does it matter if an indian is aryan or not? Does being "aryan" give
the indian some special status in the society? and whatever makes one
think that being an "aryan" is for some reason better than not being an
"aryan"...
The "aryan " word got its worth from being associated with India.
The "special" you are refering is accquired by the aryan term for its association with India..
List the greatness of "Aryan" nothing
really..." It is a generic term referign to nobleness. But only
present day people of countries that are devoid of any kind of
civilization and acheivemtns or whose civilizatrion has been wiped out
beyond recoganisation by Islam and Christianity want its appropriation
to them.
"Aryan" accquired that special status
not becuae of their blue eyes fare color, but precisely the lofty
acheivemtns in the realms of philosophy, culture, science, astronomy,
arts, by the Indians.
A fare color, blue eyed man will still be called a
barbarian than a learned scientific cultured dark person..
People dont understand that, and basic
concepts they seem to ignore is that physical features tend to evolve
depending on the place where u live...
We care a damn whether we are refered to as
Aryans or negoroes or native Americans or mongoloid.. What we pride and
cherish is the acheivements of our ancestors and forefather.....who
gaev us what the forfathers and ancestors of other countries didnt gave
their people...
Why are you upset that many Pakistani's don't want anything to
do with Hindu-India, if your an "untouchable" in Hindu society life
isn't too
great, Islam gave them a chance of equality and being accepted.
if as u claim that Buddhism was widely
prevelant in pakisthan, then where does the question arise of coversion
to Isalm from Buddhism( in which their isnt any sort of caste system.)
U should know that fact that Pakisthan is a
Buddhist bastion as my friend Teledemuz claims, but how ironical that
there are no buddhist from pakistha what does it suggest where have
they gone.. Did they convert to islam, if they did what were the
causes. u dont tell me the philosophy of Islam and the ethical life of
Mohamamd( as per ur beleif) were very tempting for the Buddhist to
convert(hahahhah)
Islam's spread in india was
forcefull and through opression with discriminatroy laws, that is well
known why would u want to paint a glossy picture of the murderes spread
of Isalm..
May be some would have converted
like what is happening in the prison of US, where isalm gives a gtreat
chance to jsutify the acts of brutality if it was for the cause of
Allah.
Read ur prophets biogrpahy,
if it is jusdged with universal standards of ethics and morality, he
will not even deserve to be called a good person forget abt prophet
hood.
Let's be honest, Hindu society caused many people to embrace
Buddhism, people objected to the race system, Islam was also popular
due to the Race-System, I don't know why you always bash muslims but
don't question yourselves aswell.
Any inscription or any literature of that time
testifying ur opinion that People took Buddhism becoz of Hindu caste
System....
They were mere constructions of 19th century missionaries.....
A religion which promotes slavery and whose prophet himslef took slaves
here comes arguing that Islam sopread becoz of race system...
Are u guys blind not to note Muslims traded in slavery and they were primary traders...of this art..
Buddhism was categorised as religion only in
recent times, it is a philosophy in India and if u need clarifications
may u contact Dalai Lama.
Buddha is a god in India for his contribution but he is a villa and worst than villan ion islamic countries...
Muslims start questioning yourselves , ur heaven is full
of ignorants, illeterates and uncivilized because of ur beleif...
While ur hell is populated by the Buddha, Krishna,
Snakaracharya, jewish noble laurets and scholars from the infedel
world....Eevn ur hell will exceed the grace of ur heaven by the
presence of these intellectuals only again to rake ur jealousy and
wanting Allah to bestow Hell ....
This topic is not about the Caste system. If you look through the forum there is already a topic on it.
Around the time of the White Huns Bhuddhism was in the decline, with people beginning to convert to Hinduism again. This was short lived due to the invasion of Muslim empires. In reality it is alot more complicated than this, this is just to sum it up in a paragraph.
Also, look at the year, around the same time the Buddha lived
Not really. The Archaemid (Persian) Empire did cross the Indus, at least into West Punjab. Sindh also became incorporated into the Persian Empire, probably later.
It's not impossible for Zoroastrianism to have been a main religion for a very short period, but it was probably just a mixture of religions, like Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, Vedic worship and later Buddhism. But the religion wasnt Hinduism. You can see this from the Mahaharata (about 400 BC) quote..
Those (Arrata) regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas (ancient Pakistanis) who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.'
The "aryan " word got its worth from being associated with India. The "special" you are refering is accquired by the aryan term for its association with India.. List the greatness of "Aryan" nothing really..." It is a generic term referign to nobleness. But only present day people of countries that are devoid of any kind of civilization and acheivemtns or whose civilizatrion has been wiped out beyond recoganisation by Islam and Christianity want its appropriation to them. "Aryan" accquired that special status not becuae of their blue eyes fare color, but precisely the lofty acheivemtns in the realms of philosophy, culture, science, astronomy, arts, by the Indians. A fare color, blue eyed man will still be called a barbarian than a learned scientific cultured dark person.. People dont understand that, and basic concepts they seem to ignore is that physical features tend to evolve depending on the place where u live... We care a damn whether we are refered to as Aryans or negoroes or native Americans or mongoloid.. What we pride and cherish is the acheivements of our ancestors and forefather.....who gaev us what the forfathers and ancestors of other countries didnt gave their people...
Funny stuff..Anyway..I dont think Hitler or Stormfront activists have Indians in mind when calling themselves "Aryan". Aryan isnt very strictly defined, and one or two of their civilizations were perhaps advanced, but the Aryans didnt enter India till very recently, and in few numbers, so it must be just you making the association between Aryan and India.
Sorry,
teledemuz....... I wish to know about what u think of Hitler and
Stormfront had in mind when they refered themsleves to Aryans. I
do'nt care if they were referingto the Indians...but you should not
fail to note the European philosophers like Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
(1694-1774), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe (1749-1832), Frederich vonSchlegel (1772-1829), Niels Henrik David Bohr, (1885-1962)ohn
Archibald Wheeler,
(1911 - ),Herbert
George H. G. Wells (1866 -1946),William Butler Yeats
(1856-1939) etc.......
Do u have any idea of who the above peopel were. I didnt give the full
list of people, They are considered pioneers in their respective
countries, and do u have any idea of what the influence of their works
have had...They have one thing in common, their writings about India
and its philosophy was a prime reason for the later invention of Aryan
term to appropriate these acheivemtns to them which will liberate the
Imperialist of their colonisation of India.....
U'll
really leave ur breath if I started quoting them about India, so I'll
not they all were pioneers and world renowned not like obscure scholars
whom the muslims put forward to claim secret science in Quran etc.....
The Buddha is not a God. He was a prophet.
anuj their is a lot of
difference between prophet and Avatar...Do u know that...I guess u
would have.....Now Buddha is considered an Avatar in Hinduism. Do u
know what the term avatar accords to that person..
Krishna was an Avatar, Rama was an avaatar they were not
prohets..Krishna, Rama are gods in India, if u dont agree that, I am a
Hindu so my opinion counts more than u scholarship Hindu beleifs...
As buddh is an avatar, He is a god for Hindus...It is another matter if
he is not worshipped dedicatedly as some other avatars, so do the
avatars of "Kurma","varaha",""matsya","vamana",..these avatars are not
as much worshipped too....
But find me one hindu who doesnt fold his hands before Buddha
...but you should not fail to note the European philosophers like Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1774), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832),Frederich vonSchlegel (1772-1829), Niels Henrik David Bohr, (1885-1962)ohn Archibald Wheeler, (1911 - ),Herbert George H. G. Wells (1866 -1946),William Butler Yeats (1856-1939) etc....... Do u have any idea of who the above peopel were. I didnt give the full list of people, They are considered pioneers in their respective countries, and do u have any idea of what the influence of their works have had...They have one thing in common, their writings about India and its philosophy was a prime reason for the later invention of Aryan term to appropriate these acheivemtns to them which will liberate the Imperialist of their colonisation of India..... U'll really leave ur breath if I started quoting them about India,
You're simply going off on one now. I doubt it'll get through, but I'm not interested in your quotes on Hinduism, I can find many quotes on many different things. What I'm looking for is for you to show me a link to a quote where someone says that Indian philosophy and achievements gave rise to the term Aryan/Aryanism?
Then u might
look for some Hindu fundamentalist scholar or heavily influenced person
to find quotes regarding " Indian philosophy and acheivements gave rise
to the term Aryan/Aryanism"..
Even asking such
things is absurd because it cant be proven at all..so whats the
point....
It seems u
are copletly ignorant about the background in whcih the aryan and
aryanism came into propagation in Europe ......
All those
scholars hardly mention anything about Aryanism and Aryan. these terms
were invented by scholars who were influenced by political reasons and
funded for political reasons.... Max Muller is one such scholar.. Now
his scholarship was influenced by political ideology and missionary
ideal is a well know fact, first he categorised Aryans as race and then
he retreated saying that Aryan was a grouping based on llinguistic
basis...
The elites of Europeans were greatly
influenced by the writings of those scholars and political reason took
over and in a bid to build natioanlism Hitler used this term Aryan as
made the germans beleive who were already influenced by those scholars
that it is the Aryans who acheived all this and it we rightly deserve
to rule the World....
Voltaire quotes
" We have shown how much we (Europeans) surpass the Indians in courage and
wickedness, and how inferior to them we are in wisdom.Our
European nations have mutually destroyed themselves in this land where we only
go in search of money, while the first Greeks traveled to the same land only to
instruct themselves." " I am convinced that
everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, - astronomy,
astrology, metempsychosis, etc."
" It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least
Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry...But he would
certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the
Brahmins' science not been long established in Europe..."
source: The
Invasion That Never Was- By Michel Danino and
Sujata Nahar p. 12 - 13 and 18 and 90 - 91
Refer to Voltaire, Lettres
sur l'origine des sciences et sur celle des peuples de l'Asia (first
published Paris, 1777), letter of 15 December 1775. and Voltaire,
Fragments historiques sur l'linde, p. 444 - 445.
He found that India was the home of religion in
its oldest and purest form. He described India as a country "on
which all other countries had to rely, but which did not rely on anyone
else." He also believed that
Christianity derived from Hinduism. He wrote to and assured
Fredrick the Great of Prussia that "our
holy Christian religion is solely based upon the ancient religion of
Brahma."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860),
German philosopher and writer. He was one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th
century. He was the first Western philosopher to have access to translations of
philosophical material from India, both Vedic and Buddhist, by which he was
profoundly affected. Counted among his disciples are such thinkers as Nietzsche
and Wittgenstein, as well as Sigmund Freud, who takes a large part of his
psychological theory from the writings of Schopenhauer.
No other major Western philosopher
so signalizes the turn towards India, combined with a disenchantment with the
European-Christian tradition. He proclaimed the
concordance of his philosophy with the teachings of Vedanta. His
contribution to the propagation and popularization of Indian concepts has been
considerable.
Schopenhauer became acquainted with the thought of the
Upanishads through a Latin translation from Persian by a
Frenchman, Anquetil Duperron. His eulogy is well known.
"The Indian air surrounds us,
the original thoughts of kindred spirits.....And O! how the mind is here washed
clean of all its early ingrafted Jewish superstition! It is the most profitable
and most elevating reading which is possible in the world."
source: Eastern
Religions and Western Thought- by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
p
248 and Hinduism
Invades America - By Wendell Thomas p. 240 published by The Beacon Press Inc. New York City 1930).
"How
entirely does the Oupnekhat (Upanishad) breathe throughout the holy spirit of
the Vedas! How is every one, who by a diligent study of its Persian Latin has
become familiar with that incomparable book, stirred by that spirit to the very
depth of his Soul!
"From every sentence (of the Upanishads) deep, original and sublime
thoughts arise, and the whole is pervaded by a high and holy and earnest
spirit...."In the whole
world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads.
They are destined sooner or later to become the faith of the people." Schopenhauer, who was in the habit,
before going to bed, of performing his devotions from the pages of the
Upanishads, regarded them as:
" It has
been the solace of my life -- it will be the solace of my death."
(source:The
Discovery of India - By Jawaharlal Nehru Oxford University Press. 1995. pg
92 and The
Upanishads Translated for the Modern Reader By Eknath
Easwaran
Nilgiri Press. 1987 p. 300 and Outlines
of Hinduism - By T. M. P. Mahadevan - p.30).
He anticipated later speculations
with his claim that Christianity had "Indian blood in its veins" and
that the moral teachings of the New Testament had their historical source in
Asia beyond Israel: "Christianity taught only what the whole of Asia knew
already long before and even better"
(source: Oriental
Enlightenment: The encounter between Asian and Western thought - By J. J.
Clarke p.68-69).
To Schopenhauer
the Upanishads were documents of 'almost superhuman
conception,' whose authors could hardly be thought of as 'mere mortals.'
He also remarked: "How every
line is of such strong, determined, and consistent meaning! And on every page we
encounter deep, original, lofty thoughts, while the whole world is suffused with
a high and holy seriousness."
(source: cited in German in Upanishaden: Altindische Weisheit
(Upanishads: Ancient Indian Wisdom) - By Alfred
Hillebrandt (Dussseldorf-Koln, Germany; Diederichs Verlag, 1964 p. 8).
He spoke of India as the 'fatherland of mankind' which 'gave the
original religion of our race,' and he expressed the hope that European peoples, 'who
stemmed from Asia,...would re-attain the religion of their home.'
He believed that the Upanishads, together with the philosophies of Plato and Kant, constituted
the foundation on which to erect a proper philosophy of representation. It was
the Upanishads' analysis of the self which caused Schopenhauer to stamp them as
" the product of the highest human wisdom". He dedicated
himself to this task, producing his magnum opus,The World as Will and Representation,
in 1819. This is what he says in this book:
"We, on the contrary, now send to the Brahmans
English clergymen and evangelical linen-weavers, in order out of sympathy to put them
right, and to point out to them that they are created out of nothing, and that they ought
to be grateful and pleased about it. But it is just the same as if we fired a bullet at a
cliff.
"In India, our religions will never at any time take root; the ancient
wisdom of the human race will not be supplanted by the events in Galilee. On the contrary,
Indian wisdom flows back to Europe, and will produce a fundamental change in our knowledge
and thought." source: The
World as Will and Representation - By Arthur Schopenhauer Volume I,
& 63 p. 356-357).
"According to me, the influence of Sanskrit literature on our time
will not be lesser than what was in the 16th century Greece's influence on
Renaissance. One day, India's wisdom will flow
again on Europe and will totally transform our knowledge and thought."
Schopenhauer, had extracted from
Indian philosophy its contempt for the mere intellect. He
admitted extracting his philosophical outlook from the Vedanta and attempting to
weld "empirical realism" with transcendental idealism."
"Schopenhauer went on from
there to vindicate Indian philosophy's rightful place in the world.." He
even went so far as to express pleasure at the continuous failure of
West-Christian proselytism in Asia and added: "Our religions will never at any time take root; the ancient
wisdom of the human race will not be supplanted by the events in Galilee. On the contrary,
Indian wisdom flows back to Europe, and will produce a fundamental change in our knowledge
and thought." His anti-Christianism was largely based on a fierce
anti-Biblism; .....he attributed systematically to subtle influences originating
on the "holy-banks of the Ganges."
The Upanishads
came to Schopenhauer as a new Gnosis or revelation. "That incomparable book,"
he says, "stirs the spirit of the very depths of the soul."
Schopenhauer was fond of saying that
the first intuition of the work he was to do came to him while
reading these texts, of which he was later to say that they had
been his lifes consolation.
Now do u need some
Noble lauretes, Atomic physcists, and scietists famous and pioneers,
all world renowned. DO u want me quote them, it is their propagation of
the acheivemtns of the Hindus and Indians that led the the invention of
the Aryan invasion theory that gave the political and missionary
ideologues of britishers to steal and approprita Indias acheivemtns to
outsiders ans thus justfyini their colonilism saying even the locals
were one time invaders.....
Everything you just posted I just skipped past. Why? Because I did not ask you to post quotes on Hindus, I even said specifically I'm not interested in quotes on Hinduism in a previous post, I can find the same for Buddhism, Sikhism, Christianity, any religion. What I did ask was for a quote saying that Indian philosophy and achievements gave rise to the term Aryan/Aryanism
The Rig Veda actually doesnt appear to be very related to Hinduism either. It was written about 1000 BC somewhere in the Indus Valley (Pakistan area). One verse tells of the eating of cows..
11 Let us serve Agni with our hymns, Disposer, fed on ox and cow, Who bears the Soma on his back.
Rig Veda, XII, 43, 11
Hellenism isnt too far off what Harrapan migrants were practising going by the Rig Veda.
It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to lookbeyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage ofthe majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settledagriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, andagriculture arriving to India together through the northwestcorridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recent claims fora linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneousorigin for the majority of the Indian castes' paternal lineagesfrom outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findingsdo support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H."
And the full quote is
"It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes� paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2 indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia."
Already answered below: Lastly you forget that the 1000 year
contact with muslims of Iran and Persia has resulted in presence of J2
in some Indian genes which is not surprising.
The surprising thing is that J2 is only present in the castes of India, and not the tribals. You get it now?
Sahoo says J2 is present in miniscule quantities in
Indians. Remember, in north west India, Sikhism converted
people from Islam. Hindus cannot convert any non hindu into
a Hindu. Hindus do intermarry with Sikhs.
So, once again, presence of miniscule amounts of J2 in Indian
population is not surprising because of 1000 year contact of
Arabs/Islam/Iranians in India.
Scholars like Sahoo have correctly, rejected the invasion of west Asian
Aryans in forming the Hindu culture. Get this into your head.
Originally posted by DigVijay
Conjecture
only that links Pauravas with Porus. It is false. Porus was just
a very small (in terms of the size of his kingdom) vassal of Magadha.
If Pauravas was a Vassal of Magadha, then why did the Magadha not help Porus against Alexander?
There was no need to. Purshottama was victorious with an army 1/50th the size of Magadha.
Originally posted by Digvijay
Just pointing out that Stone did good research
in making this movie in case you cannot find Badge's book you should
see the movie. And of course it goes without saying that Stone has no
agenda in showing that Alexander lost.
If you had read the quote or been able to read it, you will see it says that Porus did lose it.
Have you watched the movie or are you talking air?
Originally posted by Digvijay
We are taking about current Pakistani soil and Afghani soil not iran.
The Greco Bactrians were never a part of modern day India. Provide a neutral link if you can saying that it was.
You should read more carefully. Bactrian Greeks ruled over modern Iran.
Originally posted by Digvijay
Complete nonsense. Rajputs are not Scythians. Modern historians club any unidentified tribe as scythians.
That's true.
Originally posted by Digvijay
If you are my vassal, I AM RULING OVER YOU. They ruled all the way upto the borders of Iran.
The area of Pakistan was a tributary state of the Guptas meaning that it had to pay tribute to them, but they ruled themselves.
They were still vassals under Gupta suzernaity no matter how you dice it.
Originally posted by Digvijay
Do you know who Mihirkula was? Do you know he worshipped Shiva?
The Religion It
is equally inconsistent while comparing the references to the
Hephthalites' religion. Although Sung Yun and Hui Sheng reported that
the Hephthalites did not believe in Buddhism, though there is ample
archaeological evidence that this religion was practiced in territories
under Hephthalite control. According to Liang shu the Hephthalites worshiped Heaven and also fire
- a clear reference to Zoroastrianism. However the burials found seem
to indicate the normal practice in disposing of the dead, which is
against Zoroastrian belief.
a) Were Pandavas Hindu? Yes. b) Were Kaurava Hindu? Yes. c) Who was Kaurava's mother? Gandhari. d) Was Gandhari Hindu? Yes. e) Where was Gandhari from? Gandhar. e) Where is Gandhar? Modern Afghanistan. f) Why is Kashmir called Kashmir? It is a sandhi of Kashyap+Mer. g) What is Mer? Mountain. h) Who was Kashyap? A Hindu sage. i) Bhandarkar's work on Ashoka's inscriptions is world renowned.
I do not think anything will be clear to you because you have some kind
of religio politico agenda that you are pushing.
-Digs
Almost everything you have posted has come from the Mahabharata which was written 300BC - 500 BC.
Wrong!. Sir W. Jones has dated Manu Smriti to 1280 BC and
Eliphinstone to 900 BC. Monier Williams says on Page 236 of his book
(Indian Wisdom or examples of .....) that portions of Mahabharata are
older then Manu.
Gandhara existed before this time. So say there is a place called
Gandhara, the legend then creates a Princess called Gandhari..This does
not mean Gandhara is derived from her - the princess in the legend is derived from the place.
The origins of Gandhara are probably before the Vedic times.
Probably again! Look you have a religious agenda. It is abundantly
clear now. Regardless Gandhari was named after Gandhar, whose
King was the Hindu ruler whose daughter married Dhritrasthra.
The origin of Gandhara is lost in legendary obscurity. Though mentioned in Vedic literature,
Vedas are dated to 3500 BC so take the persian inscription crap somewhere else.
we find the first historical allusion to it in the Bisotoun Inscription of Darius I, dated 518 BC, which
records Gandhara as conquered province. Since then, it remained under
Persians as prosperous Satrapy, paying the largest tribute to Imperial
coffers. Its particular geographical location, its flourishing trade
and commerce, its arts and crafts, nurtured in unbroken peace, assured
its continued prosperity.
The names of the places became characters in
Hindu legends, the places though were not derived from the Hindu
legends
Otherway round. Places of Modern Aghanistan/Pakistan were
named after Hindus who ruled these places and now Pakis are trying to
obfuscate history. That is all.
Kashmir actually means "land dessicated from water". 'ka� (water) and Shimeer (to desicate). The Nilvat Puran again talks about legends and demons, which you seem to believe are true.
Oh Mahabharata is true and Puran is not! Grow up! Kashmir is after Kashyap rishi not some Shimeer non-sense.
Why are you upset that many Pakistani's don't want anything to do with Hindu-India,
Who is asking them to and who cares? What we care about is the
distortion of history and facts to suit there political agenda that
Hindus did not rule over the pakistani and afghani land in antiquity.
if your an "untouchable" in Hindu society life isn't too great, Islam gave them a chance of equality and being accepted.
Dude you are absolutely clueless. In India even today a Hindu
untouchable WOULD NOT convert to Islam, no matter how grim his
situation is. This brotherhood nonsense is just a farce to hide the
true ways used by armies of Islam to convert people.
Let's be honest, Hindu society caused many people to embrace
Buddhism, people objected to the race system, Islam was also popular
due to the Race-System, I don't know why you always bash muslims but
don't question yourselves aswell.
No. People embraced Buddhism because they were drawn by Buddha's
teachings. Nobody held a sword to there head and asked them to
convert. I am afraid what you have written is plain sychophancy resorted to by people trying to defend the conversion by sword. Reality is rather opposite.
Like above, I think you cant say Indian Punjab was India historically
Now that all depends on who is interpreting it.
Indian Punjab is historically ruled by �Pakistani� kingdoms. But to an
Indian it is still considered to be Indian, because they claim that the
Pakistani kingdoms themselves were Indian. This once again comes back
to the point that why does Pakistan not claim it?
Because it is currently a majority non-muslim area. If it was a muslim
area it would be considered �Pakistani� as it would now be a part of
Pakistan. Likewise, if North India was muslim, it too would be part of
Pakistan, and we wouldn�t have this conversation at all.
Pakistan did claim all of Punjab, but the British
decided to split it in two (because of sizeable non Muslim
minorities) and put most of the Hindus and Sikhs in India and
Muslims into Pakistani Punjab. Same thing happened in Assam or
nearabouts.
What hapened in Assam? I have already told you if Nehru or
Gandhi was a rajput there would be no Pakistan today. You are really
enjoying because of the folly of our leaders.
Originally posted by Anujkhamar
Agreed, Pakistan was probably a
majority Bhuddist area, but before the advent of Bhudism it was a Hindu
area (this part isn�t relevant to this quote, but to a later one)
What's your evidence for this? Because Hinduism was not present in the area of Pakistan even before the advent of Buddhism.
Evidence is all there but you need grey cells to interpret it and a mind which is unbiased which you clearly do not have.
Its not an attack of "Hinduism" the religion but of some
Hindu's. I don't see the problem, there are also awfull Christians and
Muslims and people of other religions, this isn't an attack of religion
but some people who claim to be part of the religion.
Earlier it was said many were converted to Islam by force but also many converted on their own accord.
I should have read this post before I replied to your earlier post
but I was able to sense where you are coming from. World over
Islam was spread by the sword. Read Andrew Bostom's book and it
will become clear to you. In India we could not be converted as
happened in Iran and elsewhere because we fought and defended our
religion against the invaders.
Read this: http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India
One day Pakistan and India may become allies hopefully everyone here will see that day.
Unlikely because the religion of Pakistan would not allow this to happen.
...but you should not fail to note the European philosophers like Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1774), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832),Frederich vonSchlegel (1772-1829), Niels Henrik David Bohr, (1885-1962)ohn Archibald Wheeler, (1911 - ),Herbert George H. G. Wells (1866 -1946),William Butler Yeats (1856-1939) etc.......
Do u have any idea of who the above peopel were. I didnt give the full
list of people, They are considered pioneers in their respective
countries, and do u have any idea of what the influence of their works
have had...They have one thing in common, their writings about India
and its philosophy was a prime reason for the later invention of Aryan
term to appropriate these acheivemtns to them which will liberate the
Imperialist of their colonisation of India.....
U'll really leave ur breath if I started quoting them about India,
You're simply going off on one now. I doubt it'll get through,
but I'm not interested in your quotes on Hinduism, I can find many
quotes on many different things. What I'm looking for is for you to
show me a link to a quote where someone says that Indian philosophy and achievements gave rise to the term Aryan/Aryanism?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum