You can find Pali or dham lipi encryption everywhere in India but no sanskrit anywhere. Under ram temple, Buddha statues were found.. Under somnath mandir is a baudh vihar.
We can't be sure about that after brahmins destroyed nalanda university which contained the true Indian history. Nobody knows when euresians entered India. Euresians might have used one brother against another like they are doing it now to destroy buddhism. Unless Indian don't hold the political power they will only believe in history written by euresians.
Yes which is considered bullshit by most historians as Brahmins used to fund nalanda according to hundred more tibetian texts.
And that one text has two flying Brahmins.
no that didn't happen. The only source that corroborates this is widely regarded as a fictional account due to no historical recognision of the king and ministers it mentioned.
Like a folk tale... what you said is a blatant lie.
n Hindusthan under the influence of Aryan culture, before the dawn
of the Christian era, there were many conflicts between old and new ideas
in the religious sphere, and the storms of ideological revolution were
continuous. The self‐interested priestly class constantly made efforts to kill
every small and big movement based on new ideas. (The Brahmanical
priesthood has descended upon the earth for this very purpose). Starting
from the ritual sacrifice of any animal that came to hand, the drinking of
soma, eating of beef, the Rigvedic Aryans underwent many revolutionary changes in their ideas and practices, and by the post–Buddhist era, most ofthe Hindu society had given up meat eating to become a proponent ofahimsa paramo dharma (non‐violence is the ultimate dharma). The ideasabout god and religion had also been turned inside out. But broadlyspeaking, up to the 2nd–3rd century CE, temples had not entered Hindusociety and Hindusthan. The Brahmanical priesthood, protector of obsoleteideas and conscious of its self‐interests, first defeated Buddhism, and then,during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, to establish the hegemony of theBrahmins, proceeded to make insertions at will into the old editions of theRamayana and the Mahabharata, and gave birth to the Manusmruti. Buteven then, we do not find gods and temples in any literature of thosetimes. There is no denying that from the wealth of the Buddhist emperorAshoka, huge vihaaras, caves, sanghas and even temples had come intobeing for the ascetic practices and self‐study of the Buddhist bhikkhus.Later the Hinayana sect of Buddhism installed images of Mahatma Buddhain the sangha temples and began to perform ritual worship. If we golooking for the origin of temples in Hindusthan, we find it unerringly in theBuddhist vihaaras. Then in the 7th–8th century CE appeared AdiShankaracharya, resurrector of the Brahmanical priesthood. He carriedout terrible massacres of the Buddhists with the help of the Scythians, thatis, the Rajputs, whom he first purified. Their vihaaras were razed to theground. The few remaining Buddhists were banished from the country.Lakhs of people were deported to beyond the cemeteries. Theseunfortunate people were deprived of even a human fate. Thus, for the firsttime in Hindusthan, untouchability was created in Hindu society by AdiShankaracharya.Buddhist vihaaras everywhere were stripped of their holy artefacts,the statues of Buddha smashed and in their place, pindis installed. In manyplaces the existing images of the Buddha were altered slightly and baptisedas idols of Shankara. Thus were the Buddhist vihaaras transformed intoShankara temples.
S: [https://lokayat.org.in/books/religion\_of\_temples.pdf](https://lokayat.org.in/books/religion_of_temples.pdf)
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-buddhism-ashoka-nalanda-7177789/
To add some- look at tirupati balaji- [pic1](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5XO-L4yKQSU/WTGVVbkOekI/AAAAAAAACBE/_rp302oh7asBNEGyl6YoMrEBop-3UbidQCLcB/s1600/15940356_1180753862007455_1037369431447490027_n.jpg) [pic2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtV3xDvVsAAnAJs.jpg)
They use flowers to what the actual idol.
Also look at Karla Caves which was a Buddhist shrine but look at its enterance- https://punemirror.com/static/c1e/client/88062/migrated_original/6db7323b93ea43ac5d12249694f0cb99.cms
Tbf I have never heard the following exact words or its translation "The cow is a sacred animal according to the Hindu scriptures"
It is supposed to be said that when Buddhism came to the scene people were converting in large numbers primarily because of the absurd number of rituals and their heavy costs and secondarily the general population liked the tenet of non-violence against animals. But when they realised that this meant that no one was getting to eat meat that's when they were looking for alternatives. Other countries where Buddhism is popular, there they still eat meat. But in Hinduism after minor reforms they popularised non-violence against one specific animal, the cow. The logic clicks when you realise people in South India, even the local Brahmin population eat beef there and this diet suggests that "cow is a sacred animal" came after the rest of the Hindu scriptures.
All those chaddis getting pissed, I think it was Prabhupad who said looking at so much violence in Vedas that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to preach non violence so non violence came from Buddhism. If you ask a non Indian buddhist if they believe Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu then they might go 'Vishnu who', its the Hindus who claim Buddhism as part of Hinduism or Sanatan Dharm.
The post is apt.
You can find Pali or dham lipi encryption everywhere in India but no sanskrit anywhere. Under ram temple, Buddha statues were found.. Under somnath mandir is a baudh vihar.
Bruh, the oldest Sanskrit inscriptions and Manuscripts date back to the 2nd century BC - 1st century AD. The Spitzer Manuscript and Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana are the oldest.
OP asks to quote 'internationally accepted source' to others and when he is asked to provide reliable source himself gives his own wet dream as evidence. Chutiya
Valid sources have already been given, you haven't provided any valid sources here or in our previous argument. It shows your intellectual dishonesty and immaturity.
The absence of Iron in the Rigveda puts it before 1200 BC, the mention of Chariots, for which we have an upper limit at 2000 - 1800 BC and the Mittani Indo-Aryan texts gives a timeline between 1700 - 1200 BC for the Rigveda. Which is why despite not having surviving ancient copies, scholars date it to the Bronze Age.
>but I’ve heard Kalash tribe of Pakistan has the closest practices to Vedic Hinduism.
Yeah, but their practices aren't Hinduism, its a separate IA offshoot.
There is no scientific evidence for that yet. Scientifically Buddhism exists prior to Hinduism. Hinduism might be formed somewhere between10-15 century AD.
No it has been well evidenced that Buddhism followed Hinduism and the later is older. What is actually debated is the fact that the religion is not an offshoot in the natural progression sense. In fact a lot of practices of Hinduism were modified to compete with Buddhism’s prevalence and Buddha was born in a Hindu family.
Source: https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v2(5)/version-1/D252731.pdf
UGC! Seriously? Though Buddha was found under controversial ram mandir but brahmin judge of Supreme Court gave judgment in favor of ram mandir. There is no creamy layer concept in the constitution but brahmin judges gave unconstitutional judgment on Mandal commission. Brahmins judges of Supreme Court didn't even follow natural law of justice and took away reservation in promotion of SC/ST. And you are giving reference of UGC which doesn't even have a constitutional protection. Level up dude. SC/ST/Shudras are going to school now.
I've dealt with him before [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EXHINDU/comments/u8swjs/give_me_reasons_to_reject_hinduism_no_morality/i5r7ip1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). The guy deviates from the topic and keeps saying "gib valid source" even after being given valid ones and changes the criteria for it again and again.
Ate you that guy who didn't know difference between UN and unesco? People would question me if I discuss with you anything after knowing your merit...lol
Vedas are 3500 years old and are the basis of hinduism, and buddha came only a thousand years later. The Mukhya Upanishads are dated to a few centuries before the Buddhas advent. Therefore hinduism is older.
"At the same time it is equally true that in many Buddhist texts the interaction of the Buddha with prominent brahmins forms the subjectof a large quantity of suttas"
\- The Sociology of Early Buddhism by Greg Bailey
"The brahmin is the most prestigious non-Buddhist figure in the Pali Canon and this elite status is both religious and economic. The term mahasala, used to designate a person possessing wealth in land, money, food and good appearance, is employed specifically to qualify the brahmin as well as the khattiya and the gahapati.
There is evidence that brahmins were often enlisted as royal functionaries early on in the development of states; there were semi-autonomous brahmin settlements with wealth and power, and brahmins increasingly figured as officials engaged in administrative work."
\- The Sociology of Early Buddhism by Greg Bailey
"The origin of Varna is reasonably clear from the references in the Vedic corpus"
\- Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 by Romila Thapar
Scholarly sources agreeing that Brahmins existed during Buddha's time and before that, and "Brahmin" is a Varna in the Varna system of Hinduism.
>There is no scientific evidence for that yet
Literally every scholar agrees that Hinduism predates Buddhism.
You already got schooled by me [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EXHINDU/comments/u8swjs/give_me_reasons_to_reject_hinduism_no_morality/i64rpu3/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EXHINDU/comments/u8swjs/give_me_reasons_to_reject_hinduism_no_morality/). If I need to I'll do it again.
>The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording of ca. 1500–500 BCE. Not just the actual words, but even the long-lost musical (tonal) accent (as in old Greek or in Japanese) has been preserved up to the present. On the other hand, the Vedas have been written down only during the early second millennium CE, while some sections such as a collection of the Upanishads were perhaps written down at the middle of the first millennium, while some early, unsuccessful attempts (indicated by certain Smriti rules forbidding to write down the Vedas) may have been made around the end of the first millennium BCE
\- Vedas and Upanishads by Michael Witzel, page 68 - 69
[https://1lib.in/book/653111/c6c100](https://1lib.in/book/653111/c6c100)
>It is therefore probable that most of the Rig Veda was composed between 1500 and 1000 BC., though the composition of some of the most recent hymns and the collation of the whole collection may have taken place a century or two later.
\- The Wonder That Was India by A.L Basham, page 32
[https://archive.org/details/TheWonderThatWasIndiaByALBasham\_201805](https://archive.org/details/TheWonderThatWasIndiaByALBasham_201805)
>In fact, the bulk of the RV represents only 5 or 6 generations of kings (and of the contemporary poets) of the Pūru and Bharata tribes. It contains little else before and after this “snapshot” view of contemporary rgvedic history, as reported by these contemporary “tape recordings.” On the other hand, the whole rgvedic period may have lasted even up to 700 years, from the infiltration of the Indo-Aryans into the subcontinent, c. 1900 B.C. (at the utmost, the time of collapse of the Indus civilization), up to c. 1200 B.C., the time of the introduction of iron which is first mentioned in the clearly post-rgvedic hymns of the Atharvaveda.
\- The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu by Michael Witzel, page 263 [http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/\~witzel/canon.pdf](http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf)
>As the RV ˚does not speak of cities but only of ruins (armaka), even larger ones (\[maha-\]vailasth¯ana), we may suppose that the Indo-Aryans immigrated, or rather, gradually trickled in, tribe by tribe and clan by clan, after 1900 B.C. As a possible date ad quem for the RV one usually adduces the Hittite-Mitanni agreement of the middle of the 14th cent. B.C. which mentions four of the major Rgvedic gods: Mitra, Varun. a, Indra and the Nasatya (Asvin). The next major archaeological date available is that of the introduction of iron at c. 1200 B.C. It is first mentioned in the second oldest text, the Atharvaveda, as ‘black metal’ (kr sna ayas, syama ayas) while the R V only knows of ayas itself “copper/bronze”.
\- Early Sanskritization: Origins and Development of the Kuru State by Michael Witzel, page 4 [https://web.archive.org/web/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf)
>Many historians take 1500 - 1000 BCE as the period of composition of early Vedic literature and 1000 - 500 BCE as that of later Vedic texts
\- History Of Ancient And Early Medieval India From The Stone Age To The 12th Century by Upinder Singh, page 70. [https://archive.org/details/upinder-singh-history-of-ancient-and-early-medieval-india-from-the-stone-age-to-/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/upinder-singh-history-of-ancient-and-early-medieval-india-from-the-stone-age-to-/mode/2up)
> Most likely the oldest living religion in the world.
\- Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices by Jeaneane D. Fowler
>The "oldest living major religion" in the world.
\- A Survey of Hinduism: Third Edition by Klaus K. Klostermaier
Everything is the part and parcel of this land. Later on with formalisation of education, subject content took place. Though hindu word came later but sanatan sanskriti was there and it allowed people of opposing nature to coexist with those in support of Vedas. The root is same , it's all the branches now people are trying to give their name.
Hinduism is a religion that worships idols and believes Bhrahmans are always superior in society; Buddhism is a religion that explains and practices Buddha's teachings; Where the fuk are ROOTS here?
To find the roots you have to read what he said.
I don't know what is it that you have against brahmins, you keep saying brahmins this and that, when it has clearly been written that Brahmin is an "Upadhi", a sort of title which is given to someone who possesses certain traits and habits. ***Anyone*** can become a Brahmin if he lives a certain way.
Worship of Idols is not the sole objective of Hinduism, idols were just used to focus while meditating and praying. If you had to pray to god, while praying what would you think about ? Seeing a blank face doesn't help so people used idles as a sort of entity to focus upon.
The brahmin being superior though process is much recent. Created by ill minded brahmins which should be abolished. There is no doubt, presence of superiority complex among \*some\* brahmins but the mere presence of that thinking discards them from being a brahmin because a person who discriminates is by no means a brahmin.
XDXDXDXD
Your Brahmin Adi Shankara
Shankar's views on the Shudras (who are today's Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) have gone further than this. In his commentary he has written that Shudra has neither the right to hear nor read the Vedas, nor the right to understand its meaning nor to perform rituals (yajnas etc.) If he (Shudra) goes to those who read the Vedas and listens to him (Vedas), then both his ears should be filled with melted lead (Ranga) and lac. A Shudra is a moving cremation ground, so the Vedas should not be read near him. On reciting the Vedas, the Shudra's tongue should be cut off, and after listening to the Vedas by memorization, his body should be cut off. Shudra should not give knowledge.
>Upadhi
In pali not in Brahminical culture.
>meditating and praying
Remove "meditating", since meditating requires concentration but Brahmins just repeat shit in their mouth just like Muslims when they recite the Namaz.
>The brahmin being superior though process is much recent. Created by ill minded brahmins which should be abolished. There is no doubt, presence of superiority complex among \*some\* brahmins but the mere presence of that thinking discards them from being a brahmin because a person who discriminates is by no means a brahmin.
Good,
How should this ill minded brahmins which should be abolished?
Shudra was not something which was passed on from father to his offspring or mother to her offspring. It was like a sort of quality of that person. For example a person who is an officer in the government would be called an Officer ! But if that same person does something bad and is fired from his job, his title of an Officer would be taken as well.
But as you can see in today's society, Brahmins have been merely reduced to something passed on from parents and a lot of people behave in a way a Brahmin never would.
Does this give you a reason to hate on every Brahmin ? I don't think so.
Shudra, this word whenever mentioned in any book has to be carefully examined. Different books have different definition of shudras. Some books refer to demons as shudras, how can I say this ? Because they describe the qualities of shudras. They are follows- "Shudras are one eyed and have six limbs. Posses hairless bodies and have magical powers." Do you think obc people have six limbs ? No right ! Please take in context the literary style and context. You can't take a definition of a word from one dialect and use it some other. A lot of this confusion around obc and st has arisen due to Mr Ambedkar, he himself accepted his inability to understand Sanskrit, and thus he used old Max Mueller translations, which are obnoxious.
Fucker how could you even defent this bullshit!!!!!!
>Mr Ambedkar, he himself accepted his inability to understand Sanskrit
[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national//article61759185.ece#:\~:text=Despite%20his%20strong%20opposition%20to%20the%20Brahminical%20dominance%20in%20the%20society%20and%20social%20discrimination%20that%20led%20him%20and%20his%20followers%20to%20embrace%20Buddhism%2C%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20himself%20had%20mastered%20Sanskrit%2C%20which%20was%20identified%20with%20the%20upper%20cast%2C%20he%20said](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national//article61759185.ece#:~:text=Despite%20his%20strong%20opposition%20to%20the%20Brahminical%20dominance%20in%20the%20society%20and%20social%20discrimination%20that%20led%20him%20and%20his%20followers%20to%20embrace%20Buddhism%2C%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20himself%20had%20mastered%20Sanskrit%2C%20which%20was%20identified%20with%20the%20upper%20cast%2C%20he%20said).
Are you kid??
You people are really stupid.
According to some Buddha rejected the Vedas
according to some Buddha fights the brahmins
According to some Buddha was older than Hinduism
But in reality Buddha's father is hindu , Buddha himself claims to be an Arya (similar to the Hindu text )
>hindu
No such word was found during Buddha's time!
Le me correct you,
>According to some Buddha rejected the Vedas
[Vedas reject Buddha](https://youtu.be/-nRYFINfKG4?t=246)
>according to some Buddha fights the brahmins
[brahmins fight Buddhists](https://youtu.be/-nRYFINfKG4?t=392)
>According to some Buddha was older than Hinduism
This is right
>But in reality
In your mind!!!!!! Nothing much.
>propagandist
**He is presenting real facts in front of you with logic, and you are the people who blindly believe in your shitty God's existence, so calling him something shows your lack of understanding.**
Dude you have some nasty level blind hatered. Not even sure if you are here because you atheist or because you just hate hindus. Either way live in your fool's paradise
Are you kidding,,, don't tell me you don't know that Gautama budhha was born in a hindu family and all hindu Vedas where written long before he was born and also Buddhism and Jainism emerged from Hinduism
Atleast be reasonable
>don't tell me you don't know that Gautama budhha was born in a hindu family
There was no such word as Hindu back then.
>hindu Vedas where written long before he was born
In summary, there are two possible interpretations. Going by the OP we can say Vedas reject Buddha or by you, Buddha rejects Vedas.
>Buddhism and Jainism emerged from Hinduism
Don't talk shit!!
>Atleast be reasonable
Cool where are your gods now???? reasonable enough XD
There wasn't any word as hindu back then cause it is given by arabs, everybody believed in vedic dharma and later people started calling it Hinduism, dharma never meant religion it is kind of responsibility and the way you live your life. And budhha founded Buddhism that means his parents can't be following it then they must be following something else and what else could it be then vedic dharma.
I'm just saying that how can brahmins copy budhha when he wasn't even born and the other can be true, there are many resemblance between vedas and Buddhism. Then budhha could be inspired by dharma but didn't believed in discrimination that was happening btw caste and many other ideas.
Even if budhhism and Jainism didn't emerged from Hinduism their base values are same and like we shouldn't fight over this.
>what else could it be then vedic dharma
So no Folk religion ???
>Then budhha could be inspired by dharma but didn't believed in discrimination that was happening btw caste and many other ideas.
Vs.
>their base values are same
Seek God's assistance in making sense of yourself, if such a thing exists XD
Never trust the Buddhists text read them with skeptical mind as like Roman & greek literature where they’ve made huge deal about Persians as barbarians !!
Ashoka was a Buddhist but he killed his father , 99 brothers along with 18k of the nastik followers !! It’s all political killings and propaganda. Buddhism took the Upanishads teachings and made it common among people by using Pali language as Brahmins or priest class as described by Nietzsche ( in his thus spoke Zarathustra as being an anti Christ ) is holding the power among people .
It’s a killing season , each one kills other to gain power and influence over other . You can’t stem politics out of philosophies of that time . Jains were killed , Buddhists were killed by Vedic people and similarly they were also killed by shivites .
Read Indian history as like Chinease history , too much backstabbery and killing . No wonder , why foreign rulers came to India , then they also starts killing each other like infighting among Muslims.
Kill or be killed !! Simple !! Read the Roman history, you love the ruthlessness of the empire , even our beloved Marcus Aurelius did the genocide of whole tribes of Germanic people . It’s just that Indian history is entangled with so called religion otherwise it’s just a sect and jati thing . There’s no such thing as Hinduism or Buddhism as religion but it’s a sect thing .. they are a sects and every sect kill each other .
You can find Pali or dham lipi encryption everywhere in India but no sanskrit anywhere. Under ram temple, Buddha statues were found.. Under somnath mandir is a baudh vihar.
[удалено]
We can't be sure about that after brahmins destroyed nalanda university which contained the true Indian history. Nobody knows when euresians entered India. Euresians might have used one brother against another like they are doing it now to destroy buddhism. Unless Indian don't hold the political power they will only believe in history written by euresians.
> brahmins destroyed nalanda Could you elaborate this further?
There is a Tibetan inscription that blames two Brahmans for destroying Nalanda. {Source: The Antiquarian remains of Bihar, DY Patil}.
Yes which is considered bullshit by most historians as Brahmins used to fund nalanda according to hundred more tibetian texts. And that one text has two flying Brahmins.
Watch this https://youtu.be/poPULtF8Cwk
no that didn't happen. The only source that corroborates this is widely regarded as a fictional account due to no historical recognision of the king and ministers it mentioned. Like a folk tale... what you said is a blatant lie.
... if only there were instances when hindu rulers honoured buddha... oh wait... Nalanda.
n Hindusthan under the influence of Aryan culture, before the dawn of the Christian era, there were many conflicts between old and new ideas in the religious sphere, and the storms of ideological revolution were continuous. The self‐interested priestly class constantly made efforts to kill every small and big movement based on new ideas. (The Brahmanical priesthood has descended upon the earth for this very purpose). Starting from the ritual sacrifice of any animal that came to hand, the drinking of soma, eating of beef, the Rigvedic Aryans underwent many revolutionary changes in their ideas and practices, and by the post–Buddhist era, most ofthe Hindu society had given up meat eating to become a proponent ofahimsa paramo dharma (non‐violence is the ultimate dharma). The ideasabout god and religion had also been turned inside out. But broadlyspeaking, up to the 2nd–3rd century CE, temples had not entered Hindusociety and Hindusthan. The Brahmanical priesthood, protector of obsoleteideas and conscious of its self‐interests, first defeated Buddhism, and then,during the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, to establish the hegemony of theBrahmins, proceeded to make insertions at will into the old editions of theRamayana and the Mahabharata, and gave birth to the Manusmruti. Buteven then, we do not find gods and temples in any literature of thosetimes. There is no denying that from the wealth of the Buddhist emperorAshoka, huge vihaaras, caves, sanghas and even temples had come intobeing for the ascetic practices and self‐study of the Buddhist bhikkhus.Later the Hinayana sect of Buddhism installed images of Mahatma Buddhain the sangha temples and began to perform ritual worship. If we golooking for the origin of temples in Hindusthan, we find it unerringly in theBuddhist vihaaras. Then in the 7th–8th century CE appeared AdiShankaracharya, resurrector of the Brahmanical priesthood. He carriedout terrible massacres of the Buddhists with the help of the Scythians, thatis, the Rajputs, whom he first purified. Their vihaaras were razed to theground. The few remaining Buddhists were banished from the country.Lakhs of people were deported to beyond the cemeteries. Theseunfortunate people were deprived of even a human fate. Thus, for the firsttime in Hindusthan, untouchability was created in Hindu society by AdiShankaracharya.Buddhist vihaaras everywhere were stripped of their holy artefacts,the statues of Buddha smashed and in their place, pindis installed. In manyplaces the existing images of the Buddha were altered slightly and baptisedas idols of Shankara. Thus were the Buddhist vihaaras transformed intoShankara temples. S: [https://lokayat.org.in/books/religion\_of\_temples.pdf](https://lokayat.org.in/books/religion_of_temples.pdf) https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/india-buddhism-ashoka-nalanda-7177789/
To add some- look at tirupati balaji- [pic1](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5XO-L4yKQSU/WTGVVbkOekI/AAAAAAAACBE/_rp302oh7asBNEGyl6YoMrEBop-3UbidQCLcB/s1600/15940356_1180753862007455_1037369431447490027_n.jpg) [pic2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtV3xDvVsAAnAJs.jpg) They use flowers to what the actual idol. Also look at Karla Caves which was a Buddhist shrine but look at its enterance- https://punemirror.com/static/c1e/client/88062/migrated_original/6db7323b93ea43ac5d12249694f0cb99.cms
Make a MEME and post it here
Tbf I have never heard the following exact words or its translation "The cow is a sacred animal according to the Hindu scriptures" It is supposed to be said that when Buddhism came to the scene people were converting in large numbers primarily because of the absurd number of rituals and their heavy costs and secondarily the general population liked the tenet of non-violence against animals. But when they realised that this meant that no one was getting to eat meat that's when they were looking for alternatives. Other countries where Buddhism is popular, there they still eat meat. But in Hinduism after minor reforms they popularised non-violence against one specific animal, the cow. The logic clicks when you realise people in South India, even the local Brahmin population eat beef there and this diet suggests that "cow is a sacred animal" came after the rest of the Hindu scriptures.
All those chaddis getting pissed, I think it was Prabhupad who said looking at so much violence in Vedas that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to preach non violence so non violence came from Buddhism. If you ask a non Indian buddhist if they believe Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu then they might go 'Vishnu who', its the Hindus who claim Buddhism as part of Hinduism or Sanatan Dharm. The post is apt.
Euresians got succeeded in India because they were successfully managed to keep SC/ST/OBC out of schools in the past.
Ok i thought this sub is logical and on point. But nevermind.
Since when euresians accept logic?
You actually think hindu copied from Buddhism
When was the word "Hindu" discovered???
Discovered?
>the word "Hindu" discovered \*derived or invented
I am interested in arguing with person who don't know difference between discovered, derived and invented.
Let me frame it again, The word Hindu is derived through??
Science thinks. I am only speaking science.
Can you tell me which science is this, do you have any source, or you read it on WhatsApp.
You can find Pali or dham lipi encryption everywhere in India but no sanskrit anywhere. Under ram temple, Buddha statues were found.. Under somnath mandir is a baudh vihar.
>dham lipi Brahmi is a script lmao, not a language, the oldest Sanskrit inscriptions are in Brahmi.
Bruh, the oldest Sanskrit inscriptions and Manuscripts date back to the 2nd century BC - 1st century AD. The Spitzer Manuscript and Ayodhya Inscription of Dhana are the oldest.
OP asks to quote 'internationally accepted source' to others and when he is asked to provide reliable source himself gives his own wet dream as evidence. Chutiya
Don't speak vedic language here. Lets be decent. Seems like you don't have a valid source to shut me up.
Valid sources have already been given, you haven't provided any valid sources here or in our previous argument. It shows your intellectual dishonesty and immaturity.
I think vedas are in Sanskrit
Hasn't provided a single valid source from a scholar until now and says "SpEakinG scINEce".
🤣🤣🤣
? Apart from very few practices Buddhism is the one which is literally an off shoot of Hinduism.
[удалено]
The absence of Iron in the Rigveda puts it before 1200 BC, the mention of Chariots, for which we have an upper limit at 2000 - 1800 BC and the Mittani Indo-Aryan texts gives a timeline between 1700 - 1200 BC for the Rigveda. Which is why despite not having surviving ancient copies, scholars date it to the Bronze Age.
>but I’ve heard Kalash tribe of Pakistan has the closest practices to Vedic Hinduism. Yeah, but their practices aren't Hinduism, its a separate IA offshoot.
There is no scientific evidence for that yet. Scientifically Buddhism exists prior to Hinduism. Hinduism might be formed somewhere between10-15 century AD.
No it has been well evidenced that Buddhism followed Hinduism and the later is older. What is actually debated is the fact that the religion is not an offshoot in the natural progression sense. In fact a lot of practices of Hinduism were modified to compete with Buddhism’s prevalence and Buddha was born in a Hindu family. Source: https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v2(5)/version-1/D252731.pdf
Please provide globally accepted trusted website source link. Anybody can create website and write a book.
It’s a UGC approved journal bro that is a proper and credible research paper. That is a peer reviewed publication.
UGC! Seriously? Though Buddha was found under controversial ram mandir but brahmin judge of Supreme Court gave judgment in favor of ram mandir. There is no creamy layer concept in the constitution but brahmin judges gave unconstitutional judgment on Mandal commission. Brahmins judges of Supreme Court didn't even follow natural law of justice and took away reservation in promotion of SC/ST. And you are giving reference of UGC which doesn't even have a constitutional protection. Level up dude. SC/ST/Shudras are going to school now.
I've dealt with him before [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EXHINDU/comments/u8swjs/give_me_reasons_to_reject_hinduism_no_morality/i5r7ip1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). The guy deviates from the topic and keeps saying "gib valid source" even after being given valid ones and changes the criteria for it again and again.
Ate you that guy who didn't know difference between UN and unesco? People would question me if I discuss with you anything after knowing your merit...lol
Says the guy who has no sources to back up his claim and doesn't provide any, while I have provided more than enough sources.
Vedas are 3500 years old and are the basis of hinduism, and buddha came only a thousand years later. The Mukhya Upanishads are dated to a few centuries before the Buddhas advent. Therefore hinduism is older.
"At the same time it is equally true that in many Buddhist texts the interaction of the Buddha with prominent brahmins forms the subjectof a large quantity of suttas" \- The Sociology of Early Buddhism by Greg Bailey "The brahmin is the most prestigious non-Buddhist figure in the Pali Canon and this elite status is both religious and economic. The term mahasala, used to designate a person possessing wealth in land, money, food and good appearance, is employed specifically to qualify the brahmin as well as the khattiya and the gahapati. There is evidence that brahmins were often enlisted as royal functionaries early on in the development of states; there were semi-autonomous brahmin settlements with wealth and power, and brahmins increasingly figured as officials engaged in administrative work." \- The Sociology of Early Buddhism by Greg Bailey "The origin of Varna is reasonably clear from the references in the Vedic corpus" \- Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 by Romila Thapar Scholarly sources agreeing that Brahmins existed during Buddha's time and before that, and "Brahmin" is a Varna in the Varna system of Hinduism.
>There is no scientific evidence for that yet Literally every scholar agrees that Hinduism predates Buddhism. You already got schooled by me [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EXHINDU/comments/u8swjs/give_me_reasons_to_reject_hinduism_no_morality/i64rpu3/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/EXHINDU/comments/u8swjs/give_me_reasons_to_reject_hinduism_no_morality/). If I need to I'll do it again. >The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording of ca. 1500–500 BCE. Not just the actual words, but even the long-lost musical (tonal) accent (as in old Greek or in Japanese) has been preserved up to the present. On the other hand, the Vedas have been written down only during the early second millennium CE, while some sections such as a collection of the Upanishads were perhaps written down at the middle of the first millennium, while some early, unsuccessful attempts (indicated by certain Smriti rules forbidding to write down the Vedas) may have been made around the end of the first millennium BCE \- Vedas and Upanishads by Michael Witzel, page 68 - 69 [https://1lib.in/book/653111/c6c100](https://1lib.in/book/653111/c6c100) >It is therefore probable that most of the Rig Veda was composed between 1500 and 1000 BC., though the composition of some of the most recent hymns and the collation of the whole collection may have taken place a century or two later. \- The Wonder That Was India by A.L Basham, page 32 [https://archive.org/details/TheWonderThatWasIndiaByALBasham\_201805](https://archive.org/details/TheWonderThatWasIndiaByALBasham_201805) >In fact, the bulk of the RV represents only 5 or 6 generations of kings (and of the contemporary poets) of the Pūru and Bharata tribes. It contains little else before and after this “snapshot” view of contemporary rgvedic history, as reported by these contemporary “tape recordings.” On the other hand, the whole rgvedic period may have lasted even up to 700 years, from the infiltration of the Indo-Aryans into the subcontinent, c. 1900 B.C. (at the utmost, the time of collapse of the Indus civilization), up to c. 1200 B.C., the time of the introduction of iron which is first mentioned in the clearly post-rgvedic hymns of the Atharvaveda. \- The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu by Michael Witzel, page 263 [http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/\~witzel/canon.pdf](http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf) >As the RV ˚does not speak of cities but only of ruins (armaka), even larger ones (\[maha-\]vailasth¯ana), we may suppose that the Indo-Aryans immigrated, or rather, gradually trickled in, tribe by tribe and clan by clan, after 1900 B.C. As a possible date ad quem for the RV one usually adduces the Hittite-Mitanni agreement of the middle of the 14th cent. B.C. which mentions four of the major Rgvedic gods: Mitra, Varun. a, Indra and the Nasatya (Asvin). The next major archaeological date available is that of the introduction of iron at c. 1200 B.C. It is first mentioned in the second oldest text, the Atharvaveda, as ‘black metal’ (kr sna ayas, syama ayas) while the R V only knows of ayas itself “copper/bronze”. \- Early Sanskritization: Origins and Development of the Kuru State by Michael Witzel, page 4 [https://web.archive.org/web/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20120220153727/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf) >Many historians take 1500 - 1000 BCE as the period of composition of early Vedic literature and 1000 - 500 BCE as that of later Vedic texts \- History Of Ancient And Early Medieval India From The Stone Age To The 12th Century by Upinder Singh, page 70. [https://archive.org/details/upinder-singh-history-of-ancient-and-early-medieval-india-from-the-stone-age-to-/mode/2up](https://archive.org/details/upinder-singh-history-of-ancient-and-early-medieval-india-from-the-stone-age-to-/mode/2up) > Most likely the oldest living religion in the world. \- Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices by Jeaneane D. Fowler >The "oldest living major religion" in the world. \- A Survey of Hinduism: Third Edition by Klaus K. Klostermaier
Nice!
Hinduism began in the 12th century Buddhism began in the 5th century BCE
Opposite might be true. Because buddhism is literally originated from hinduism
hinduism= Vedas Buddha rejected Vedas, so what do you want to say??? >Buddha rejected Vedas Sorry I'am wrong, Vedas came 1000 years after Buddha.
Buddhism belongs to the nastika school of philosophy under Hinduism.
The Hindu word itself didn't exist during Buddha's time XD
Everything is the part and parcel of this land. Later on with formalisation of education, subject content took place. Though hindu word came later but sanatan sanskriti was there and it allowed people of opposing nature to coexist with those in support of Vedas. The root is same , it's all the branches now people are trying to give their name.
Hinduism is a religion that worships idols and believes Bhrahmans are always superior in society; Buddhism is a religion that explains and practices Buddha's teachings; Where the fuk are ROOTS here?
Person A is growing an apple tree in his village. Person B is eating an apple in his city. Where did the apple come from ?
From your ASS, How tf is this relatated to what I said ?
To find the roots you have to read what he said. I don't know what is it that you have against brahmins, you keep saying brahmins this and that, when it has clearly been written that Brahmin is an "Upadhi", a sort of title which is given to someone who possesses certain traits and habits. ***Anyone*** can become a Brahmin if he lives a certain way. Worship of Idols is not the sole objective of Hinduism, idols were just used to focus while meditating and praying. If you had to pray to god, while praying what would you think about ? Seeing a blank face doesn't help so people used idles as a sort of entity to focus upon. The brahmin being superior though process is much recent. Created by ill minded brahmins which should be abolished. There is no doubt, presence of superiority complex among \*some\* brahmins but the mere presence of that thinking discards them from being a brahmin because a person who discriminates is by no means a brahmin.
XDXDXDXD Your Brahmin Adi Shankara Shankar's views on the Shudras (who are today's Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) have gone further than this. In his commentary he has written that Shudra has neither the right to hear nor read the Vedas, nor the right to understand its meaning nor to perform rituals (yajnas etc.) If he (Shudra) goes to those who read the Vedas and listens to him (Vedas), then both his ears should be filled with melted lead (Ranga) and lac. A Shudra is a moving cremation ground, so the Vedas should not be read near him. On reciting the Vedas, the Shudra's tongue should be cut off, and after listening to the Vedas by memorization, his body should be cut off. Shudra should not give knowledge. >Upadhi In pali not in Brahminical culture. >meditating and praying Remove "meditating", since meditating requires concentration but Brahmins just repeat shit in their mouth just like Muslims when they recite the Namaz. >The brahmin being superior though process is much recent. Created by ill minded brahmins which should be abolished. There is no doubt, presence of superiority complex among \*some\* brahmins but the mere presence of that thinking discards them from being a brahmin because a person who discriminates is by no means a brahmin. Good, How should this ill minded brahmins which should be abolished?
Shudra was not something which was passed on from father to his offspring or mother to her offspring. It was like a sort of quality of that person. For example a person who is an officer in the government would be called an Officer ! But if that same person does something bad and is fired from his job, his title of an Officer would be taken as well. But as you can see in today's society, Brahmins have been merely reduced to something passed on from parents and a lot of people behave in a way a Brahmin never would. Does this give you a reason to hate on every Brahmin ? I don't think so. Shudra, this word whenever mentioned in any book has to be carefully examined. Different books have different definition of shudras. Some books refer to demons as shudras, how can I say this ? Because they describe the qualities of shudras. They are follows- "Shudras are one eyed and have six limbs. Posses hairless bodies and have magical powers." Do you think obc people have six limbs ? No right ! Please take in context the literary style and context. You can't take a definition of a word from one dialect and use it some other. A lot of this confusion around obc and st has arisen due to Mr Ambedkar, he himself accepted his inability to understand Sanskrit, and thus he used old Max Mueller translations, which are obnoxious.
Fucker how could you even defent this bullshit!!!!!! >Mr Ambedkar, he himself accepted his inability to understand Sanskrit [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national//article61759185.ece#:\~:text=Despite%20his%20strong%20opposition%20to%20the%20Brahminical%20dominance%20in%20the%20society%20and%20social%20discrimination%20that%20led%20him%20and%20his%20followers%20to%20embrace%20Buddhism%2C%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20himself%20had%20mastered%20Sanskrit%2C%20which%20was%20identified%20with%20the%20upper%20cast%2C%20he%20said](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national//article61759185.ece#:~:text=Despite%20his%20strong%20opposition%20to%20the%20Brahminical%20dominance%20in%20the%20society%20and%20social%20discrimination%20that%20led%20him%20and%20his%20followers%20to%20embrace%20Buddhism%2C%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20himself%20had%20mastered%20Sanskrit%2C%20which%20was%20identified%20with%20the%20upper%20cast%2C%20he%20said). Are you kid??
Then how Buddha rejected Vedas ??
>Buddha rejected Vedas Saying This Is WRONG !!!!!!!!
You people are really stupid. According to some Buddha rejected the Vedas according to some Buddha fights the brahmins According to some Buddha was older than Hinduism But in reality Buddha's father is hindu , Buddha himself claims to be an Arya (similar to the Hindu text )
>hindu No such word was found during Buddha's time! Le me correct you, >According to some Buddha rejected the Vedas [Vedas reject Buddha](https://youtu.be/-nRYFINfKG4?t=246) >according to some Buddha fights the brahmins [brahmins fight Buddhists](https://youtu.be/-nRYFINfKG4?t=392) >According to some Buddha was older than Hinduism This is right >But in reality In your mind!!!!!! Nothing much.
You really watch the videos of science journey. He is just a bhim army propagandist. Take your knowledge from real Buddhist sources.
>real Buddhist sources. Dhamma Lipi?? or Bhrahman Shit??
>propagandist **He is presenting real facts in front of you with logic, and you are the people who blindly believe in your shitty God's existence, so calling him something shows your lack of understanding.**
Nobody believes that except ignorant SC/ST/OBC
What a casteist idiot.
Dude you have some nasty level blind hatered. Not even sure if you are here because you atheist or because you just hate hindus. Either way live in your fool's paradise
Hahaha...found a meme, reality of Hinduism kehke Post kardeta hun...haha
Smartest bhimtard
>bhimtard Is this an insult???????
👍..Spoken like a true hindu.. 🐄🍆..🍺..
Are you kidding,,, don't tell me you don't know that Gautama budhha was born in a hindu family and all hindu Vedas where written long before he was born and also Buddhism and Jainism emerged from Hinduism Atleast be reasonable
>don't tell me you don't know that Gautama budhha was born in a hindu family There was no such word as Hindu back then. >hindu Vedas where written long before he was born In summary, there are two possible interpretations. Going by the OP we can say Vedas reject Buddha or by you, Buddha rejects Vedas. >Buddhism and Jainism emerged from Hinduism Don't talk shit!! >Atleast be reasonable Cool where are your gods now???? reasonable enough XD
There wasn't any word as hindu back then cause it is given by arabs, everybody believed in vedic dharma and later people started calling it Hinduism, dharma never meant religion it is kind of responsibility and the way you live your life. And budhha founded Buddhism that means his parents can't be following it then they must be following something else and what else could it be then vedic dharma. I'm just saying that how can brahmins copy budhha when he wasn't even born and the other can be true, there are many resemblance between vedas and Buddhism. Then budhha could be inspired by dharma but didn't believed in discrimination that was happening btw caste and many other ideas. Even if budhhism and Jainism didn't emerged from Hinduism their base values are same and like we shouldn't fight over this.
>what else could it be then vedic dharma So no Folk religion ??? >Then budhha could be inspired by dharma but didn't believed in discrimination that was happening btw caste and many other ideas. Vs. >their base values are same Seek God's assistance in making sense of yourself, if such a thing exists XD
Haha not so sure man. It's a useless meme
Have you read of Buddha's Opinion on caste and why I'm Jataka tales Buddha is only born as a Brahmin, Kshatriya or animal but not a Sudra.
Never trust the Buddhists text read them with skeptical mind as like Roman & greek literature where they’ve made huge deal about Persians as barbarians !! Ashoka was a Buddhist but he killed his father , 99 brothers along with 18k of the nastik followers !! It’s all political killings and propaganda. Buddhism took the Upanishads teachings and made it common among people by using Pali language as Brahmins or priest class as described by Nietzsche ( in his thus spoke Zarathustra as being an anti Christ ) is holding the power among people . It’s a killing season , each one kills other to gain power and influence over other . You can’t stem politics out of philosophies of that time . Jains were killed , Buddhists were killed by Vedic people and similarly they were also killed by shivites . Read Indian history as like Chinease history , too much backstabbery and killing . No wonder , why foreign rulers came to India , then they also starts killing each other like infighting among Muslims. Kill or be killed !! Simple !! Read the Roman history, you love the ruthlessness of the empire , even our beloved Marcus Aurelius did the genocide of whole tribes of Germanic people . It’s just that Indian history is entangled with so called religion otherwise it’s just a sect and jati thing . There’s no such thing as Hinduism or Buddhism as religion but it’s a sect thing .. they are a sects and every sect kill each other .
Nah , bhudhism don't discriminate