Myanmar violates Bangladesh airspace again; Dhaka protests

[Kaushika]

Of course it doesn't .. people need to learn that, Terrorism or Terrorist cant be just associate with Muslims/Islam .. there are other religious people doing terrorism in the name of their religions .. but religion has not to be blamed but the people who are doing these sick things

Somewhat Agreed.

Would have got rid of the original Lankan Tamils? There was a move to impose one language on the whole country and have reservation based policy in the govt/civil sector to help Sinhalese compared to situation inherited from British Raj, and fight Tamil autonomy/nationalist currents that spawned (modern nation state wise) in SL since the early 20th century...and yes a lot did get overblown on both sides....but I am unaware of any large popular intention/backing of "ridding" all the original Lankan Tamils (Jaffna, Batticalao and Trinicomalali)....esp on any religious basis.

It was largely political....that later did take some cultural and religious hues (as it almost inevitably would anywhere with the degree of the conflict) in various ways but it always remained rooted in a political conflict (and hence why the island is quite peaceful after the LTTE were defeated and bilingual state + various local autonomy got enshrined, i.e all factors that caused the conflict in the first place). Colombo had a majority Tamil population during height of the SL civil war....and many places of worship were both Buddhist/Hindu even during worst of the so called religious/cultural oriented violence (which had a extremist Church angle to it on the LTTE side). Maybe @Gibbs @HeinzG can add/correct to this if they want.

It is very different to Rohingya crisis in that matter. I simply do not see much fundamentally connecting and integrating the Rohingya and Local Rakhine Burmese other than by peculiar traverse of history they are living in the same spot of land. Thus a perceived partition legacy more easily arises.

Its just wannabe secular bangali Xtian is *** kissing his bangladesi brothers.

 

[HeinzG]

Sorry, @HeinzG, I know that this is your hobby-horse, but you aren't going to get much change out of this. Jaffna Tamils are Jaffna Tamils, and they are centuries old in Sri Lanka; plantation Tamils are plantation Tamils, and they are decades old, less than two centuries old, in Sri Lanka.

And I honestly won't waste your time discussing this non-issue. You may record your pro-forma protest - or whatever - but that's it

I find your lack of faith in Sri Lankan Tamil history... disturbing....

 

[Joe Shearer]

I find your lack of faith in Sri Lankan Tamil history... disturbing....

Calmpose help?

 

[Michael Corleone]

Buddhism doesnot have a God..it's non-theistic..

But then it's a form of Hinduism ie to say it has its roots from Hinduism.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

But then it's a form of Hinduism ie to say it has its roots from Hinduism.

It has its roots in India...but to call that it has its root in Hinduism is a bit of a stretch....Now do we term every spiritual thought, ideology, philosophy floating in the noosphere of the subcontinent around the time of Buddha as Hinduism?---debatable

 

[Michael Corleone]

It has its roots in India...but to call that it has its root in Hinduism is a bit of a stretch....Now do we term every spiritual thought, ideology, philosophy floating in the noosphere of the subcontinent around the time of Buddha as Hinduism?---debatable

You just created a good topic for those debatable buzzfeed videos. Makes sense.

 

[Nilgiri]

It has its roots in India...but to call that it has its root in Hinduism is a bit of a stretch....Now do we term every spiritual thought, ideology, philosophy floating in the noosphere of the subcontinent around the time of Buddha as Hinduism?---debatable

Hindu itself is a cognate of India in the literal sense. Yes Buddhism is a different branch in essence from the mainstream Hinduism (vedanta + puranic based) seen today...given Buddhism essentially rejected authority of Vedas and is hence Nastik from the outset. But that does not exclude it from the more expansive definition of "Hinduism" which is much more geographic and philosophical (Dharmic) based....which is why much cross-pollination and cross-influence is evident in the mainstream forms of both today.

Essentially what is a Hindu/Hinduism has 3 levels of meaning imho.....the chronological hierarchy being Geography (contained land) ----> Philosophy (theory of higher thought and existence) -----> Religion (specific rituals, adherence to a perceived or received dogma and mainstream debate).

Buddhism in this is fully congruent with the 1st, mostly congruent with the 2nd and partially congruent with the 3rd.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Hindu itself is a cognate of India in the literal sense. Yes Buddhism is a different branch in essence from the mainstream Hinduism (vedanta + puranic based) seen today...given Buddhism essentially rejected authority of Vedas and is hence Nastik from the outset. But that does not exclude it from the more expansive definition of "Hinduism" which is much more geographic and philosophical (Dharmic) based....which is why much cross-pollination and cross-influence is evident in the mainstream forms of both today.

Essentially what is a Hindu/Hinduism has 3 levels of meaning imho.....the chronological hierarchy being Geography (contained land) ----> Philosophy (theory of higher thought and existence) -----> Religion (specific rituals, adherence to a perceived or received dogma and mainstream debate).

Buddhism in this is fully congruent with the 1st, mostly congruent with the 2nd and partially congruent with the 3rd.

Question before I respond to your thoughtful post: Is Carvaka Hinduism?

 

[Nilgiri]

Question before I respond to your thoughtful post: Is Carvaka Hinduism?

Again its part of the more general 3-tier meaning, but mostly not the specific meaning (3rd one with bit of 2nd one) in more mainstream use today i.e it also rejects Vedas, thus is nastik....but derives much inherent structure and philosophy (purely perception based) from the orthodox schools (both direct and to serve as counterpoint)...in much a way like Buddhism does (but Buddhism is more expansive in offering debate imho given it puts forth a allied/counterpoint to each source of information the Vedic system developed....and probably why Buddhism took root significantly in its own right with its own long term "flavour" compared to Carvaka).

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Again its part of the more general 3-tier meaning, but mostly not the specific meaning (3rd one with bit of 2nd one) in more mainstream use today i.e it also rejects Vedas, thus is nastik....but derives much inherent structure and philosophy (purely perception based) from the orthodox schools (both direct and to serve as counterpoint)...in much a way like Buddhism does (but Buddhism is more expansive in offering debate imho given it puts forth a allied/counterpoint to each source of information the Vedic system developed....and probably why Buddhism took root significantly in its own right with its own long term "flavour" compared to Carvaka).

So Carvaka basically says your sense perceptions are your only way of acquiring Knowledge
Buddhism says on top of your sense perceptions, some specific advanced meditative states (that you train yourself to access) are also ways of acquiring knowledge

Hinduism says that Vedas, Divine inspiration (when it gets hold of you), astrology, prayer are further ways of acquiring knowledge/truth

---Am I right if I frame it this way?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am making the proposition (not original) that in pre-Gupta times Vedic Yajnas and meditative asceticism were competing philosophies in the subcontinent,,,during the Gupta period, they mixed together and became modern Hinduism

Now which is the direct predecessor of Hinduism? Meditative asceticism of the Yogis or the Fire rituals of the Brahmins? I hold the latter ..that's why I say Buddhism is Indian but it is debatable whether it has its roots in Hinduism...as then it becomes a case of how you define Hinduism pre-500 BC

But I donot have a knee jerk reaction if somebody says Buddhism has roots in Hinduism as they have valid points..."The Origin of Buddhist Meditation" by Alexander Wynne is an excellent book in this regard....

Being an Indian secular Buddhist, I donot have a hostile reaction if the proposition that Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism is put forward.....something that cannot be said of Non-Indian Buddhists

 

[Nilgiri]

-Am I right if I frame it this way?

In general terms yes.

I am making the proposition (not original) that in pre-Gupta times Vedic Yajnas and meditative asceticism were competing philosophies in the subcontinent,,,during the Gupta period, they mixed together and became modern Hinduism

Fair enough, though its debatable how much they were in competition even before the Guptas (and thus maybe there was appreciable synthesis and syncretism). Though yes the very creation of "mainstream" rivers (drawing from all streams) among such were much helped by the real manifestation of state power during the Guptas and the Mauryas before them....and also powerful kingdoms in general.

Now which is the direct predecessor of Hinduism? Meditative asceticism of the Yogis or the Fire rituals of the Brahmins? I hold the latter ..that's why I say Buddhism is Indian but it is debatable whether it has its roots in Hinduism...as then it becomes a case of how you define Hinduism pre-500 BC

Good question. I personally believe there is no direct predecessor per se. There is much regional variation even (say why in the south where I am from there is still a vibrant contrast of puranic vs vedic vs saivite vs shakti streams each one borrowing and utilising in different ways from all the elder streams like, vedic rituals, ascetism, ahimsa influence of Buddhism, Jain thought and local tribal beliefs)....and how they manifest in different sub regions and even time periods. This mainstream "flavour" itself changes as you move from region of India to another depending on the particular history and environment there...there is much variation even in sub regions too. So it is hard to assign direct concrete predecessors....though we can label a number of them as major influences definitely. But even then it needs tempering. In South Indian saivite schools of thought for example, there is much Jain and Buddhist direct influence....regarding the poetry of Lord Shiva....that many if not most people do not know of today. A main reason is that many of the composers were Jain and Buddhist monks themselves spreading their philosophy in a more subtle nuanced way for the common laypeople (using a figurehead that was more readily accessible for them).....often these Monks/Saints would become "Hindu" over time as well (either directly during their life time or metaphorically over much longer time). To anyone today with just cursory glance, the work would look "pure" Vedic/Aryan/Saivite without researching how it actually came to be. This expands all over the place in the body of theological work present.

Overall timing wise, the main "resurgence" of Hindu Vedanta spurred on by Adi Shankara and the other medieval reformists was often quite reactionary to Buddhism (and thus quite adoptive of the particular reasons Buddhism appealed to both the common man and political power)...so its a matter of debate to delineate how much this influence (and other such influences) is overall in percentage terms in the broad cross-section of what Hinduism today compared to the more easily qualified Astik streams. You could probably study it for many lifetimes and not come to an answer....I know I can't do such for just my state (TN) and come with some firm answer....and I am always skeptical of those that delineate it for something the size of India itself....just from something as simple as the actual basic rituals I see in operation in my home state compared to what I see in the Deccan to what I see in the gangetic plains etc etc. There are common threads as always, but much diversity too. It is not perceivably codified anywhere...given the long time between us and the Vedas composition and emergence of Buddhism, Jainism, Tribal folk religions and even the interaction with completely foreign belief systems too.

But I donot have a knee jerk reaction if somebody says Buddhism has roots in Hinduism as they have valid points..."The Origin of Buddhist Meditation" by Alexander Wynne is an excellent book in this regard....

Yah for sure. Similarly I don't have knee-jerk reaction to when a Vaishnavite tells me as Saivite, everything is ultimately "rooted" in their philosophy (based on how the Vedas present Vishnu compared to Rudra)....they have a point, but its also much more complicated the more you look into it (factoring in upanishads and esoteric meanings and allegories especially). I also appreciate it when there is no knee jerk reaction from a vaishnavite when I present the largely saivite roots of their advaita and dvaita philosophy (specifically because of how the monotheistic/monist currents merged earlier in saivism compared to the puranic streams). The problem arises when it leaves such friendly debate and moves to various other negative complexes.

Honestly tons (and I have no idea of the exact % given Hinduism is very much a partial bounded set rather than closed set) of even mainstream Hinduism in practice today has no easily discerned connection to the original Vedic religion (simply by distance of time and energy needed to look into each specific thing in practice to say anything with any degree of credibility)....so the topic of specific lineages can always be debated.

Being an Indian secular Buddhist, I donot have a hostile reaction if the proposition that Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism is put forward.....something that cannot be said of Non-Indian Buddhists

Hehe, need not talk in such absolutes. I have talked to a fair number of buddhists not from India who recognise much influence both ways as far as roots go (while taking cognizance of the differences in play today). Yes many also prefer to delineate back in time in an extreme fashion too (in some effort to completely distinguish and identify Buddhism on its own) for various reasons (very few have actual Buddhist-derived basis), but I find that counter to what Buddhism itself really is. Though a number of them were open to discussion and debate on the matter and I am sure we all parted much wiser in the end.

 

[Saradiel]

You're welcome.



@Starlord

And here you have it: the authentic voice, complete with atrocity pictures justifying the mass-scale murdering and genocide, ending with the shelling of the beach.



Please could you educate yourself on fundamentals before posting? Some of these are serious discussions.



Don't show yourself up earlier than you need to.

If there was mass scale murdering how did 300000 civilians crossed the defence lines and came towards the SL army to save their lives? LTTE hid behind civilians and used them as a human shield to make way for more and more deaths.

 

[livingdead]

But then it's a form of Hinduism ie to say it has its roots from Hinduism.

buddism started as rejection of existing hindu dogma... it later acquired its own dogma/practices/rituals which might be influenced by hinduism... but I think calling it a branch of hinduism will be insult to buddha...

 

[Saradiel]

I think all the Tamil Plantation worker in BD and erstwhile east pakistan became de-fecto citizen after independence. Why was it different in Sri Lanka? Same story for MM Rohingya. And coincidentally both are buddhist country.

The reason was SL already had a large Tamil population and the native sinhalese legitimately feared they will be over powered by immigrants. At that time we had only a fraction of Sinhala population we now have. If you look at countries like Fiji and Mauritius, you can see how labour from India brought by the British has altered the demography in those countries. These are now practically satellite states of India. Bangladesh did not have the issue of population and Bengali was given the foremost place.

 

[Hellfire]

Are you retarded or something??

Putting up words of your own fantasy.

Still asking the rhetorical question?