is really all about or what those realized sages said about it, (unlike your "spread" knowledge theory) :haha: do chaar google link dekh liya, aur chal padey Atman-Brahman pe apnaa "fatwaa" deney :hysterical: And on this, i disagree with Swami Vivekananda. Hinduism like all religion, is a cause of worry because it fills the mind with boolsheet concepts. Concepts such as God, brahman, atman, are utter boolsheet. And hinduism, just like other religions, seek to reinforce these boolsheet concepts through predatory organisations like VHP, RSS etc. While there are many philosophical similarities between buddhism and hinduism, my vote rests firmy in the side of Buddhism because as i said, it has less assumptions and far less boolsheet than Hinduism Haaa haaa.....that shows your utter ignorance once again.... Hinduism (first of all if at all there is any fixed term like Hinduism, which itself is debatable to describe vast ocean called Sanatan Dharma) or any Indic sages, enlightened beings like Ramkrishna Paramhansa or his desciple Swami Vivekanada, Shri Aurobindo or even modern day Swamis of Shankaracharya Maths, Benaras peeth never ask you to accept or deny Advaita or any Vedanta. These are all "experiences" of different enlightened beings at difefrent time which happen to bear similiarity...that is why you will not see one rigid "Budhhaa" with one rigid philosophy in Dharma. If you don't except Atman you are perfectly fine and within Dharma, you might be called a 'Samkhya" or "Sankhya Darshan" or "Ajati Vada" or similiar philosophy experiencer. but you should first "REALIZE" this through meditation or yoga or your own knowledge that there is no difference bewteen Atman or any concept with absolute Consciousness, before passing "fatwaa" that's Hinduism philosophy for you...Realize FIRST then propagate later. The is the core of Hindu philosophy, every individuals "Self" realization and awakening is accepted, be it a modern day Mata Amritanandamayi Devi -- the love incarnate, or Sai Baba or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar or even an OSHO Rajneesh. hinduism is not stuck with One man philosphy...this is going to be the founding stone for it's further evolution IMHO, while others will be stuck with their so called one and unique Prophets of history. Pity then that your this hinduvta tilt ( ability to adapt) is blown apart by the simple fact that Buddhist China stopped the spread of Islam decisively in Chinese lands. If i were to make such ridiculous judgments about 'ability to adapt', i'd certainly give Buddhism higher marks as there exists a culture (China) which, despite being under heavy influence of Buddhism, terminated the eastward march of Islam. There certainly is no hindu culture or civilization that managed to halt the growth of Islamic influence in its own lands so if such 'adaptation' issues are thrown around, HInduism certainly comes off poorer. There exists China, which is the most successful old world civilization of all time and has a very deep buddhist past and present - a nation on the rise and which dwarves our own in terms of political,military and international power. There exists Japan and Korea - two nations where Buddhists form the largest majority of faiths and they are modern, first world nations with extremely impressive human development and growth. Hinduism ?!? oh right - nomatter which hindu country you look at, you wont find one that isnt a cesspool of mediocrity - the same is true for Islam and i guess its ironic that two religions with such mediocre records are slugging it out today in one of the most populous part of the world- i guess these two faiths deserve each other. And what made you think that your so called ,"Budhist" stopped islamic invasion in China...:haha: it's nothing but your intellectual dishonesty and indulging in semantics. Ohh wait, even Today, communist China has barred it's people to visit Budhist temples.:haha: Not to mention Tibetan Budhists are solely relying on support from so called "Hindu" majority country India and her Hindu agnecy RAW to protect Dalai Lama ....tsk tsk so much for the hatred of Hinduism from a wannabe Budhist :giggle: Ohh and I forgot, RSS considers Budhism as part of wider Dharma and India as a nation will be more than happy to see Budhism spreads rather than Islamism and Evangelicalization in India. Further even neighboring countries like Sinhalese Sri Lankan hardly hate Hinduism like you are spitting here....last I saw, Mahinda Rajapakse --Lankan President, visited India found NO HARM in visiting the Tirupati Temple and performing Pooja, his photos were all over in newspaper...:giggle: problem is lunatics like you, when in fact neither Budhism nor Hinduism feel that exchange between each other will threat the "puritanic" belief --like islamists feel, whose Allah gets threatened, the moment a Muslims visits places other than mosque. Your view is exactly same like Islamism, mine is the "purest" your is "boolsheet"......all the while all I know is www. google. com. I bet wannabe Internet budhists like you have hardly sit for 5 minute and meditated to see the daylight. It's our pity that we don't have any qualified Budhist on this board, the quality of discussion here is already gone down anyway, but if we had a Budhist knowledgeable guy, I am sure your all google gyaan of Budhism have been shown the right place, like your previous chest thump about knowledge of Sanskrit scriptures and vedas.:hysterical: This is simply because Buddhist intellectuals tend to look at the bigger picture better than the Hindu intellectuals ( a shortcomming of hindu religion because afterall, it is a religion which borrows philosophy from the Jains and Buddhists rather than being a philosophy for most part ala Jainism or Buddhism). These Tibetans understand perfectly that violence will definitely not get the result in their favour right now and since Buddhists arnt egomaniacs ( fundamental tenet of Buddhism relies on lessening/elimination of ego) like the characters of hindu reverence, it doesnt become an issue of ego-tussles. Yeah soooo good, that is why Budhism is on decline in China thanks to commie hold of Budhist temples and Tibet ohh well we all know how dalai Lama is name called by Han comunist party of China ruling mainland. What made Hinduims survive is beacuse it never just got obssessed with individulaistic based pure "philosophy" of say only yoga, meditation and mind control, inspite it having a wealth of individual based philosphy in the form of Upanishads behind her. Today, a Hindu or a Budhist doeanot need a high discourse of vedanta or Budhist Suktas when they are getting slughterd by Islamic and communist assault, understand this, it is required again, when complete peace prevails. vedantic and Budhist discourses can be done in peacetime, what's the use of an "individual" based meditation in seclusion when your entire community is falling pray to rather simplistic "religions" like Islamism and Evangelicalization. At one place There is a simple--islamic Dawah preacher, who says, look up -- there is allah, He is everything worship him and you will get all rewards including your sexual desires fulfilled when you are dead.......Ditto with Evangelical and their Miracle idiocy. For a layman or an ordinary person, such simplistic religion is MORE appealing than Hinduism and Budhism which will ask you to mediate and get rid of your "desires" or sensual perception --- too difficult of an ordinary person to grasp, unless he is well read and good in comprehension. This is the sole reason that Islam and Christainity spread more fast and quick than both Hinduims and Budhism put together and most of the countries like South Korea are already getting thoroughly Christianized. Pinnacle of philosophies of Budhism and Hinduims are not "practical" in present time IMO, when Dharma is under assault from Islamo-Christ simplicity. That is why I will say stick tio Arjun's self-realization in BhagwadGita for time being and tackle those fascist philosphies head-on and when the earth is free from "Only my way" kind of religions like Islamism and Christianity, then vedanta and budhism philosophy can be re-ignited once again. And majority of those names are boolsheet make-believe fantasy. I find it no coincidence that the bulk of Hinduism's venerated characters, rishis and mahayogis are purely fantasical and mythical characters lacking any historicity whatsoever- this is consistent with hinduism's tradition of plagiarizing other sophisticated philosophies ( jainism,buddhism, ajivika,etc) and lacking any real creativity in itself on philosophical levels. While Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika, etc. relies on the teachings, testimonials etc. of real historic figures, hinduism is basically reliant on purely fictitious characters to espouse its views. In this respect, even the Mohammedan faith is more functional and empirically authentic. So your love for tasting "boolsheet" has brought you to this level that you consider those Rishis as BS. Ok so a question to you --- DO YOU CONSIDER RIGVEDA as MAKE-BELIVE FANTASY -- yes or no will suffice.
Lurker Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 Indic civilization be proud??? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: GIVE ME A EFFING BREAK!!! The cradle of such civilization, the grand state of BIHAR lies in tatters today with millions displaced and many dead at the hands of flood. And not a freaking darn peep from anywhere in the country(or this message board). People who are ready to drop (crocodile) tears at the displacemnt of half a million Kashmiri Pundits in 2 decades have not so much as fleeting peep on their conscience when 2 times that number of Biharis get displaced in a week!! People who are falling over each other when a grand total of 5 people died in Orissa dont have the moral gumption when 10 times that number of people have died in the state that's not too far from Orissa. Indic civilzation my a$s. Dont see any reason why a Gujju, a Teleugu, a Kashmiri should lay claim to the glory of Ashoka when they are not there to share the agony. High time Biharis spoke just of them and got away from this nauseating Indic thingy, noone else cares why should we?? xxxx
CC1981 Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 Firstly stop spreading your stinking smell of using "boolsheet" and other similiar words at drop of hat, you seem to be really frustrated man who has been given a keyboard to indulge in "boolsheet" debate. If something smells like boolsheet, looks like boolsheet, then it is boolsheet. And yet you know not the very basis of ADVAITA Vedanta the widely recognised philosophy even in west and it's core concept of "NO differnce" bweteen Supreme Consciousness ( Brahaman) and Atman. Like i said vatz, you should really not debate on topics you are a novice at. You keep telling me what i know - that different streams of hinduism has different views on the relationship between conciousness, atman and brahman. What *YOU* arnt getting is that Buddhism simply does not believe in 'make-believe' assumptions like Atman, brahman or anything whatsoever to do with the concept of 'soul' which you hindus share with the Abrahamists. If you don't except Atman you are perfectly fine and within Dharma, you might be called a 'Samkhya" or "Sankhya Darshan" or "Ajati Vada" or similiar philosophy experiencer. That is as intellectually dishonest as it gets, vatz. There is no denomination of hinduism that completely rejects the Brahman and the atman. And what made you think that your so called ,"Budhist" stopped islamic invasion in China... it's nothing but your intellectual dishonesty and indulging in semantics. And you think it wasnt intellectually dishonest of you to cast your narrow vision on history and say buddhism declined because hinduism was 'better suited' to combat islamism and 'defeated buddhism' on a philosophical level ? Vatz, i gave you categoric proof - go look up history and SEE how imperial buddhist China stopped the Islamist expansion dead in its tracks. Now i never said that event is proof positive of buddhism's superior adaptability over hinduism- infact, i said that such views are overly religious and stinks of a moron who can percieve the world ONLY in religious terms - i specifically said that these are functions of a civilization on a scope far wider than religion or philosophy. I was using YOUR and DR type hinduvta idiotic standards - and by YOUR OWN standards, i've proven Buddhism to be far more able to check the spread of Islamism - which history itself records. What made Hinduims survive is beacuse it never just got obssessed with individulaistic based pure "philosophy" of say only yoga, meditation and mind control, inspite it having a wealth of individual based philosphy in the form of Upanishads behind her. HInduism hasnt been a 'one person philosophy' because hinduism lacked the ability of proper records keeping, intellectual honesty and linearity to develop itself. Its always been a hodge-podge of confusion, it always will be a hodge podge of confusion. ....tsk tsk so much for the hatred of Hinduism from a wannabe Budhist I don't hate hinduism - most of my family is hindu. Infact i respect it as one of the 'better' faiths in the world today. But at the end of the day, it is still mostly boolsheet and as i said, everything that is good and i agree with in hinduism is found in far more concise, logical and empiric form in buddhism and jainism. Plus buddhism and jainism dont come with a million and one negetives like hinduism does. For a layman or an ordinary person, such simplistic religion is MORE appealing than Hinduism and Budhism which will ask you to mediate and get rid of your "desires" or sensual perception --- too difficult of an ordinary person to grasp, unless he is well read and good in comprehension. Which is precisely why buddhism declined and hinduism prospered in post-invasion era. There is the layman simplistic religious component of hinduism - with its gods and goddesses and avatars and all that boolsheet to keep the layman interested in the same way the Abrahamists have them interested. But Buddhism lacks God or ultimate morality, which in itself is an intrinsically hard concept for the layman to grasp. Thus when our centers of learnings got destroyed, the more refined and logical streams of Dharma ( buddhism and jainism) suffered the most while the more hodge-podge and less evolved forms of dharma (hinduism) managed to attract people with its silly God/avatar/Brahman type nonsense. problem is lunatics like you, when in fact neither Budhism nor Hinduism feel that exchange between each other will threat the "puritanic" belief Problem with dishonest people like you is you keep propagating these lies when FACT is, hinduvta is on record for threatening people for converting to buddhism en masse. SO much for your declaration of 'no problems'. that is why you will not see one rigid "Budhhaa" with one rigid philosophy in Dharma. Vatz, if you knew an iota of buddhism, you'd realize that there isnt ANYTHING rigid about it. There isnt anything rigid about what buddha said and buddha's core thesis is relativism, which is noncompatible with rigidity. Your problem is, you feel slighted by my reproach of hinduism and you react in a knee-jerk manner of protectionism even when you have no idea what you are up against because you have zero- i repeat- zero knowledge of buddhism. That is why I will say stick tio Arjun's self-realization in BhagwadGita for time being and tackle those fascist philosphies head-on and when the earth is free from "Only my way" kind of religions like Islamism and Christianity, then vedanta and budhism philosophy can be re-ignited once again. Vatz, you show fear of these simplistic philosophies because you do not understand the core of your own philosophy or that of the dharma. Dharma is the natural path - the path that is in synch with the universe and in synch with the inner child in us. One who understands dharma doesnt worry about 'extinction' of Dharma - for it is the natural path and the natural path CANNOT be denied forever. Maharishi Buddha himself said that everything is cyclic - the rise, the stagnation and fall of every stream of thought. Dharma will rise again - it certainly doesnt need half-baked paranoid ones like you to 'redeem it'. DO YOU CONSIDER RIGVEDA as MAKE-BELIVE FANTASY -- yes or no will suffice yes.
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 Indic civilization be proud??? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: GIVE ME A EFFING BREAK!!! The cradle of such civilization, the grand state of BIHAR lies in tatters today with millions displaced and many dead at the hands of flood. And not a freaking darn peep from anywhere in the country(or this message board). People who are ready to drop (crocodile) tears at the displacemnt of half a million Kashmiri Pundits in 2 decades have not so much as fleeting peep on their conscience when 2 times that number of Biharis get displaced in a week!! People who are falling over each other when a grand total of 5 people died in Orissa dont have the moral gumption when 10 times that number of people have died in the state that's not too far from Orissa. Indic civilzation my a. Dont see any reason why a Gujju, a Teleugu, a Kashmiri should lay claim to the glory of Ashoka when they are not there to share the agony. High time Biharis spoke just of them and got away from this nauseating Indic thingy, noone else cares why should we?? xxxx Your concern about Bihar is well apreciated but it doesn't have to be either or proposition.. Needles to say comparison drawn between Kashmiri pandits exodus mand made and exodus of people from padhepura region due to floods (naturtal calamity) remains as lopsided as ever..
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 DR, you can ask CC to stay away from your created threads, if you ant to avoid mud-fest, his one liners without providing explanation and word play with keyboard will make a Zakir Naik out of this, He is obssessed with "comarative" study with only aim of "mine is bigger than yours". Indic dharma is not all about "comparative" study else it will remain no different than Abrahamic idiocy. In the previous thread about re-incranation, the same guy trashed Hinduism by selectively throwing his limited googling theft which is actually Dvaita. I have ignored him to save time out of busy schedule. fact that Budhism in India once thrived and slowly it's influence reduced is a good example of peaceful rise and fall. Swami Vivekanada has described Budhism as a rebel child of Hinduism....he said there is really nothing which a Hindu or Budhist should worry about if any of these two Dharma rise at space of other. Ideologically, why Hinduism survived and Budhism reduced in south asia is obvious due to invasions and sharp differences bewteen ability to adapt/evolve bewteen two dharma -- At peacetime, Hinduism can hold Patanjali's Yoga Sutra, Kriya Yoga and meditation/Mind control of Upanishads and be a purely "Sadhana" based spirituality of a "Mumukshu"-- one seeking Moksha or Nirvana. While if attacked by Abrahamic or similiar violent ideologies, it can hold on to Arjun's self-realization in Bhagwadgita or a Hanuman's self-realization to uphold Dharma by not being shy of countering it with brute force and thus the mahavakya "Dharmo rakshati Rakhshitah" -- Protect Dharma and Dharma will protect you! The problem with Budhist ideology is that it got herself stuck with one man's realization and his realized philosophy -- That is why even today Budhists in Tibet so far under Dalai Lama's influence abhor any countreing by force even though they are wiped out by communists of China's blood and gore. While Hinduims has no such problem. It has several Budhas -- i.e. self realized Rishis and their realized philosophies to guide the humankind...Hinduim is not a one man ideology and that why I feel it is ALSO great. Starting from Vamadeva, Atri, Bharadvaja, Angiras, Vashishta till Vyasa, Anukramani, Vishwamitra, Gautama, Jamdagni , Kashyap Hinduism can hold many and thrive and continue to produce many in modern time like Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Nisargadutta as when peace prevails in India. Hinduims will not stuck with one Jesus, Mo or even Budhha, she can incarnate many even you or me or anyone who achieves freedom from "senses" or maya. Best solution is too keep that guy i ignore list.. I don't even see what he vomits anymore... The day i found he has zero knowldgee of Sanskrit I stopped giving his drivel any importance.. Yes you are right abotu Naik.. Indic civilization is not about comparative study.> I mean where is the room for comparison i ffor different paths in a philosphy which gives equa; credence to all possible paths.. Nobody calls his bluff on this count though.. Shri Shri ravI Shankar should have said it.. It may be a rat-race for abrahamic religion for hindus it's all the same.
Lurker Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 Your concern about Bihar is well apreciated but it doesn't have to be either or proposition.. Needles to say comparison drawn between Kashmiri pandits exodus mand made and exodus of people from padhepura region due to floods (naturtal calamity) remains as lopsided as ever.. For you maybe, not for me. I will have more affinity to my state bretherns, including people I am related to than people from other parts of the country who have never shown, atleast in my memory, some strong reasons that they indeed care for Bihar. So yeah you can keep ya yaing about KP, keep me out of that moronic loop. Indeed I will argue that Bihar should take a leaf out of other states - from Tamil NAdu to Punjab to Andhra to Gujrat - and raise hungama how it is step brotherly treated. A massive agitation is definitely a need of the hour. And its fascinating to see not only the blind-as-a-bat-supporters but even the top leaders Advani/Jaitley/Modi etc etc showing how they care for Bihar, of course they were all in the forefront in Jammu. Article 470 my a$s.
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 For you maybe, not for me. I will have more affinity to my state bretherns, including people I am related to than people from other parts of the country who have never shown, atleast in my memory, some strong reasons that they indeed care for Bihar. So yeah you can keep ya yaing about KP, keep me out of that moronic loop. And its fascinating to see not only the blind-as-a-bat-supporters but even the top leaders Advani/Jaitley/Modi etc etc showing how they care for Bihar, of course they were all in the forefront in Jammu. Article 470 my a. Again speculative statement there... It woudl be below the belt but I am 1000% sure am doing much more for Bihar . I have beef with your inability to differentiate between Man-made calamity and natural calamity.. I have affinity with whole India ..and refuse to wear blinkers over issues just because religion of peacers might get bad press over their doings.... NDA state leadership is doing what it can....Flood is age-old problem there is only so much that can be done.. I don't get the logic of since there is flood in Bihar so every other debate should be suspended..
CC1981 Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 The day i found he has zero knowldgee of Sanskrit I stopped giving his drivel any importance.. I hope you extend the same courtesy towards your RSS and VHP Hitlers, given that Sanskrit is officially spoken/read by less than 50,000 people in the entire world and nearly half of them happen to be from some village in Karnataka. This is the typical elitist boolsheet regarding language that stagnated our culture in the first place- pity that the teachings of Buddha and Mahavira on language-nazism is lost on you and your ilk. As if knowledge of sanskrit is essential to understanding hinduism..pffft.
Lurker Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 Again speculative statement there... It woudl be below the belt but I am 1000% sure am doing much more for Bihar . I have beef with your inability to differentiate between Yes speculation and hence dismissed. Man-made calamity and natural calamity.. Yes clutch on to technicalities now. Here are facts for you: a) Number of Kashmiri displaced : About 1 million(correct me if I am wrong) in 2 decades. b) Number of Biharis displaced: About 2.5 million in less than 1 week. I have affinity with whole India ..and refuse to wear blinkers over issues just because religion of peacers might get bad press over their doings.... Yeah spare me that whole affinity with India thingy. You have affinity with Indian HINDUS. and Indian HINDUS do NOT have affinity with BIHARI HINDUS. See how that works??? You can choose to be an Ostrich but I refuse to be a part of this one way traffic where Biharis are supposed to jump every time when a National issue arises but when its a Bihari issue then we are left to fend for ourselves. NDA state leadership is doing what it can....Flood is age-old problem there is only so much that can be done.. :hysterical::hysterical: Flood is age old and Kashmir is a today's phenomenon? What a ridiculous statetement. Arun Jaitley keeps yapping on how Jammu is being discriminated against, where the flying eff is he when Madhepura disappeared under water?? Advani takes Rathyatra at the drop of a hat, when was the last time he visited Supaul during a flood?? Spare me this NDA is doing what it can rant. Its doing nothing AND it will get its a$s handed over to it in the next election. Then you, and others, will sit and wonder why BJP is not able to break ground in UP/Bihar. I don't get the logic of since there is flood in Bihar so every other debate should be suspended.. What EVERY debate should be suspended? Name me ONE debate on this topic?? And name me ONE other poster apart from me and you who is discussing this? Special attention should be delivered to those whose hearts bleeds for Hindus in Gujrat and Kashmir. Where are they? Every debate should be suspended :giggle::giggle:
CC1981 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 What is boolsheet??? Religion is boolsheet. Belief in God is boolsheet. Beleif in atman/soul is boolsheet.
Desi Cartman Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 What is boolsheet??? trying to prove or convince someone that one religion is better than the other. telling people that you will go to hell and I will go to hevan. Saying things about a community we know little about .. Electing congress to rule India yet again.. Thinking N Modi is all Gandhi and didnt have any role in Gujarat riots believing Lalu's reports that train was never set on fire ... Comparing KP's plight and a natural calamity (flood) All above is boolseet & there is a lot more that I can add to the list
Holysmoke Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 Religion is boolsheet. Belief in God is boolsheet. Beleif in atman/soul is boolsheet. according to you... I believe in some of it. Just because you have not been exposed to it, does not mean it does not exist. I have undergone past life regression. Now anyone who tells me that there is nothing like a soul, etc just draws a smile from me, for I was like that once. Heck, I underwent hypnotherapy just to see for myself whether it was BS, or there was something that I did not understand....
CC1981 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 according to you... According to me ? According to ANY sane person, beleif in something unproven is boolsheet. What else would be boolsheet then ?? Just because you have not been exposed to it, does not mean it does not exist. True. Which is why agnosticism makes total sense. You are correct- just because i can't see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. But by the same token, it is equally stupid to believe in something that has no proof, no evidence and is 100% conjencture and hypothesis. If you cant detect it by any which means then there is no reason to believe in its existence either. To believe is just as stupid as not to believe. I have undergone past life regression. Now anyone who tells me that there is nothing like a soul, etc just draws a smile from me, for I was like that once It is a product of your beleif and how impressionable your mind is - there are plenty of people who will swear too that they've talked to God, they've seen visions of the heaven, they've undergone past life regression, they have been abducted by UFOs etc etc. I do not call these people to be singularly dishonest - for many people have experience with the paranormal - what these people do not get is that the paranormal is simply a reflection of your brain/psyche and there is absolutely ZERO corroborration of it empirically or objectively. Just think about it - if you say you believe in soul because you've undergone past life regression, then there are many others who will say they believe in God, Satan,Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, etc. all through their own individual paranormal experience - some are obviously lying, but not all - and since there is great divergence in matters of faith, all these experiences cannot be true - which means only one thing : these personal experiences are a product of the mind experiencing them rather than empirically seperate from the person. There is no such thing as a soul- that is as close to horse$hyte as one gets in matters of religion. There is no soul, there is no atman, there is no 'part that moves on/lives beyond our flesh and blood'. We ARE flesh and blood and nothing more - not a thing. That is what is logically consistent, that is what science has proven and that is what Buddhism too points towards - that is good enough for me - the rest who believe that there is a soul might as well believe in flying space spaghetti monster or a talking snake and jumping elephant because they are all equally ridiculous.
Holysmoke Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 yeah yeah yada yada yada I dont know why I even bothered..... Personally, I believe that a soul is an extension of the subconscious mind. meh.
CC1981 Posted August 29, 2008 Posted August 29, 2008 yeah yeah yada yada yada I dont know why I even bothered..... That is the common spiel of practically everyone who wants to keep beleiving in unsubstantiated boolsheet. Carry on - but don't expect the ones who actually engage their brains in these matters to give much credibility to your views on this topic, since you choose to run your life through boolsheet (ie, run your life/structure your conciousness based on that which is 100% conjencture and assumptions). You experienced a past-life regression - why you choose to believe that the past life is true and your atman is real, over the far simpler (and more scientifically consistent) assumption that what you experienced was your own subconcious mind/brain's perceptions on these issues and therefore, a figment of your imagination, is beyond me. Why do people put so much emphasis on the term 'i believe' over 'i know' is also beyond me - but maybe, just maybe, thats why our species is so fooked and the most fooked places in the world are places that have highest societerial levels of ' i believe'.
Recommended Posts