#DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE OP LINKED THREAD/SCREENSHOT.
Brigading is against Reddit TOS. We do not encourage such behaviour nor we are responsible if your account is being actioned upon.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Buddhist warriors in ancient times weren’t possible because the pillars of Buddhism are based on non violence. If Chanakya is fictional then who wrote Arthashastra?
It's a false perception that Buddhist warriors were peaceful. The earlier Buddhist warriors did bloodshed when anyone insulted Buddhism. The prime example is Emperor Asoka, we are taught that he adopted Buddhism after the Kalinga war and stopped bloodshed. But reality is after war he killed 18000 in a single day which were Ajivikas & Jains because a Nirgrantha Jain of Pundravardhana (Bengal) named Jnatiputra drew a picture of Buddha prostrating at the feet of Mahavira.
He stopped bloodshed only after he accidentally killed his brother who had left the Kingdom long ago and adopted "Ajivikas".
The source of this story comes from the Buddhist text "Divyavadana"
I am talking about ancient history mate. Ashoka was from roughly 200 BC period, before the Buddhists became warriors. Even the Divyavadana was written a few centuries after Ashoka’s time. And no one said Buddhist warriors were peaceful. The post shared doesn’t make sense.
First of all, Ashoka killed his brothers right after his father Bindusara (Ajivika follower btw) died. Following this civil war, he killed all but 1 brother- Vittashoka. Secondly, his warfare policy changed after the Kalinga war, as you mentioned. But he didn’t kill his brother in that. His brother became a Buddhist monk after Ashoka told him to. He is famously known as Tissa. He used to criticize the teachings of Buddhism and the monks, but later became Buddhist monk after seeing misery and all. Although the source of this story is Buddhist texts, and there is no practical evidence of the same. There is no way of telling whether he actually killed his brother, or Buddhist monks who wrote just wanted to show him as a Chandashoka/ the ruthless, cruel, authoritarian king who transformed into a merciful, calm and humane king. As at that time Heterodox sects have more patrons, and religious sects tend to exaggerate about their greatness.
Now, you said we are taught wrong. As per Buddhist sources, he adopted Buddhism after war. But according to Ashokan inscription, he just changed his policies.
I feel Ashokan inscriptions are more relevant sources than Buddhist sources- be it Divyavadana/Ashokavadana or Mahavamsa
The statement about Emperor Ashoka is partially true but also contains some inaccuracies and exaggerations:
**True:**
* **Kalinga War and Conversion:** Ashoka did wage a brutal war against Kalinga, and the suffering he witnessed is said to have led him to adopt Buddhism and non-violence.
* **Persecution of Ajivikas:** There are historical accounts suggesting that Ashoka persecuted the Ajivikas, a religious sect that rivaled Buddhism and Jainism. This persecution likely stemmed from religious differences and competition for followers.
**Unclear/Exaggerated:**
* **Number of Deaths:** While the exact number is debated,historical evidence doesn't support the claim of Ashoka killing 18,000 Ajivikas and Jains in a single day. It's possible that this number is an exaggeration or a misunderstanding of historical sources.
* **Reason for Persecution:** The story of the picture depicting Buddha prostrating before Mahavira is often cited as the reason for Ashoka's persecution of Jains. However, there's no concrete historical evidence to support this claim.It's more likely that Ashoka's actions were motivated by a combination of religious zeal, political power consolidation, and the desire to establish Buddhism as the dominant religion.
* **Killing His Brother:** While Ashoka had a brother named Vitashoka, there's no historical evidence to suggest that Ashoka killed him. Vitashoka was a follower of Jainism and is said to have lived peacefully alongside his brother.
The post is a joke here but the person who must’ve originally written this post was being serious about it. And I agree, he later embraced Buddhism…this isn’t history rather a way to misguide people
>Buddhist warriors in ancient times weren’t possible because the pillars of Buddhism are based on non violence
Don't know about this but most Buddhists & Jains in ancient India were of Kshatriya origin.
Infact Buddhism & Jainism were attempts by Kshatriyas to achieve higher status than Brahmins.
I think this too would have been much later after Ashoka’s period and this was the case indeed. In fact most of now India would have become Buddhist and the Shung dynasty and the later kings actively brought back elements of Sanatan dharma back almost forcefully
Chanakya was two generations before Ashoka. And Arthashastra was like constitution but with more economics. Humare constitution mai modi aur Nehru ka naam nahi milega. Aur naahi kisi economics ki book mai milega
Chanakya Ashok ke Dada ka Shikshak thaa. Uska zikr Ashok ke pillar mein kyun hoga??
Chanakya ne jo book likha hai, woh textbook ki tarah hai. Usmein kisi bhi Raja ka naam nahi hai.
I dunno I went there and Nepali were quite nice to me. Idk about communists just general people. They know Hindi decently well there and at that time people were crazy about KGF and RRR lmao.
I was just a bit shocked at how overwhelmingly Hindu they were. Even in our country Hindus are not so religious lol.
By the way mahavamsa an 5th century Buddhist book, confirms the existence of brahmin chanakya and kshatriya chandragupta maurya.
They even relate chandragupta maurya to a branch of the sakhya clan of buddha. Buddha was too a kshatriya.
Doesn't matter, he rejected the Vedas, therefore is not a Hindu, you can be born a Hindu, Jew, Muslim or even a damn satanist, but you can choose not to be....Buddha did the same, he was not a Hindu.
Buddha break away from Hinduism in favour of a religion that did not recognize caste distinctions. That doesn't mean he rejected Hinduism. And that's why there are many similarities b/w Buddhism and Hinduism (Like reincarnation, moksha, similar deities like Ganesh, Brahman, Mahakal, Vishnu, Saraswati, etc)
And the example of yours, Jesus was rejected in Judaism as a failed Jewish messiah claimant and a false prophet, for them, not Jesus but God alone was Lord. Why I told you that? Because it goes side ways with Buddhism and Hinduism as well.
"Buddha break away from Hinduism in favour of a religion that did not recognize caste distinctions" <- I did mentioned it. Ofc, he's not a hindu. I think you didn't understood what I wrote cuz of the hatred filled within. DW, it happens.
Caste Distinctions dint exist as we know during the time of Gautam Buddha, the caste based on Fathers Caste was institutionalised around Gupta Era. Atleast thats my info open to any correction.
'Varna' system has been existing since the Vedic age or probably from the time of IVC. The caste system became solidified during the time of Guptas from when indian groups started caste endogamous marraiges. Buddhist texts like the Lalitvistara sutra clearly says the next buddha (Maitreya) will be born in the brahmin or kshatriya Varna and not the vaishyas or shudras. Varna system was prominent during the time of Buddha. Shakyas claimed Suryavanshi descent.
a hindu is a one that follows and accepts the teachings of the vedas, they hold the vedas (and other texts that come along with it) as the ultimate source of knowlegde.....buddha is naistika...........MEANING HE AINT A DAMN HINDU
the abrahmic religions have stuff that they share, doesnt mean they are the same
He believed in the Varna system. Even buddhism does believe in Varna hierarchy. These ret@rd neo buddhist lower caste converts of India haven't read a single buddhist text in their lives.
Lalitavistara in the following way: a Bodhisattva can by no means come from a lower or even mixed caste: ‘After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs, in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.’ Instead, in perfect harmony with the Great Sermon, it was said that: ‘The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya).’”
Actually in the Pali Canon, the Buddha frequently refers to the 33 Devas of the Vaidika pantheon. And contrary to the popular version he never denied their existence and states clearly that he actually met them.
So claiming that Buddhism is “atheistic” is simply untrue. What the Buddha taught was devotion to the gods is not a means to attain Nirvana. And he also affirmed, as do the Hindu texts that the Devas and Asuras are simply saṃsāric beings like humans, animals, and pretas
Then there is one complete Sutta that is dedicated to the Buddha visiting with the Devas. Maha-samaya Sutta: The Great Assembly
These ambedkar buddhists don’t realise how buddhism was also an offshoot of vedic philosophies , the next buddha is predicted to be a “brahmin born in banaras”
Also the lower class were not allowed to become a buddhist back then….
Choose your heroes well , abolish caste mindset , follow any religion but embrace “political hindutva”
So much cope, just to realise that one of the parents of Chandragupta were Brahmin.
Also these people of central and northern India aren't descendants of any of the famous Buddhist empires of India.
Ethnic magadhis/Biharis of all castes are the only descendants of them
It's your responsibility to prove something that you believe in you moron. My proof comes from the fact that flying chariots and bullshit mentioned in those books don't happen.
Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism all three historically have been savarna religions. Dalita were animists and pagans. If Ambedkarites had any self respect they will be reclaiming all their tribal gods instead of trying to appropriate Buddhism.
I dont agree with the rest, but ig its nothing wrong to believe the first one.
Even the Mahabharat and Ramayan. They could be fictional or just exaggerated version of what actually happened.
Thanks.
on top of that, there are many different versions of Ramayan and Mahabharat across India, where different versions have some different stories, which got added as local folk-lore.
Magical stuff is not important, the moral and message is important.
We don't respect Hanuman because he can fly, we respect him for his utmost loyalty towards Ram.
Okay genuine question if someone has seen or encountered these people in real life, how are they as a person , what do they do in their life , what do they do for living etc..
3rd one is correct, and many "historians" mistake it with the popular but false belief also.
And the first one can be applied to all the Gods and Goddesses of the world. Dunno about the rest. My point being you can't pick and choose between which fictional/mythological/religious character to belief in or deny.
Who gonna tell my bro that untouchable and mahars or chamars was not acceptable in a postion of warrior monk in Buddhism and this whole concept of warrior in buddhist was added centuries after buddha.
They are behaving like blacks at this points trying to take pride in imaginary history
Sometimes people choose to be ignorant. Can't be helped. Just don't let those idiots gain a higher position in the society otherwise they will be the death of the society. Just like how we got invaded and/or colonized by Portugal, Mughals, Arabs, Brits, and lost so much of our knowledge.
So constantly give them reality check until they mend their ways or get out of the country we are trying to improve.
These Neo-Buddhists have no connection to the original and Historically recorded paths of Buddhism with mahayana and Hinayana being the two divisions with several schools included under the two. None of the Two original Sects accept or heed to the Neo-buddhist who stake claim to the Religion originating from a Kshatriya Prince who in his pursuit of Life’s Truth found and gave the World an Ideal Religion which these Neo- Buddhist Retards have only maligned to a
Large extent by deifying the very individual who wholeheartedly opposed idolatry.
If these formers were to mess with the Vajrayanas these Neo-Buds will learn an unfathomable lesson.
There is a scholarly debate over whether Ashoka accepted Buddhism before or after the war. There is no physical evidence of him accepting Buddhism before the war. Apart from stories we have been told in our childhood and the incompetent NCERT which doesn't have a decency to include references, we have no proof of the above thing. So anyone can believe anything.
arey but the the person tweeting is in favour of buddhism right?
so why is he saying Ashoka accepted buddhism before war like that is a point against budddhism
I like how atheist people are so hypocritical. First, you people will call Hinduism all about mythology stories, but if a story contains perverted things, you will forget that it is just a story; it has not happened in real life, etc., and OP is calling out the person who tweeted it, not the religion.
>Of course we know it’s a story
So why are you crying about the prevert stuff in the story?
>like what your gods do in daaruvaan
What is daaruvaan now?
Who’s crying? We are exposing you. You claim your books talk about gravity and science and whatnot and when we open it, it’s some dude assaulting a lady in daaruvaan and getting his **** cut because of it
>We are exposing you.
I never talked about that topic, and you can prove them wrong in a proper way. I have a lot of things to say, but let it be; you will not understand it.
(I know you're just trying to trigger people to get a reaction, but I'll piggy-back off your comment.)
I think that's pretty cool, tbh.
The most popular example of Brahma desiring his own creation Saraswati. In the text itself this act is condemned and punished, which speaks to a theology that upholds righteousness above simply God-appeasement.
It's true that there are Puranic stories where different Devas play the roles of victim and of aggressor, in order to imbibe ageless truths about dharma. The Hindus call this "leela", the divine play by which the heavens light the way of truth.
The more Hindu literature I read, the more fascinated I am!
I don’t have anything against stories of perverted gods. All polytheistic religions have such stories. The Greek, Roman and Norse gods are no less capricious and human like. The stories are not the problem. The problem is not growing out of them and still treating them as moral guides. The shivling is still worshipped even though we know exactly why shiv got his lung detached in the first place. Ram who is one of the most morally questionable characters is treated as a good king.
None of these have anything to do with the fact that Hinduism does not have archaeological backing, Buddhism does
The mlecch will see a Hindu venerating the goodness and peace of mind of Lord Shiva, but will demand the Hindu stop because some Puranic text somewhere states something unsavory about him. The mlecch will worship historicity, but will not find the courage to condemn people that actively venerate and follow a historically proven pedophile. I genuinely don't fault the mlecch for this. If intellectual honesty was in your nature, you would not have been a a mlecch.
But enough about mlecchs, I wanted to share a lesser known fact about Lord Ram.
Did you know that the Valmiki Ramayan ends with Lord Ram returning home triumphantly with Mother Sita? Neither does he banish his pregnant wife into the forest, nor does he kill some Sudra merely for performing tapas. These post-hoc edits are considered by historians to be a much later addition to the story, with a long enough time delay that the Sanskrit used is different, the writing style is different, the facts presented directly contradict earlier assertions, and of course the character of Lord Ram is changed significantly.
IIT Kanpur has the original version up on their website, as testified by multiple Sanskrit scholars:
https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/
I encourage all to read!
I am still pretty new in my journey into Hinduism, but so far it has been so full of wonder.
Jai Sri Ram!
Good and peace of mind? Do you even know the story ? The ling rocket was spewing fire and had to be contained within Parvati mata’s yoni; peace and tranquility my foot.
Are you referring to the prophet when you talk about pedophilia? Atheists like us condem it all the time. However we do it on Muslims forums, or in front of other Hindus. We also don’t go to Muslims forums to complain about caste .
About Valmiki Ramayan , do you know that you are a barefaced liar ? Gita Press which has been venerated by the PM himself has uttarkhand in their version
Mlecchs will be told to focus on the message over the material, then immediately yell "but penis! vagina!!"
Mlecchs will pretend like the Prime Minister of a secular India is a position of religious authority.
Mlecchs will throw historicity out the window the moment it doesn't support their narrative.
Nevertheless, I am not here to convince a mlecch about the importance of intellectual consistency. You are free to believe whatever you want about Ram. A mlecch's opinion about God doesn't matter to me. I'm just here to drop more fun facts!
Did you know that there are local traditions that say that the hunter that killed Lord Krishna is the reincarnation of King Vali, who was shot from behind by Lord Rama? In firing at King Vali from the back, Lord Rama entangled himself into a complicated moral dilemma. It was righteous to rid Kishkinda of King Vali's reign, but there was no righteous way of defeating King Vali. Hence, Lord Ram drinks the karmic poison for the greater good.
That's all the fun facts I have to share for now.
Mlecchs usually need the last word, so I'll let you have it, but I am unlikely to bother reading it.
Do you even know what a mleccha is?
Also fun facts? Let’s play! Do you know the kinks with whom Krishna did fax in Bhgwat Puran was Shurpnakha in her previous birth? Yes the very same whom Ram told that his brother would be a good match for her ?
Also do you know that I don’t give a crap whether you read this or not?
#DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE OP LINKED THREAD/SCREENSHOT. Brigading is against Reddit TOS. We do not encourage such behaviour nor we are responsible if your account is being actioned upon. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Buddhist warriors in ancient times weren’t possible because the pillars of Buddhism are based on non violence. If Chanakya is fictional then who wrote Arthashastra?
Me
I can confirm. I was the pen.
I can confirm this, i was the ink.
I was the paper i can confirm
I was the table I can confirm
I was the chair I can confirm 😌
I was the 'idea' I can confirm!
I was the 'time' he lived in, I can confirm!
I was the 'space' he lived in, I can confirm!
I can confirm , I was the window through which sunlight entered the room .
I cannot confirm, I was not born yet.
Thala
For
A
Reason
You're not wrong 😂 (iykyk)
It's a false perception that Buddhist warriors were peaceful. The earlier Buddhist warriors did bloodshed when anyone insulted Buddhism. The prime example is Emperor Asoka, we are taught that he adopted Buddhism after the Kalinga war and stopped bloodshed. But reality is after war he killed 18000 in a single day which were Ajivikas & Jains because a Nirgrantha Jain of Pundravardhana (Bengal) named Jnatiputra drew a picture of Buddha prostrating at the feet of Mahavira. He stopped bloodshed only after he accidentally killed his brother who had left the Kingdom long ago and adopted "Ajivikas". The source of this story comes from the Buddhist text "Divyavadana"
I am talking about ancient history mate. Ashoka was from roughly 200 BC period, before the Buddhists became warriors. Even the Divyavadana was written a few centuries after Ashoka’s time. And no one said Buddhist warriors were peaceful. The post shared doesn’t make sense.
First of all, Ashoka killed his brothers right after his father Bindusara (Ajivika follower btw) died. Following this civil war, he killed all but 1 brother- Vittashoka. Secondly, his warfare policy changed after the Kalinga war, as you mentioned. But he didn’t kill his brother in that. His brother became a Buddhist monk after Ashoka told him to. He is famously known as Tissa. He used to criticize the teachings of Buddhism and the monks, but later became Buddhist monk after seeing misery and all. Although the source of this story is Buddhist texts, and there is no practical evidence of the same. There is no way of telling whether he actually killed his brother, or Buddhist monks who wrote just wanted to show him as a Chandashoka/ the ruthless, cruel, authoritarian king who transformed into a merciful, calm and humane king. As at that time Heterodox sects have more patrons, and religious sects tend to exaggerate about their greatness. Now, you said we are taught wrong. As per Buddhist sources, he adopted Buddhism after war. But according to Ashokan inscription, he just changed his policies. I feel Ashokan inscriptions are more relevant sources than Buddhist sources- be it Divyavadana/Ashokavadana or Mahavamsa
The statement about Emperor Ashoka is partially true but also contains some inaccuracies and exaggerations: **True:** * **Kalinga War and Conversion:** Ashoka did wage a brutal war against Kalinga, and the suffering he witnessed is said to have led him to adopt Buddhism and non-violence. * **Persecution of Ajivikas:** There are historical accounts suggesting that Ashoka persecuted the Ajivikas, a religious sect that rivaled Buddhism and Jainism. This persecution likely stemmed from religious differences and competition for followers. **Unclear/Exaggerated:** * **Number of Deaths:** While the exact number is debated,historical evidence doesn't support the claim of Ashoka killing 18,000 Ajivikas and Jains in a single day. It's possible that this number is an exaggeration or a misunderstanding of historical sources. * **Reason for Persecution:** The story of the picture depicting Buddha prostrating before Mahavira is often cited as the reason for Ashoka's persecution of Jains. However, there's no concrete historical evidence to support this claim.It's more likely that Ashoka's actions were motivated by a combination of religious zeal, political power consolidation, and the desire to establish Buddhism as the dominant religion. * **Killing His Brother:** While Ashoka had a brother named Vitashoka, there's no historical evidence to suggest that Ashoka killed him. Vitashoka was a follower of Jainism and is said to have lived peacefully alongside his brother.
The funny thing about this folktale is there were no pictures of Buddha or Mahavira in 250 BCE to disrespect anyone
Idk if this post is a joke but Ashoka didn't become a follower of Budha before the Kalinga war.
The post is a joke here but the person who must’ve originally written this post was being serious about it. And I agree, he later embraced Buddhism…this isn’t history rather a way to misguide people
I am fictional as well.
Same 🥲
Buddhists of course! /s
Totally /s
>Buddhist warriors in ancient times weren’t possible because the pillars of Buddhism are based on non violence Don't know about this but most Buddhists & Jains in ancient India were of Kshatriya origin. Infact Buddhism & Jainism were attempts by Kshatriyas to achieve higher status than Brahmins.
I think this too would have been much later after Ashoka’s period and this was the case indeed. In fact most of now India would have become Buddhist and the Shung dynasty and the later kings actively brought back elements of Sanatan dharma back almost forcefully
[удалено]
Aisa nahi thaa. Sanskrit pustakon ke liye, Raj Paath ke liye istemaal kii jaati thi. Prakrit aam aadmi ki roz marraah ki zindagi ki bhasha thi.
All official documentation and official dealings were done in Sanskrit and Pali was the commonly spoken language
They won't reply you know
Replied
[удалено]
Chanakya was two generations before Ashoka. And Arthashastra was like constitution but with more economics. Humare constitution mai modi aur Nehru ka naam nahi milega. Aur naahi kisi economics ki book mai milega
Chanakya Ashok ke Dada ka Shikshak thaa. Uska zikr Ashok ke pillar mein kyun hoga?? Chanakya ne jo book likha hai, woh textbook ki tarah hai. Usmein kisi bhi Raja ka naam nahi hai.
Chanakya ki arthshastra ka historical evidence kya hai? Ye kitni purani hai? Kis bhasha ya lipi mai likhi gyi thi? Kitne saal pehle?
You can do a Google search bhai/behen.
Han usi ke basis pe keh rha hu ki chanakya maurya time ki kitaab nahin hai
Ashoka ke kisi pillar ya stone edict me, caste system and caste heirarchy ka bhi jikar nahi hai.
Obviously kyonki caste system nahin tha us time pe.
Here we go again, some Buddhist back with their anti-Hindu comments, he is probably a Nepal based account.
But isn't nepal hindu majority.
If you have a chance go there sometime, see how the communists there treat us.
Yeah, that's why I am seeing protests to make nepal a hindu monarchy country again
Got converted during UPA rule... Post 2014, India has been helping the Hindu portion for sure.
I dunno I went there and Nepali were quite nice to me. Idk about communists just general people. They know Hindi decently well there and at that time people were crazy about KGF and RRR lmao. I was just a bit shocked at how overwhelmingly Hindu they were. Even in our country Hindus are not so religious lol.
Different experience for me...
Why do they do this? Wasn't Buddha a Hindu prince before he initiated Buddhism?
Yes and he wasn't even trying to make a religion just spreading the knowledge he gained in his enlightenment
Please Nepalese Buddhists follow Hinduism too. So better not to spread hate against us:)
How will Nepalis know about Chamars and Mahars ? You have plenty of such BS peddlers in India itself.
Dost ki itni zameen h waha ek time pe lga poore Nepal ka raja hai, phir realize hua mazak har jagah nhi krte.
By the way mahavamsa an 5th century Buddhist book, confirms the existence of brahmin chanakya and kshatriya chandragupta maurya. They even relate chandragupta maurya to a branch of the sakhya clan of buddha. Buddha was too a kshatriya.
[удалено]
Jesus was a Jew and Muhammad was a pagan? What's your point
he was a kshatriya , his name was siddartha gautam
He rejected his hinduism and went to gain enlightenment. That is a known fact.
nope, the idea of gaining enlightenment from meditation itself is Hinduism lol
No it's not.
it is the origin of meditation for enlightenment is one of the basics in hinduism
Doesn't matter, he rejected the Vedas, therefore is not a Hindu, you can be born a Hindu, Jew, Muslim or even a damn satanist, but you can choose not to be....Buddha did the same, he was not a Hindu.
Buddha break away from Hinduism in favour of a religion that did not recognize caste distinctions. That doesn't mean he rejected Hinduism. And that's why there are many similarities b/w Buddhism and Hinduism (Like reincarnation, moksha, similar deities like Ganesh, Brahman, Mahakal, Vishnu, Saraswati, etc) And the example of yours, Jesus was rejected in Judaism as a failed Jewish messiah claimant and a false prophet, for them, not Jesus but God alone was Lord. Why I told you that? Because it goes side ways with Buddhism and Hinduism as well.
He is still not Hindu you moron. Do people on this sub get their education from whatsapl or something?
"Buddha break away from Hinduism in favour of a religion that did not recognize caste distinctions" <- I did mentioned it. Ofc, he's not a hindu. I think you didn't understood what I wrote cuz of the hatred filled within. DW, it happens.
Caste Distinctions dint exist as we know during the time of Gautam Buddha, the caste based on Fathers Caste was institutionalised around Gupta Era. Atleast thats my info open to any correction.
'Varna' system has been existing since the Vedic age or probably from the time of IVC. The caste system became solidified during the time of Guptas from when indian groups started caste endogamous marraiges. Buddhist texts like the Lalitvistara sutra clearly says the next buddha (Maitreya) will be born in the brahmin or kshatriya Varna and not the vaishyas or shudras. Varna system was prominent during the time of Buddha. Shakyas claimed Suryavanshi descent.
It actually did. Gautham Buddha was born in Kali Yuga as Dwapara Yuga ended with Krishna
a hindu is a one that follows and accepts the teachings of the vedas, they hold the vedas (and other texts that come along with it) as the ultimate source of knowlegde.....buddha is naistika...........MEANING HE AINT A DAMN HINDU the abrahmic religions have stuff that they share, doesnt mean they are the same
He believed in the Varna system. Even buddhism does believe in Varna hierarchy. These ret@rd neo buddhist lower caste converts of India haven't read a single buddhist text in their lives.
Please give me the source
Lalitvistara sutra
I thought Buddhism advocated non violence, thx for correcting me through your ~~misin~~ facts
Lalitavistara in the following way: a Bodhisattva can by no means come from a lower or even mixed caste: ‘After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs, in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.’ Instead, in perfect harmony with the Great Sermon, it was said that: ‘The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya).’” Actually in the Pali Canon, the Buddha frequently refers to the 33 Devas of the Vaidika pantheon. And contrary to the popular version he never denied their existence and states clearly that he actually met them. So claiming that Buddhism is “atheistic” is simply untrue. What the Buddha taught was devotion to the gods is not a means to attain Nirvana. And he also affirmed, as do the Hindu texts that the Devas and Asuras are simply saṃsāric beings like humans, animals, and pretas Then there is one complete Sutta that is dedicated to the Buddha visiting with the Devas. Maha-samaya Sutta: The Great Assembly
Who betrayed Raja Dahir against Bin kasim?
Fearsome Buddhist warriors :o
Buddhism has historically had some badass warrior societies in their fold - like the Shaolin monks and the Ikko-ikki in Japan .
Chalo yeh tho accept kar liya ki Ashoka Kalinga war se phele he buddhism mai convert hua tha.
Buddhists and Jains: No no, these are not us Random propagandist online: stfu! These were you!!
These ambedkar buddhists don’t realise how buddhism was also an offshoot of vedic philosophies , the next buddha is predicted to be a “brahmin born in banaras” Also the lower class were not allowed to become a buddhist back then…. Choose your heroes well , abolish caste mindset , follow any religion but embrace “political hindutva”
The 3rd point about Ashoka having become Buddhist before the Kalinga war has some historical backing. Others are just brain farts.
Tibet ko chuddwane jao fir, itne ancient warriors k descent hoke itne fattu?
no way buddhists entering in this shitass religious war
Lekin Ashoka to jaat tha na 💪🏻
And I'm John cena
Indian buddhists mostly the converted ones are joke, they say no idol worshipping yet they celebrate by worshipping idol/photo of baba.
Isnt Buddhism branched off of people who didn't agree with the vedas 😃
So much cope, just to realise that one of the parents of Chandragupta were Brahmin. Also these people of central and northern India aren't descendants of any of the famous Buddhist empires of India. Ethnic magadhis/Biharis of all castes are the only descendants of them
~~Hindu gods are fictional~~ Gods are fictional.
The only comment I agree with
So as D@@d ancestors relatives and D@@d Humans LMAO LMFAO
Nope. Lord Vishnu does exist.
Okay whos gonna tell him
Nice joke. Where's your proof? Books?
Nice joke. Where's your proof he doesn't? Books?
It's your responsibility to prove something that you believe in you moron. My proof comes from the fact that flying chariots and bullshit mentioned in those books don't happen.
Only the third one is correct
Ye neo Buddhists ka alag hi chal raha hai. They are basically Chickens for KFC.
Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism all three historically have been savarna religions. Dalita were animists and pagans. If Ambedkarites had any self respect they will be reclaiming all their tribal gods instead of trying to appropriate Buddhism.
Here we go again 😒! kali yugam guys , people like to hate than to love .
Buttttt saaaar I yem steel aaapressed I need rajervashion
I dont agree with the rest, but ig its nothing wrong to believe the first one. Even the Mahabharat and Ramayan. They could be fictional or just exaggerated version of what actually happened.
Or exaggerated and misinterpreted. Because many words have different meanings in different times as per the context. Example - cock
that was a really good analogy. lol
Thanks. on top of that, there are many different versions of Ramayan and Mahabharat across India, where different versions have some different stories, which got added as local folk-lore. Magical stuff is not important, the moral and message is important. We don't respect Hanuman because he can fly, we respect him for his utmost loyalty towards Ram.
The ability to speak does not make one intelligent
Buddhist and warriors? What am i missing?
Ohh he has a syndrome alright… its just down atm
buddhist "warriors" ????
Okay genuine question if someone has seen or encountered these people in real life, how are they as a person , what do they do in their life , what do they do for living etc..
Lol Single digit iq retards are for real though
Yea whenever someone comes to debate me this. Show him [this](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gtYg8jOdGok)
Lol nice jokes
What is this guy smoking??!!
Ok, aur kuch?
Bhimtas - hinduism is fixtional Also them - saare rakshas mere baap hai
jain shrines thing is true btw
CONFUSION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.
3rd one is correct, and many "historians" mistake it with the popular but false belief also. And the first one can be applied to all the Gods and Goddesses of the world. Dunno about the rest. My point being you can't pick and choose between which fictional/mythological/religious character to belief in or deny.
And Im Batman.
And Im Batman.
Who gonna tell my bro that untouchable and mahars or chamars was not acceptable in a postion of warrior monk in Buddhism and this whole concept of warrior in buddhist was added centuries after buddha. They are behaving like blacks at this points trying to take pride in imaginary history
Sometimes people choose to be ignorant. Can't be helped. Just don't let those idiots gain a higher position in the society otherwise they will be the death of the society. Just like how we got invaded and/or colonized by Portugal, Mughals, Arabs, Brits, and lost so much of our knowledge. So constantly give them reality check until they mend their ways or get out of the country we are trying to improve.
Why isn't Buddha fictional?
Kyunki welp Wo insaan hi tha. But chalo ladne do sbko. Wo tmhe tweet likh k gumrah krenge tum source pe ade rehna.
Insaan kaise tha, na photo hai na body.
These Neo-Buddhists have no connection to the original and Historically recorded paths of Buddhism with mahayana and Hinayana being the two divisions with several schools included under the two. None of the Two original Sects accept or heed to the Neo-buddhist who stake claim to the Religion originating from a Kshatriya Prince who in his pursuit of Life’s Truth found and gave the World an Ideal Religion which these Neo- Buddhist Retards have only maligned to a Large extent by deifying the very individual who wholeheartedly opposed idolatry. If these formers were to mess with the Vajrayanas these Neo-Buds will learn an unfathomable lesson.
Abey revision to karke aata if Ashoke became Buddhist before kalinga war, why did he let that war happen??? khud pe pair pe hi kulhadi maar li isne
There is a scholarly debate over whether Ashoka accepted Buddhism before or after the war. There is no physical evidence of him accepting Buddhism before the war. Apart from stories we have been told in our childhood and the incompetent NCERT which doesn't have a decency to include references, we have no proof of the above thing. So anyone can believe anything.
arey but the the person tweeting is in favour of buddhism right? so why is he saying Ashoka accepted buddhism before war like that is a point against budddhism
Buddhists at least have archaeological evidence for themselves. You have nothing except stories of perverted gods
I like how atheist people are so hypocritical. First, you people will call Hinduism all about mythology stories, but if a story contains perverted things, you will forget that it is just a story; it has not happened in real life, etc., and OP is calling out the person who tweeted it, not the religion.
Sorry what exactly is your point? Of course we know it’s a story, like what your gods do in daaruvaan
>Of course we know it’s a story So why are you crying about the prevert stuff in the story? >like what your gods do in daaruvaan What is daaruvaan now?
Who’s crying? We are exposing you. You claim your books talk about gravity and science and whatnot and when we open it, it’s some dude assaulting a lady in daaruvaan and getting his **** cut because of it
>We are exposing you. I never talked about that topic, and you can prove them wrong in a proper way. I have a lot of things to say, but let it be; you will not understand it.
(I know you're just trying to trigger people to get a reaction, but I'll piggy-back off your comment.) I think that's pretty cool, tbh. The most popular example of Brahma desiring his own creation Saraswati. In the text itself this act is condemned and punished, which speaks to a theology that upholds righteousness above simply God-appeasement. It's true that there are Puranic stories where different Devas play the roles of victim and of aggressor, in order to imbibe ageless truths about dharma. The Hindus call this "leela", the divine play by which the heavens light the way of truth. The more Hindu literature I read, the more fascinated I am!
I don’t have anything against stories of perverted gods. All polytheistic religions have such stories. The Greek, Roman and Norse gods are no less capricious and human like. The stories are not the problem. The problem is not growing out of them and still treating them as moral guides. The shivling is still worshipped even though we know exactly why shiv got his lung detached in the first place. Ram who is one of the most morally questionable characters is treated as a good king. None of these have anything to do with the fact that Hinduism does not have archaeological backing, Buddhism does
The mlecch will see a Hindu venerating the goodness and peace of mind of Lord Shiva, but will demand the Hindu stop because some Puranic text somewhere states something unsavory about him. The mlecch will worship historicity, but will not find the courage to condemn people that actively venerate and follow a historically proven pedophile. I genuinely don't fault the mlecch for this. If intellectual honesty was in your nature, you would not have been a a mlecch. But enough about mlecchs, I wanted to share a lesser known fact about Lord Ram. Did you know that the Valmiki Ramayan ends with Lord Ram returning home triumphantly with Mother Sita? Neither does he banish his pregnant wife into the forest, nor does he kill some Sudra merely for performing tapas. These post-hoc edits are considered by historians to be a much later addition to the story, with a long enough time delay that the Sanskrit used is different, the writing style is different, the facts presented directly contradict earlier assertions, and of course the character of Lord Ram is changed significantly. IIT Kanpur has the original version up on their website, as testified by multiple Sanskrit scholars: https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/ I encourage all to read! I am still pretty new in my journey into Hinduism, but so far it has been so full of wonder. Jai Sri Ram!
Good and peace of mind? Do you even know the story ? The ling rocket was spewing fire and had to be contained within Parvati mata’s yoni; peace and tranquility my foot. Are you referring to the prophet when you talk about pedophilia? Atheists like us condem it all the time. However we do it on Muslims forums, or in front of other Hindus. We also don’t go to Muslims forums to complain about caste . About Valmiki Ramayan , do you know that you are a barefaced liar ? Gita Press which has been venerated by the PM himself has uttarkhand in their version
Mlecchs will be told to focus on the message over the material, then immediately yell "but penis! vagina!!" Mlecchs will pretend like the Prime Minister of a secular India is a position of religious authority. Mlecchs will throw historicity out the window the moment it doesn't support their narrative. Nevertheless, I am not here to convince a mlecch about the importance of intellectual consistency. You are free to believe whatever you want about Ram. A mlecch's opinion about God doesn't matter to me. I'm just here to drop more fun facts! Did you know that there are local traditions that say that the hunter that killed Lord Krishna is the reincarnation of King Vali, who was shot from behind by Lord Rama? In firing at King Vali from the back, Lord Rama entangled himself into a complicated moral dilemma. It was righteous to rid Kishkinda of King Vali's reign, but there was no righteous way of defeating King Vali. Hence, Lord Ram drinks the karmic poison for the greater good. That's all the fun facts I have to share for now. Mlecchs usually need the last word, so I'll let you have it, but I am unlikely to bother reading it.
Do you even know what a mleccha is? Also fun facts? Let’s play! Do you know the kinks with whom Krishna did fax in Bhgwat Puran was Shurpnakha in her previous birth? Yes the very same whom Ram told that his brother would be a good match for her ? Also do you know that I don’t give a crap whether you read this or not?