Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India?

Re: # 365

"..oppose certain things purely on principle - I don't like deceptive things, and when I took a look at Mirzaism, I was appalled by the mess. "

There is no greater mess than that left by the Arabian Paedophile, the entire world -including the rest of the Arabian wannabee momeens- is struggling with this "mess" till date.

I am sure Ahmedi-Islam does not have any such "mess" IMPOSED on the rest of the kafir world!!

so, for an idolator like me Ahmedis are indeed BETTER "muslims" than the non-Ahmedis!!

"I would expect the ahmadi community, as a whole, to be among the most regressive, close-minded, conservative, and pretentiously religious cults ever."

I prefer to see the religion from the "fruits" of karma it bears............I am yet to see Ahmedi-Muslims shout takbir and go on violent Jehad across the border into India.

I have seen excellent critical analyses of Paki Punjabi Mullahs by the Ahmedi muslims- I must infact thank them because only after their expose of Dr. Israr Ahmed and Zakir Naik I began to take these goons seriously.

To me Ahmedi-muslims are more acceptable as "muslims" than an Arabian wannabe punju muslim from Pakistan.

shah ji, LOL. Our Laddu is going to be patented?!!! :)

----------------------


"modern living requirements ..."

May be, they do, but laddu, simply looking at their logic, I would expect the ahmadi community, as a whole, to be among the most regressive, close-minded, conservative, and pretentiously religious cults ever.

It's whole idea would be to take people back in time, while utilizing the tools and instruments of modern living. It is real cult in the truest sense of the word.

---------

The best place to begin would really be to read up on this Mirza man. You can tell a lot about an ideology by looking at its founder.

Anyways, this is the last from on this. I oppose certain things purely on principle - I don't like deceptive things, and when I took a look at Mirzaism, I was appalled by the mess. But that could be just me. :)

Laddu is on roll



Patent push for Tirupati laddu


The Tirupati temple
Hyderabad, June 3: Globalisation has caught Lord Balaji in its sweep.

The sacred Tirupati laddu, for which tens of thousands queue and jostle every day, is set to go global as soon as it receives a patent from the Registry of Geographical Indications (GI), Chennai.

The Tirupati

Laddu is on roll



Patent push for Tirupati laddu


The Tirupati temple
Hyderabad, June 3: Globalisation has caught Lord Balaji in its sweep.

The sacred Tirupati laddu, for which tens of thousands queue and jostle every day, is set to go global as soon as it receives a patent from the Registry of Geographical Indications (GI), Chennai.

The Tirupati

Hey,

Sufism is NOt an exclusive preserve of Islam. I need not confuse sufism with Ahmedi-Islam or any other type of Islam.

From all I understand of Ahmedi-Islam it appears to be conforming to the modern living requirements of tolerance and civilized behavior towards others- unlike the Paki-Arabian Islam which is certainly the most horrible and in-tolerant of all the Islams one can come across- even the Indian deobandis want to distance themselves from the Paki Islamists.

he he, laddu bhai, perhaps we can say that that Mirza man taught an idolator's Islam!

------------

But you have to decide - which of the two you like better: The Soophi Sherbat or the Mirzai Matka.

The two cannot be excessively fond of each other. :)

For an idolator like me the Mirzaee muslims are certainly the CORRECT representatives of a modern Islam!!

Re: # 354

Hey ,

This Mirza guy was certainly as far BETTER person than that padeophile, murderer , bandit and rapist from Arabian land!!!

DM ji, proselytizing is ok. But political correctness apart, this Mirza fellow was one of the most despicable creatures ever to walk the holy land of Punjab.

If that is Islam, then Islam is a disgrace to mankind.

I KNOW that is not Islam, because Mirazism removes the very foundations of Islam in favor of whatever it preaches.

-------------------

Lord/Allah/God, forgive me for being disrespectful to a dead man, whatever kind he was. May he rest in peace wherever he is resting.

oho, you are stuck on that one theme, proving your Punjabi old man a Prophet of Islam!

Fine, although that makes no logical sense whatsoever, if Muslims would like to believe that, so be it. Non-Muslim world will lose a lot of respect for both Allah and Islam if such men become Allah's Prophets of Islam, but that is ultimatley, Muslims' call.

Bhaijan, # 301 answered a specific question - why a real believer might accept a so-called non-Muslim as a 'good Muslim.'

--------------

Now, if you too want to be taken as a Muslim, take that up with believers, although I doubt Islam would let you easily pose as a Muslim except in non-Muslim lands.

Hope we agree now. Best regards, and you may have the last word, because in Muslim lands, you obviously can't.

sattarbhai#353:

Can I tease you a bit? (not seriously, of course)

Your post reminded me that ahmedias are one of the most zealous proselytisers among Muslims these days. It is true that they are completely non-violent and gentle in their dawah, but I remember that The Prophet, too, was quite gentle in his Maka days when he did not have temporal power. So, maybe we should be on guard against you guys as well.:)

Kaal,

… don’t lose sleep over Punjabi prophets, otherwise next 1400 years would cause you that much more pain. Although we’ll try to be more gentle this time around … (wink)

On a serious note: #301 is based on a flawed premise … that a new Book can have only one new prophet (I wonder where you got this idea). I explained this earlier but perhaps it was not clear. For example, Moses brought Torah but following prophets warned and taught on the basis of Torah. Furthermore, prophets served to warn and to remind people as they became divided and went astray. So repeat after me: Same Book, more prophets ... same book, more prophets.

So your underlying assumption is speculative, flawed, and negated by Quran. Other than that, admittedly you have a point. Happy now?

+++

I do think you need to get over your hang-ups and your divisive, communal politics. It will only make you more miserable. Perhaps that's all you ever learnt; what can I say?

lol, sattar bhai, should you have forgotten, in your zeal to worship Punjabi 'Prophet' of 'Islam', let me refer you back to what we were discussing :)

Refer to post # 301

If references to Mirzais got you so upset, please feel free to remove them, and just focus on the argument. You asked for it.

Kaal, as you struggle with this “logic thingy�, I want to acknowledge your pain over the Mirzaee issue …

For centuries you suffered at the hands of the believers. Now that the ummah is finally going down in flames, along comes another prophet of Islam … appearing, of all the places, in your own backyard. Perhaps you are sensing that this Mirzaee issue is much larger than your tiny-whinny communal politics … so your frustration is somewhat understandable.

But don’t despair. If you can wait 1400 years, you can wait another 1400 years (wink).

On a serious note: Your issue with Ahmadis has to do with your own insecurities and divisiveness. Once you get over your hang-ups, you’ll see things are not all that bad.

So cheer up, for god’s sake - and stop being so fucking annoying ...!

replying #319,

muradbaig,
I wrote 500BC for Panini, not 5000BC, even if I had written 5000BC you should have by now understood that it should be by mistake and I am not as stupid that my knowledge of this would be 5000BC (that doesn’t mean that I am not stupid, I reserve the right to be stupid as and when needed). This gives me reason that I should first try to shoot the messenger a bit before I attempt to shoot his not so clear message. At least that will make messenger realize that people are not able to see his message and have to shoot him instead:-)

And you then went on to give your wheat and barley knwoledge of about what was known to different civilizations in 5000BC.

Secondly, you are again wrong in suggesting that Panini couldn’t have mentioned Greeks if he is supposed to be around 500BC. Don’t assume that so called established historians are so wrong in giving these dates. North western India where Panini lived, which was called Gandara in ancient times (and the script that you talked about earlier Kharosti is also known by Gandhari script and mother of Kurava’s in Mahabharta was also known by Gandhari, which was probably a title for queen of Gandhara). Since how long this part was known as Gandhara can not be determined. If you check Greek literature there are lot many references to India around or before 500BC. Knowledge of Greek by Gandhara or India was not acquired through Alexandar or travelers accompanying him. It is plain foolish to suggest so and base or contest dates based on that (if it isn’t then give your reasons, what details Panini mentions of Greek? The word Yavan and some associated sentences?). Greeks and Indians got to know each other through Persians. Hekataios and Herodotos mention name of India way back around 518BC, but more importantly Gandhara became part of Persia around 540-560 BC. Persia invaded Greece during that time and captured most of it. So Gandhara and Greece were ruled by same empire for many years that is how they first got to know each other. Alexandar came to India before he heard so much about it, it is not other way around that first he came then he got to know India and Indians got to know of him. Suggesting dates on such false assumptions is not at all sincere approach towards history. Even pythagorus is supposed to have travelled to India, it may be a myth but this myth also suggest that people of India and Greece knew each other through Persians for long time.


Also, I do not know what you said about Darasikoh and Vedas (Eklawya said something hin his post), if Eklawya let me know that then I can comment on that. Darasikho was highly impressed by Upanishads, so much so that he thought this is the original book of God that Brahmins are hiding from other peopleï?Š.

But at least this time you seem to be giving concrete dates and it makes good sense. Except that you still started with statements like "fragments of rigveda didn't start till 14th century AD".
Respected historians date Zend Avesta much-much later than RigVeda, if you know of thin evidence then do let me know and we can check how these respective historians think about that evidence.

You are plain wrong in saying that moksha or dharma were borrowed from Budhdhism. Conceptually there is hardly anything that Hinduism has borrowed from Budhdhism, It is the other way around Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism those concepts and selectively adopted them. Irrespective of what Buddhist themselves say (they will find it hard to support their ideas against their texts). Hinduism was and still a super set of thoughts or ideas with many that may seem conflicting with each other. Still you can be a dualist hindu, advatia hindu or a monkey god hindu.

Brahmanas and early Upanishads were written much earlier than Buddhist scriptures. Many Buddhist scriptures refer to them and other hindu scriptures directly and indirectly. You say so because you do not care about when Budhdhist thoughts were written or when they first show such ideas. Concept of Moksha, Dharma, "Ekam Sat" are part of RigVeda/Upanishads.

Take it like this: If there were no Hinduism Budhdha never needed to say adopt middle path, the whole middle path is with respect to what to take from Hinduism. Later Buddha's desciples, most of whom themselves were Brahmins, developed on this middle path and created a "panth" or "marg" or way that we call Buddhist religion now.

The theistic concept of concept "Religion", that definition of religions relies so heavily upon, was meaningless for Budhdha or his disciples. They wouldn't have even allowed you to call it a religion.


What is middle path?

During the time of Budhdha there were many school of thoughts/philosophy in Hinduism. All based on different concepts expressed in Upanishads. Hinduism during that period can be simplified to represent three streams of thoughts highly ascetic and intellectual ideas saying God is this whole universe, another set of thoughts saying God is separate from Universe and universe is illusion created by him and the ritualistic Hinduism.
The middle path of Buddha says things like "It is not one nor different / It is not permanent nor discontinuous". This was basically to show that do not care about hi-fi idea or ascetics of Upanishads (which is so different for common man) or theistic ritualism of Hinduism, use simple rules that give you middle path to live truthful life. Buddha tried to use only atheistic theory of Upanishads/Hinduism like concepts of Atma (removed theistic part) and re-incarnation but tried to avoid theistic part of Hinduism. This was his middle path. Actually, this was middle path of his disciples, middle path of Buddha was simpler don’t care about God, be truthful and simple.


Most religions that emanated from Hinduism gave ways or paths or panths of life, not religions. Most of them are concerned more about way of life than theistic differences. This is true for Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism but people don’t say so because they have to be politically correct and because now they are considered full fledged religions (and of course it is their right to treat themselves as full religion or adopt new ideas, but it is not their right to change history or to portray it differently). Budhdha didn't say worship one God or million, he simply didn't care about that part. He gave some principles that he cared for and all that he understood by looking at what Hinduism is and what is good or bad in it. He wasn’t giving lot many new ideas as such, as some (not all) Buddhist will pretend.

Most importantly.
Upanishads are the texts that changed course of religious thought in India, they set in motion grand athiestic/theistic thoughts and those thoughts culminated into many different philosophies or variation of that philosophy. Buddhism and Jainism are part of same stream of thoughts, Jainism is more towards Ahinsa and Buddhism is more towards integrity and simplicity. Upanishads themselves were more towards analysis and philosophy, but they always kept Vedas as supreme as the Brahmins never wanted to dilute the religion too much, their intent in designing those grand stories, legends was to keep society