Another Mosque vandalised in India

[padamchen]

I'm talking about Americans and Soviets.

And I'm also talking about them.

And the same Americans and the Germans and Japanese before them.

In this clash of civilizations, it will be brute force as it has always been.

There will be faiths forming up against others.

I don't know who will be on your side.

I know who will be on mine.

Cheers, Doc

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Hinduisms is native (whatever its flavour but it believes in Ram, Krishna etc etc etc) to Indian subcontinent and Abrahamics are foreign.

I haven't even explained to you that the genetic proof uncovered at Rakhigiri actually indicates that the people of the IVC were actually around 90% IRANIAN.

Moreover, the word "Hindu" (and its derivatives) - though Sanskrit in origin, which in itself is a non-subcontinental language belonging to the indo-European family - come from an initial PERSIAN description of people living around the Indus.

" The actual term 'hindu' first occurs, states Gavin Flood, as "a Persiangeographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)",[53] more specifically in the 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I.[73] The Punjab region, called Sapta Sindhu in the Vedas, is called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. The 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I mentions the province of Hi[n]dush, referring to northwestern India.[73][74][75] The people of India were referred to asHinduvān (Hindus) and hindavī was used as the adjective for Indian in the 8th century text Chachnama.[75] The term 'Hindu' in these ancient records is an ethno-geographical term and did not refer to a religion.[53][76]"

You are saying that because Vedic mutated Hinduism is somewhat similar to the original meat-eating, body burying, caste shunning animists of the IVC, that they are all of one creed and are native gangetic in origin. Do you know the origins of the modern interpretations of Christmas and Easter in Christianity? They are aberrations of European pagan beliefs, designed to permit easier transition for European pagans when the Romans imposed Christendom upon them. The concept of a holy trinity is a mechanism to permit pagan polytheism to persist in what was originally a monotheistic faith when it first emerged in Palestine (again, this "soft" polytheism persisted to enable Greeks and Romans to transition to Christianity easily).

By your reckoning, modern Christianity should be regarded as a native European pagan religion simply because it contains echoes of these pagan beliefs. This is a nonsensical interpretation of course. Christianity is Christianity, originally from the middle east, though in Europe, some pagan remnants persist as a syncretic solution.

Likewise, the Aryan peoples who migrated into the subcontinent altered the IVC's canonical beliefs so much that they were regarded as rivals or mleccha, and VEDIC Hinduism is unrecognisable from its IVC origins.

The IVC peoples ate meat (including beef), buried their dead and had no concept of caste.
Hinduism is many many things. It was born to an Iranian people in coterminous Pakistani lands. It was modified by steppe land Asiatic nomads once those Iranians declined. The things that you will struggle to declare irrefutably are that Hinduism (certainly the Vedic strand, but possibly even all Hinduism) is "native to the subcontinent" or anything to do with the gangetic plains or anything to do with the secular republic of India.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Indus Valley civilisation had meat-heavy diets, preference for beef, reveals study

The research offers insights into the food patterns of ancient South Asia by using lipid residue analysis.

www.google.com

"High proportions of cattle bones was also found, which may suggest a “cultural preference for beef consumption” across Indus populations, the study, titled, Lipid residues in pottery from the Indus Civilisation in northwest India, said."

The entire Brahmin class would be dismantled if Hinduism was to return to anything like the original faith of the IVC.

I advise thread readers to do their due diligence and verify what Hindus try to force feed them, because the harsh reality may well be far from what brahminists try to lay claim to. By all means, verify what I'm saying as well. Nobody should blindly believe the words of a mere traveller, however shiny his chariot may be.

 

[padamchen]

I haven't even explained to you that the genetic proof uncovered at Rakhigiri actually indicates that the people of the IVC were actually around 90% IRANIAN.

Moreover, the word "Hindu" (and its derivatives) - though Sanskrit in origin, which in itself is a non-subcontinental language belonging to the indo-European family - come from an initial PERSIAN description of people living around the Indus.

" The actual term 'hindu' first occurs, states Gavin Flood, as "a Persiangeographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)",[53] more specifically in the 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I.[73] The Punjab region, called Sapta Sindhu in the Vedas, is called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. The 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I mentions the province of Hi[n]dush, referring to northwestern India.[73][74][75] The people of India were referred to asHinduvān (Hindus) and hindavī was used as the adjective for Indian in the 8th century text Chachnama.[75] The term 'Hindu' in these ancient records is an ethno-geographical term and did not refer to a religion.[53][76]"

You are saying that because Vedic mutated Hinduism is somewhat similar to the original meat-eating, body burying, caste shunning animists of the IVC, that they are all of one creed and are native gangetic in origin. Do you know the origins of the modern interpretations of Christmas and Easter in Christianity? They are aberrations of European pagan beliefs, designed to permit easier transition for European pagans when the Romans imposed Christendom upon them. The concept of a holy trinity is a mechanism to permit pagan polytheism to persist in what was originally a monotheistic faith when it first emerged in Palestine (again, this "soft" polytheism persisted to enable Greeks and Romans to transition to Christianity easily).

By your reckoning, modern Christianity should be regarded as a native European pagan religion simply because it contains echoes of these pagan beliefs. This is a nonsensical interpretation of course. Christianity is Christianity, originally from the middle east, though in Europe, some pagan remnants persist as a syncretic solution.

Likewise, the Aryan peoples who migrated into the subcontinent altered the IVC's canonical beliefs so much that they were regarded as rivals or mleccha, and VEDIC Hinduism is unrecognisable from its IVC origins.

The IVC peoples ate meat (including beef), buried their dead and had no concept of caste.
Hinduism is many many things. It was born to an Iranian people in coterminous Pakistani lands. It was modified by steppe land Asiatic nomads once those Iranians declined. The things that you will struggle to declare irrefutably are that Hinduism (certainly the Vedic strand, but possibly even all Hinduism) is "native to the subcontinent" or anything to do with the gangetic plains or anything to do with the secular republic of India.

About the burials, dotted across Harappan sites are both traces of funeral pyres as well as Astodans (bone pits - ossuaries) similar to the Iranic practice of leaving the dead atop hills and mounds to the elements.

The IVC was basically the ancient Iranian farmer coming down from the mountains to the Indus plains and having a lot of intercourse with the mative plains people resident there at the time.

Cheers, Doc

 

[IsThisNameAvailable]

I haven't even explained to you that the genetic proof uncovered at Rakhigiri actually indicates that the people of the IVC were actually around 90% IRANIAN.

Moreover, the word "Hindu" (and its derivatives) - though Sanskrit in origin, which in itself is a non-subcontinental language belonging to the indo-European family - come from an initial PERSIAN description of people living around the Indus.

" The actual term 'hindu' first occurs, states Gavin Flood, as "a Persiangeographical term for the people who lived beyond the river Indus (Sanskrit: Sindhu)",[53] more specifically in the 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I.[73] The Punjab region, called Sapta Sindhu in the Vedas, is called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. The 6th-century BCE inscription of Darius I mentions the province of Hi[n]dush, referring to northwestern India.[73][74][75] The people of India were referred to asHinduvān (Hindus) and hindavī was used as the adjective for Indian in the 8th century text Chachnama.[75] The term 'Hindu' in these ancient records is an ethno-geographical term and did not refer to a religion.[53][76]"

You are saying that because Vedic mutated Hinduism is somewhat similar to the original meat-eating, body burying, caste shunning animists of the IVC, that they are all of one creed and are native gangetic in origin. Do you know the origins of the modern interpretations of Christmas and Easter in Christianity? They are aberrations of European pagan beliefs, designed to permit easier transition for European pagans when the Romans imposed Christendom upon them. The concept of a holy trinity is a mechanism to permit pagan polytheism to persist in what was originally a monotheistic faith when it first emerged in Palestine (again, this "soft" polytheism persisted to enable Greeks and Romans to transition to Christianity easily).

By your reckoning, modern Christianity should be regarded as a native European pagan religion simply because it contains echoes of these pagan beliefs. This is a nonsensical interpretation of course. Christianity is Christianity, originally from the middle east, though in Europe, some pagan remnants persist as a syncretic solution.

Likewise, the Aryan peoples who migrated into the subcontinent altered the IVC's canonical beliefs so much that they were regarded as rivals or mleccha, and VEDIC Hinduism is unrecognisable from its IVC origins.

The IVC peoples ate meat (including beef), buried their dead and had no concept of caste.
Hinduism is many many things. It was born to an Iranian people in coterminous Pakistani lands. It was modified by steppe land Asiatic nomads once those Iranians declined. The things that you will struggle to declare irrefutably are that Hinduism (certainly the Vedic strand, but possibly even all Hinduism) is "native to the subcontinent" or anything to do with the gangetic plains or anything to do with the secular republic of India.

Indus Valley civilisation had meat-heavy diets, preference for beef, reveals study

The research offers insights into the food patterns of ancient South Asia by using lipid residue analysis.

www.google.com

"High proportions of cattle bones was also found, which may suggest a “cultural preference for beef consumption” across Indus populations, the study, titled, Lipid residues in pottery from the Indus Civilisation in northwest India, said."

The entire Brahmin class would be dismantled if Hinduism was to return to anything like the original faith of the IVC.

I advise thread readers to do their due diligence and verify what Hindus try to force feed them, because the harsh reality may well be far from what brahminists try to lay claim to. By all means, verify what I'm saying as well. Nobody should blindly believe the words of a mere traveller, however shiny his chariot may be.

You dont need to go back to IVC (or where-ever) to prove (or whatever you are trying to do) that meat-eating and burying-the-dead was (or wasnt) Hinduism

I am north Indian "Brahmin". In our families, meat eating is a lahauwilaquwat type of sin. My marriage would not have happened if my in-laws knew that I "used to" eat eggs.

I was educated in Maharashtra. Before coming to Maharashtra, I thought all Brahmins are vegetarians. Voila, I came to know that in Maharashtra, the Brahmins eat meat. It is in this Maharashtra that Balasaheb Thakeray was born & rose to prominence. The first politician in India to say no to appeasement of muslims for votes, no to sickularism. Yogi & Modi came much later.

Then as I grew-up, I came to know there are all types of Hindus & Indians. Some rigid, some flexible and every level in between. Including the "Hinduism-hating-Hindus" (very much like the "own-ancestors-hating" ilk). Some are originally like that, some have evolved over time, but more-or-less, ALL OF THEM are amenable to change to changing times.

Will tell you a personal example.

My wife of more-than-a-decade tells me that if I told my in-laws TODAY that I "used to" eat eggs, they would perhaps do something drastic. I said WTF, I never hid it from them intentionally. I went ahead & told them. They were surprised and said that we cant interfere in your life. But please refrain. I said, there is no question of "refraining". Your daughter / my wife has not let me eat eggs since many years now and I have not exactly "missed" eating them. After such long time, I have actually started to dislike the smell of omelette just like I have ALWAYS disliked the smell of meat & other non-veg dishes. I was kindof surprised at myself that how can I, who used to love bread-omelette during outdoor trips/tours (but ALWAYS hated meat, even its smell), have now started to dislike the smell of omelette, just like meat . For me "egg" has moved from being a eggetarian item to a "strictly non-vegetarian" item. I still think about it. Once I went to a shop with my sons. There were egg-trays stashed besides the payment counter. My younger son asked me "Papa, can I touch them with my finger" in a rather teasing way. They always tease their mother like that and she reprimands them. They thought I would do the same. I did not reprimand them or anything but it brought a weird smile on my face. I thought, I used to eat eggs and my own sons are pointing fingers at them and making a BIG DEAL about simply TOUHCING them just because they have been brought-up like that.

All the above tells me (and hopefully tells the same to you) that Hinduism has variety. Much more variety than you or me or anyone else can fathom. It changes with time. It accepts people in the way they are brought-up. It even accepted foreign religions. Which is all ok. What is NOT ok is the "camel" which was allowed as a guest but it starts showing muscle and superiority. That camel needs to be brought to its senses and be told to get off its high horse.

What which historical record tells you is not much relevant when the common threads binding Hindus & Hinduism is are much older than recorded History. Ram-setu between India & Sri Lanka is divine as per Hindus. Science & history is still debating. It may debate but Hindus are not debating. Veg/non-veg, Brahmin/non-Brahmin, North/South, Languages all differneces are superficial when it comes to common binding threads. Differences& diversity does not divide us (unlike certain "religions" where there is fundamental division as to "who is the true heir after the founder")

(I am showing you the forests, you are showing me trees. I am showing you the pounds, you are saving pennies)

 

[jamahir]

Ambedkar was a fool. Should have converted to Islam.

This article speaks of him coming close to adopting Islam.

But in my opinion he should have adopted his version of the natural successor to Islam - modern Communism. Among his reservations about Communism was the its about "Withering away of the State". It seems the communists then could not explain to him how such a societal situation will occur. Perhaps if he lived up till the 1970s when the 1969 Libyan revolution had occurred and seen the Direct Democracy in action there he would have adopted Communism as his faith and amended the Constitution.

I wonder what would India have been like if Periyar and Ambedkar had converted to Islam?

Interesting point.

 

[Cliftonite]

This article speaks of him coming close to adopting Islam.

But in my opinion he should have adopted his version of the natural successor to Islam - modern Communism. Among his reservations about Communism was the its about "Withering away of the State". It seems the communists then could not explain to him how such a societal situation will occur. Perhaps if he lived up till the 1970s when the 1969 Libyan revolution had occurred and seen the Direct Democracy in action there he would have adopted Communism as his faith and amended the Constitution.



Interesting point.

I'm sorry Jamahir but you almost seem brainwashed by communism at times. Har cheez mein Nasser, Gaddafi, communism etc. No offence intended.

 

[jamahir]

I'm sorry Jamahir but you almost seem brainwashed by communism at times. Har cheez mein Nasser, Gaddafi, communism etc. No offence intended.

No offense taken. I am just an old-style Muslim. That's all.

About Nasser I must tell you that a batch mate from a computer institute many years ago was named Jamal Abdul Nasser because his parents were inspired by that Egyptian leader. So it is not just me.

About brainwashing, I am in India and not in those lands to be in constant presence of the idea-forwarders of those leaders. As a person I am as calm as a cat and understand the benefits of Communism. You should just Google for the word "Communism" and see on the screen's right side for the result and see for yourself that it is the natural belief system for humans.

 

[21st Century Vampire]

Hinduisms is native (whatever its flavour but it believes in Ram, Krishna etc etc etc)

But the background/basis (lower layer ) holding your mythology (upper layer) is still foreign, that's the whole point

You dont need to go back to IVC (or where-ever) to prove (or whatever you are trying to do) that meat-eating and burying-the-dead was (or wasnt) Hinduism

I am north Indian "Brahmin". In our families, meat eating is a lahauwilaquwat type of sin. My marriage would not have happened if my in-laws knew that I "used to" eat eggs.

I was educated in Maharashtra. Before coming to Maharashtra, I thought all Brahmins are vegetarians. Voila, I came to know that in Maharashtra, the Brahmins eat meat. It is in this Maharashtra that Balasaheb Thakeray was born & rose to prominence. The first politician in India to say no to appeasement of muslims for votes, no to sickularism. Yogi & Modi came much later.

Then as I grew-up, I came to know there are all types of Hindus & Indians. Some rigid, some flexible and every level in between. Including the "Hinduism-hating-Hindus" (very much like the "own-ancestors-hating" ilk). Some are originally like that, some have evolved over time, but more-or-less, ALL OF THEM are amenable to change to changing times.

Will tell you a personal example.

My wife of more-than-a-decade tells me that if I told my in-laws TODAY that I "used to" eat eggs, they would perhaps do something drastic. I said WTF, I never hid it from them intentionally. I went ahead & told them. They were surprised and said that we cant interfere in your life. But please refrain. I said, there is no question of "refraining". Your daughter / my wife has not let me eat eggs since many years now and I have not exactly "missed" eating them. After such long time, I have actually started to dislike the smell of omelette just like I have ALWAYS disliked the smell of meat & other non-veg dishes. I was kindof surprised at myself that how can I, who used to love bread-omelette during outdoor trips/tours (but ALWAYS hated meat, even its smell), have now started to dislike the smell of omelette, just like meat . For me "egg" has moved from being a eggetarian item to a "strictly non-vegetarian" item. I still think about it. Once I went to a shop with my sons. There were egg-trays stashed besides the payment counter. My younger son asked me "Papa, can I touch them with my finger" in a rather teasing way. They always tease their mother like that and she reprimands them. They thought I would do the same. I did not reprimand them or anything but it brought a weird smile on my face. I thought, I used to eat eggs and my own sons are pointing fingers at them and making a BIG DEAL about simply TOUHCING them just because they have been brought-up like that.

All the above tells me (and hopefully tells the same to you) that Hinduism has variety. Much more variety than you or me or anyone else can fathom. It changes with time. It accepts people in the way they are brought-up. It even accepted foreign religions. Which is all ok. What is NOT ok is the "camel" which was allowed as a guest but it starts showing muscle and superiority. That camel needs to be brought to its senses and be told to get off its high horse.

What which historical record tells you is not much relevant when the common threads binding Hindus & Hinduism is are much older than recorded History. Ram-setu between India & Sri Lanka is divine as per Hindus. Science & history is still debating. It may debate but Hindus are not debating. Veg/non-veg, Brahmin/non-Brahmin, North/South, Languages all differneces are superficial when it comes to common binding threads. Differences& diversity does not divide us (unlike certain "religions" where there is fundamental division as to "who is the true heir after the founder")

(I am showing you the forests, you are showing me trees. I am showing you the pounds, you are saving pennies)

You called it native in your previous post

Science & history is still debating. It may debate but Hindus are not debating.

Doesn't mean you have the facts

when someone can be SO brainwashed that he easily & casually calls his own ancestors "pagan", "committing shirk" and "destined to burn in hell"

Funny but not so funny thing is a Mullah would call you brainwashed for believing otherwise

My younger son asked me

God bless the little angel

The concept of a holy trinity is a mechanism to permit pagan polytheism to persist in what was originally a monotheistic faith when it first emerged in Palestine (again, this "soft" polytheism persisted to enable Greeks and Romans to transition to Christianity easily).

I **totally** agree with you that the concept of a Triune godhead played a part into easing the way to christianity for pagans and it's "plural monotheism" was used as an ice breaker and it's also a logical conclusion but bhai jaan *just to clarify* in my opinion there's no firm grounding to the claim that the purpose of it was to be a mechanism to attract pagans, I don't wanna bother you with a long paragraph on the matter but it should be underlined that proto Trinitarian or probably dual godhead beliefs already existed in primitive pre canonical christianity due to an understanding of oral traditions & early scriptures akin to the two powers in heaven heresy as per secular scholars which was purely jewish and devoid of any pagan influence

Confusion surrounding ambiguous verses pertaining to the divinity of christ and the nature of the holy ghost as demonstrated in the earliest ante nicene writings was also prevalent and even before some of the gospels as shown by the marcionite heresy and the not so later proto Arian gospel of john that we know today which was a response to Marcionism, it was a whole kerfuffle but the point is contrary to popular beliefs the concept started very early even before canonisation of the gospels and the starting point of it was Jewish hereticism and later on you know the rest, Trinitarians triumphed over Arians due to the popularity it had among pagans and the power it enjoyed

But you made a very good point, Catholicism is a good example of how it accommodated itself to outside pagan traditions

 

[Cliftonite]

But the background/basis (lower layer ) holding your mythology (upper layer) is still foreign, that's the whole point



You called it native in your previous post



Doesn't mean you have the facts



Funny but not so funny thing is a Mullah would call you brainwashed for believing otherwise



God bless the little angel



I **totally** agree with you that the concept of a Triune godhead played a part into easing the way to christianity for pagans and it's "plural monotheism" was used as an ice breaker and it's also a logical conclusion but bhai jaan *just to clarify* in my opinion there's no firm grounding to the claim that the purpose of it was to be a mechanism to attract pagans, I don't wanna bother you with a long paragraph on the matter but it should be underlined that proto Trinitarian or probably dual godhead beliefs already existed in primitive pre canonical christianity due to an understanding of oral traditions & early scriptures akin to the two powers in heaven heresy as per secular scholars which was purely jewish and devoid of any pagan influence

Confusion surrounding ambiguous verses pertaining to the divinity of christ and the nature of the holy ghost as demonstrated in the earliest ante nicene writings was also prevalent and even before some of the gospels as shown by the marcionite heresy and the not so later proto Arian gospel of john that we know today which was a response to Marcionism, it was a whole kerfuffle but the point is contrary to popular beliefs the concept started very early even before canonisation of the gospels and the starting point of it was Jewish hereticism and later on you know the rest, Trinitarians triumphed over Arians due to the popularity it had among pagans and the power it enjoyed

But you made a very good point, Catholicism is a good example of how it accommodated itself to outside pagan traditions

Early Christianity also borrows heavily from the Gnostic faiths of Syria, Lebanon and the Levant. There's a consistent theme of duality in Gnostic religions.