Peoples and Languages of pre-Islamic Indus Valley

btw, Buddha was Indian.


... It just seems relevant in this discussion

Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by AlokaParyetra But the hypothetical i put forth was IF Bharatis produced it, but on Pakistani lands, who would it belong to? Like, if i were to go to china and invent something, would it be a Chinese invention or an American one? Bharatis never went to paki land to produce it. IF bharatis had gone to pakistan 2500 years ago, preserved their own bharati culture(bihari language and learning for instance) and lived in a hermetically sealed academic environment then yes they could claim it. But that never happened and very rarely does it happen in history.

Ok, so i think we have come to the agreement that ownership is based on ethnicity, and not geography, right?

Yes Buddha was Bihari, I used Bihar in my analogy.  Speaking of relevence Vedic hinduism did not have the dalit caste system as part of its integral component. When Vedism moved out of Pakiland and into Bharat proper, thats when it was twisted into the apartheid like opressive system that Hinduism is now infamous for. Buddha, the Bharati Bihari, was disgusted by that and stripped "hinduism" back to something almost identical to its original Vedic roots and was of course persecuted by the then brahmanical power elite for it.

I can see you have strong feelings about this, but you are misinformed. Vedism was very much alive in India, as made evident by the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Mahajanapadas, which were in Bharat proper, were a Vedic culture.

As for Dalits and caste, again not till about the 1 century CE were such discrimination considered an integral part of Bharat society. In fact, we don't really see many concrete example of discrimination at all until Brahmanism took effect (as a result of documents such as the Manusmriti and such).

Oh, and Buddhism and Vedism have very little in common. One is highly mythological and spiritual, and the other, highly philosophical and metaphysical.

Buddhism, it should be noted was also revived yet again in the Pakistan/Gandahar area even though a Bihari founded it. Once again...the place where Vedism was created also resurected Vedism's new carbon copy. So in a roundabout way you could argue Pakistan had a much much greate role in creating Buddhism than Bharat did.

And one could make the claim for Vedic culture as well. After all, it were the Bharatis that propagated, evolved, and reformed it.

And Buddhism was revived in the far east to a much greater extent than it was revived elsewhere. In that light, we could say the that Chinese have the biggest claim to Buddhism.

As for creation, during the years of its conception, Buddhism flourished throughout Bharat. Really, it was not till Adi Shankara's movement in the 6th century CE that Buddhism took such a passive role in Bharata.


Edited by AlokaParyetra - 11-May-2007 at 10:53

Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Ok, so i think we have come to the agreement that ownership is based on ethnicity, and not geography, right? No we have not. Ethnicity is too simple a term to use and is most certainly not the only factor when determining ownership.

Ok, so you maintain that if a Frenchman went to China and invented something, it would be a Chinese invention and not a French invention?

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra I can see you have strong feelings about this, but you are misinformed. Vedism was very much alive in India, as made evident by the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Mahajanapadas, which were in Bharat proper, were a Vedic culture. I don't have strong feelings about this. My feelings could be described as a mild mixture of disgust and amusement(at Bharatis running to hide their history as they borrow the history of others simultaneously). And once again if Vedic culture is created in Pakistan and moves to Bharat and stays there it does not mean it was created in Bharat.

Right, it does not mean it was created in Bharat. But geography is not the only issue here.

Oh, and disgust is a pretty strong feeling .

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra As for Dalits and caste, again not till about the 1 century CE were such discrimination considered an integral part of Bharat society. In fact, we don't really see many concrete example of discrimination at all until Brahmanism took effect (as a result of documents such as the Manusmriti and such). Brahmanism was a part of Vedic culture too. The caste system does not have so much to do with Brahmans as it does the twisting of Vedism by Bharatis.

I like the usage of words like "twisting." It appears to make this thread all the more personal, and much less a historical look at a culture and religion.

Anyways, Brahmanism is not the existence of Brahmins. Brahmanism is the term associated for the religious and persecutory rule initiated by the Brahmin class around the 1st century CE.

As for "twisting," other than the caste system (which came much after the establishment of Vedism in Bharat), what else did Bharatis supposed "destroy"?

[/quote]

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Oh, and Buddhism and Vedism have very little in common. One is highly mythological and spiritual, and the other, highly philosophical and metaphysical.

I would hardly call the Chandas Satras mythological or spiritual. And politically they do have quite a lot in common, mainly the repulsion at the caste system and associated perversions and cruelties.

[/quote]

I meant the religious one to go with Vedism, and the philosophical one to go with Buddhism.

And Vedism is not disgusted by the caste system! Caste did not even exist till the 1st century CE! Vedism was replaced by Brahmanism at that point.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra And one could make the claim for Vedic culture as well. After all, it were the Bharatis that propagated, evolved, and reformed it. Propagated, devolved and hijacked. Sorry, claim denied.

Devolved, lol. If you feel that way. But if you do, you're simply throwing out 900 years of Vedic history in Bharat before the onset of Brahmanism.

As for hijacked, i am afraid i don't understand. Are you saying it is not right for a a people to adopt another religion? Because that's preposterous.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra And Buddhism was revived in the far east to a much greater extent than it was revived elsewhere. In that light, we could say the that Chinese have the biggest claim to Buddhism. During the Mauryan Empire it was pakis that revived it. Brahmins in Bharat persecuted many pakis because of it. Thats a whole thread in of itself.

Right, cause the Mauryas were all pakistani. In reality, during the Mauryan Empire, the Mauryans (who were in Bharat) "revived" it (it was never dead in Bharat). Then, around 100 CE, the Kushans (here is your pakistani element) led a Buddhist propagation campaign. Then, again the Guptas (bharat, once more), revived in their kingdom around the 5th century CE.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra As for creation, during the years of its conception, Buddhism flourished throughout Bharat. Really, it was not till Adi Shankara's movement in the 6th century CE that Buddhism took such a passive role in Bharata. Irrelevent. I was merely illustrating how Buddhism is basically closer to Vedism than to the Bharati castized way of life

sigh... no it isnt. They have almost nothing in common.

Please, enlighten us as to how Buddhism is closer to Vedism than, let's say, Advaita Vedanta is.

Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Originally posted by maqsad Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Ok, so i think we have come to the agreement that ownership is based on ethnicity, and not geography, right? No we have not. Ethnicity is too simple a term to use and is most certainly not the only factor when determining ownership. Ok, so you maintain that if a Frenchman went to China and invented something, it would be a Chinese invention and not a French invention? No. I told you its more complicated than that sometimes and not all encompasing. You are just deliberately trying to be annoying.

Please, i am not trying to be annoying. I am really curious as to your stance. I would like to know how you define ownership, what you place importance to, etc.

To me, i would claim that ethnicity determines ethnic ownership, while geography determines national ownership. In that case of the Frenchman, i would say that it is a French invention that belongs to the Chinese.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Originally posted by AlokaParyetra I can see you have strong feelings about this, but you are misinformed. Vedism was very much alive in India, as made evident by the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Mahajanapadas, which were in Bharat proper, were a Vedic culture. I don't have strong feelings about this. My feelings could be described as a mild mixture of disgust and amusement(at Bharatis running to hide their history as they borrow the history of others simultaneously). And once again if Vedic culture is created in Pakistan and moves to Bharat and stays there it does not mean it was created in Bharat. Right, it does not mean it was created in Bharat. But geography is not the only issue here. Oh, and disgust is a pretty strong feeling . Mild disgust is not a ptetty strong feeling. The adjective was put there for a reason.

ok. i was just trying to crack a joke to lighten things up.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Originally posted by AlokaParyetra As for Dalits and caste, again not till about the 1 century CE were such discrimination considered an integral part of Bharat society. In fact, we don't really see many concrete example of discrimination at all until Brahmanism took effect (as a result of documents such as the Manusmriti and such). Brahmanism was a part of Vedic culture too. The caste system does not have so much to do with Brahmans as it does the twisting of Vedism by Bharatis. I like the usage of words like "twisting." It appears to make this thread all the more personal, and much less a historical look at a culture and religion. Anyways, Brahmanism is not the existence of Brahmins. Brahmanism is the term associated for the religious and persecutory rule initiated by the Brahmin class around the 1st century CE. As for "twisting," other than the caste system (which came much after the establishment of Vedism in Bharat), what else did Bharatis supposed "destroy"? I never said Brahmanism was just the existence of Brahmins. Vedism was created by Paki Brahmins in large part. Yes I know it actually means Brahminazi sometimes although why are we discussing what the Brahmins destroyed? Did I mention anything?

Well, you stated that Brahmanism was a part of Vedism as well, and i was pointing out the case that this is not true, because of what Brahmanism is.

As for the twisting and destroying, you mentioned that Bharatis twisted Vedism, i would just like to know what exactly was twisted. Caste is not a religious thing, but rather a political creation. So what part of the religion did Bharatis destroy?

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Oh, and Buddhism and Vedism have very little in common. One is highly mythological and spiritual, and the other, highly philosophical and metaphysical. I would hardly call the Chandas Satras mythological or spiritual. And politically they do have quite a lot in common, mainly the repulsion at the caste system and associated perversions and cruelties. I meant the religious one to go with Vedism, and the philosophical one to go with Buddhism. And Vedism is not disgusted by the caste system! Caste did not even exist till the 1st century CE! Vedism was replaced by Brahmanism at that point. I believe caste did exist in Vedism, but not the way Bharatis made it, particularly the addition of a subjugated slave caste that was subhumanized.

Varnas should not be equated with caste. Varnas are simply classifications, not birth-requirements. Caste proper were not formed till around 100 CE.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Originally posted by AlokaParyetra And one could make the claim for Vedic culture as well. After all, it were the Bharatis that propagated, evolved, and reformed it. Propagated, devolved and hijacked. Sorry, claim denied. Devolved, lol. If you feel that way. But if you do, you're simply throwing out 900 years of Vedic history in Bharat before the onset of Brahmanism. As for hijacked, i am afraid i don't understand. Are you saying it is not right for a a people to adopt another religion? Because that's preposterous. No, I am simply saying that I don't consider Bharatis as the creators of Vedism. By hijacked I mean Bharatis trying to hijack the entire history of Vedism as if it was Bharat's own creation.

Ok, but that is a recent thing. I think we are mixing up timelines. RoI and Pakistan are new concepts, and the hijacking is a new thing. Before, it was just a myriad of different kingdoms.

You can't say ancient Bharatis hijacked anything, cause frankly, they didn't.

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Originally posted by AlokaParyetra And Buddhism was revived in the far east to a much greater extent than it was revived elsewhere. In that light, we could say the that Chinese have the biggest claim to Buddhism. During the Mauryan Empire it was pakis that revived it. Brahmins in Bharat persecuted many pakis because of it. Thats a whole thread in of itself. Right, cause the Mauryas were all pakistani. In reality, during the Mauryan Empire, the Mauryans (who were in Bharat) "revived" it (it was never dead in Bharat). Then, around 100 CE, the Kushans (here is your pakistani element) led a Buddhist propagation campaign. Then, again the Guptas (bharat, once more), revived in their kingdom around the 5th century CE. As far as commonfolk go, Buddhism became much much more popular in Pakistan than in North Bharat.

Again, i'm afraid i have to disagree. It was Buddhism's popularity with the common folk in Bharat that made is such a threat to the kings and priests. If Buddhism was an upper class thing, who were the upper classes persecuting for being Buddhist?

Originally posted by AlokaParyetra Originally posted by AlokaParyetra As for creation, during the years of its conception, Buddhism flourished throughout Bharat. Really, it was not till Adi Shankara's movement in the 6th century CE that Buddhism took such a passive role in Bharata. Irrelevent. I was merely illustrating how Buddhism is basically closer to Vedism than to the Bharati castized way of life sigh... no it isnt. They have almost nothing in common. Please, enlighten us as to how Buddhism is closer to Vedism than, let's say, Advaita Vedanta is. Is this a trick question? Advaita Vedanta is derived from Vedism. Why is the Advaita Vedanta being compared to the Vedic culture when you should be contrasting it to the Brahminazi world order of subjugation?

Ok, forget Advaita then. In what ways are Vedism and Buddhism similar?