Christians are targeted in India

[ManavKalia]

First of Dharmic religions are not organized religions. Second, Hindus and Buddhists have never had killings in the name of religion nor were they enemies ever. So where you get your history of so much killing in Hinduism and Buddhism is something i would like to know.

Abrahamic religions are history centeric religions, also organized, and exclusiveness is at the core of these religions and that is why they have a bloodied history.

Which is why I said all religions are not the same.

Abrahamic religions were twisted to begin with. Their history is a fallout of that twist from the beginning. So, there is no corruption to it, but they are as they are.

Now, why should anyone become corrupt, or cruel, or greedy. It is because without these negatives existing, the positives of truth, kindness, and selflessness cannot be highlighted. For good to exist, evil is a necessity and vice versa. It is the yin-yang at work.

Sure you can be good without a religion, there is no argument about that, but that does not mean you go around painting them all with the same brush. That would be as silly as saying all ideas are same, all theories are same, black is equal to white.

Actually abrahamic religions were started to counter polytheism or idol worship, so nothing wrong in their conception, as they had the same school of thought as Hinduism part of shaivism, which is still followed by many sects today, like sanatan dharma.

So they were not twisted to begin with. But what path they took is part of historical record.

As for Hinduism Buddhism schism, take your mind back to mauryan dynasty, king ashoka in particular, Buddhism was spurred by him to every corner of India and Asia. What is prevalent today?

Buddhism has been driven out from India, still exists in pockets like ladakh, but not in India in any significance.

Whereas it's predominant in Asian countries. Do you think it was driven out of India by peaceful means?

Wonder if like Abrahamic religions, do the Chinese or Indians even stop for a moment to consider that the Chinese are following an offshoot or branch of the same religion that India follows?

That is what I mean by the corruption in religion, that people will find a means to subvert it, to divide and subdivide people for their own individualistic gains..

 

[Dragon Ball]

Actually abrahamic religions were started to counter polytheism or idol worship, so nothing wrong in their conception, as they had the same school of thought as Hinduism part of shaivism, which is still followed by many sects today, like sanatan dharma.

So they were not twisted to begin with. But what path they took is part of historical record.

As for Hinduism Buddhism schism, take your mind back to mauryan dynasty, king ashoka in particular, Buddhism was spurred by him to every corner of India and Asia. What is prevalent today?

Buddhism has been driven out from India, still exists in pockets like ladakh, but not in India in any significance.

Whereas it's predominant in Asian countries. Do you think it was driven out of India by peaceful means?

Wonder if like Abrahamic religions, do the Chinese or Indians even stop for a moment to consider that the Chinese are following an offshoot or branch of the same religion that India follows?

That is what I mean by the corruption in religion, that people will find a means to subvert it, to divide and subdivide people for their own individualistic gains..

No they did not start to counter polytheism. There is nothing wrong with polytheism or idol worship either. Anyone who says they are wrong is wrong. So while organized religions did not start out as a revolt against idol worship, if you think they did and that is why they were right to begin with, then you are wrong in your thinking.

Buddhism spread because Hindus were tolerant in the first place to allow Buddhism to spread. How did Buddhism spread in the first place if there was antagonism is the question you must ask. As to why Buddhism reduced in India, maybe given the constraints of reality, festivals, life Hinduism won. Buddhism is too austere a religion if you were to only look at the conceptual part of it. All of East Asia where Buddhism is prevalent, life is still worked around the principles of Hinduism. Which is why you see Buddhists nations having all of their pre-Budhist era folklore, mythology, festivals intact, including openness to worshiping in Hindu temples.

So it is false to say Buddhism has been driven out of India. As a proof of that until about 30 years ago, all Buddhist viharas in India were taken care of by Brahmins including puja offerings to the Buddha.

Chinese and all other South Asians who follow Buddhism are well aware they are followers of a religion which was born out of Hinduism. They find pride in that fact and are not ashamed of Hinduism unlike certain people in India.

There is no corruption of religion either in Hinduism or in Buddhism.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Chinese and all other South Asians who follow Buddhism are well aware they are followers of a religion which was born out of Hinduism. They find pride in that fact and are not ashamed of Hinduism unlike certain people in India.

I agree.

I don't know any Chinese person who has a problem with the fact that Buddhism emerged from Hinduism, and is a branch of the Dharmic religions.

The connection is very obvious:

(Thousand arm Guanyin, Bodhisattva of compassion).

 

[Dragon Ball]

I agree.

I don't know any Chinese person who has a problem with the fact that Buddhism emerged from Hinduism, and is a branch of the Dharmic religions.

The connection is very obvious:

(Thousand arm Guanyin, Bodhisattva of compassion).

The Marxist in India have spread the canard that Buddhism was born as a revolt against Hinduism which is not true at all. Here is a very good understanding of politics and reality behind it.

Koenraad Elst: When did the Buddha break away from Hinduism?

 

[ManavKalia]

No they did not start to counter polytheism. There is nothing wrong with polytheism or idol worship either. Anyone who says they are wrong is wrong. So while organized religions did not start out as a revolt against idol worship, if you think they did and that is why they were right to begin with, then you are wrong in your thinking.

Buddhism spread because Hindus were tolerant in the first place to allow Buddhism to spread. How did Buddhism spread in the first place if there was antagonism is the question you must ask. As to why Buddhism reduced in India, maybe given the constraints of reality, festivals, life Hinduism won. Buddhism is too austere a religion if you were to only look at the conceptual part of it. All of East Asia where Buddhism is prevalent, life is still worked around the principles of Hinduism. Which is why you see Buddhists nations having all of their pre-Budhist era folklore, mythology, festivals intact, including openness to worshiping in Hindu temples.

So it is false to say Buddhism has been driven out of India. As a proof of that until about 30 years ago, all Buddhist viharas in India were taken care of by Brahmins including puja offerings to the Buddha.

Chinese and all other South Asians who follow Buddhism are well aware they are followers of a religion which was born out of Hinduism. They find pride in that fact and are not ashamed of Hinduism unlike certain people in India.

There is no corruption of religion either in Hinduism or in Buddhism.

Buddy, you are so enormously wrong in your facts. No disrespect meant, but I never said there is anything wrong in polytheism. Remember, I said Hinduism and ancient Egyptian religion are my favorite religions, as they worship many gods, many of whom are naughty and fun loving, hence my partiality to them.

But at the same time, Abrahamic religions were only following the shaivism school of thought of Hinduism, which where against polytheism. Or do you contend that there are no sects in Hinduism today also, like sanatan dharma, which are against polytheism and idol worship?

Buddhism obviously transgressed from Hinduism, is evident from their scriptures, but how much of the Hindu and Buddhist populations, recognise and accede the fact?

If you say the majority does, then you're living in a state of perpetual denial, as is also evident from your theory of Buddhism being driven out of India, because of constraints of reality, and festivals.

The same constraints of reality and festivals was prevalent throughout Asia, then why would it be driven out of India, and not from rest of Asia.

When you read any history, you must also subject it to the test of logic. Will help you differentiate between doctored history, and bipartisan history.

How do you think Buddhism was spread by ashoka, thru force or peaceful reasoning?

If your answer is the latter, then you possess a brainwashed naivete and gullibility that it is useless to talk further.

Sooner you understand that religion was always propagated against the point of a sword the better. Whether in history through the use of an actual sword, or today, with the backward classes through a economic sword, or with the middle and upper classes through a sword of the promise of spiritual salvation.

The age old war is still going on, and will keep going on till the end of time..

 

[Dragon Ball]

But at the same time, Abrahamic religions were only following the shaivism school of thought of Hinduism, which where against polytheism. Or do you contend that there are no sects in Hinduism today also, like sanatan dharma, which are against polytheism and idol worship?

Abrahamic religions are not following shaivism school of thought of Hinduism. While you can make a phonetic connection between Shiva and Yaweh, it does not mean Abrahamic religions were following Shaivism. To further explain it, Abrham is not equal to Brahama.

Vidya =/= Avidya
Jnana =/= to Ajnana

So,
.
Brahma =/= Abraham.

Abrahmic religions take off from Zoroastrianism which was born as revolt against Hinduism, against Vedism.

Zend Avetsa was the negation of Vedas with its literal meaning being to know Avesta. Avesta being negation of Veda.

Shavism has polytheism and idol worship inbuilt in it. One cannot be a Shaiva without acknowledging the divinity of Parvati or Ganapati or Skanda. That is polytheism for you.

There may be some sects who may be exclusive followers of just one deity, but never in Hindu history have they attacked or refused to acknowledge the divinity of other deities. So by that understanding alone they fail monotheism.

Buddhism obviously transgressed from Hinduism, is evident from their scriptures, but how much of the Hindu and Buddhist populations, recognize and accede the fact?

Buddhism was not transgression. It was the natural corollary of Hinduism, just like so many other offshoots. Swaminarayana sect for example. All it did was develop in East Asian countries without much contact with Hinduism while India was besieged with invasions and hence there are some distinctions. All Hindus and Buddhist as far as I know acknowledge this fact. What is there to not acknowledge in this? As far as I know Hindus including the so called extremist Hindu organizations have no issues if a Hindu "converts" to Buddhism.

If you say the majority does, then you're living in a state of perpetual denial, as is also evident from your theory of Buddhism being driven out of India, because of constraints of reality, and festivals.

The same constraints of reality and festivals was prevalent throughout Asia, then why would it be driven out of India, and not from rest of Asia.

If Buddhism grew without opposition from Hinduism, why would not reverse happen? Why cannot Hinduism grow without opposition from Buddhism? Why according to you Hinduism only grew in India because it drove away all Buddhists but when Buddhism grew there was no driving away of Hindus from India?

Buddhism reduced to a large extent in the places invaded by Islam. That is why it lost out both in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in India. Nepal was not affected by Islam nor was Burma to any great extent nor was Thailand or China. So there is you answer as to why Buddhism still flourishes in those countries but not so much in India.

Add to the fact that all Hindu deities are worshiped in Buddhist countries but under their regional names, then you will come to know that Hinduism is very much in existence in all Buddhist countries.

When you read any history, you must also subject it to the test of logic. Will help you differentiate between doctored history, and bipartisan history.

Yes, you should follow your own prescription and not stick to faulty logic of the marxists.

How do you think Buddhism was spread by ashoka, thru force or peaceful reasoning?

It spread though reasoning exactly the way Hinduism spread back in India.

If your answer is the latter, then you possess a brainwashed naivete and gullibility that it is useless to talk further.

Sooner you understand that religion was always against the point of a sword the better. Whether in history through the use of an actual sword, or today, with the backward classes through a economic sword, or with the middle and upper classes through a sword of the promise of spiritual salvation.

Religion was never against the point of sword in Dharma. Stop giving every religion an Abrahamic interpretation. In your world there are no colors perhaps, only calculations exist. Not so everywhere. Yin-yang is a reality as is night and day.

 

[ManavKalia]

The Marxist in India have spread the canard that Buddhism was born as a revolt against Hinduism which is not true at all. Here is a very good understanding of politics and reality behind it.

Koenraad Elst: When did the Buddha break away from Hinduism?

I don't hold modern political schools of thought, in the same breath as ancient religions, so without reading your link, I can state as fact as per accepted history, that the founder of Buddhism, gautam Buddha, or Prince sidhartha, whichever name you choose, was looking to the meaning of life, as in what it espoused to alleviate the suffering of the human being, when he went into an meditative state of mind to examine the inner consciousness.

He went into this state, following the example of ascetics who were already present before his time, and were therefore representing the shaivism branch of Hinduism.

From where has this Marxist illogical theory come I fail to understand. I'm sure this is not part of mainstream theories about Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[ManavKalia]

Abrahamic religions are not following shaivism school of thought of Hinduism. While you can make a phonetic connection between Shiva and Yaweh, it does not mean Abrahamic religions were following Shaivism. To further explain it, Abrham is not equal to Brahama.

Vidya =/= Avidya
Jnana =/= to Ajnana

So,
.
Brahma =/= Abraham.

Abrahmic religions take off from Zoroastrianism which was born as revolt against Hinduism, against Vedism.

Zend Avetsa was the negation of Vedas with its literal meaning being to know Avesta. Avesta being negation of Veda.

Shavism has polytheism and idol worship inbuilt in it. One cannot be a Shaiva without acknowledging the divinity of Parvati or Ganapati or Skanda. That is polytheism for you.

There may be some sects who may be exclusive followers of just one deity, but never in Hindu history have they attacked or refused to acknowledge the divinity of other deities. So by that understanding alone they fail monotheism.



Buddhism was not transgression. It was the natural corollary of Hinduism, just like so many other offshoots. Swaminarayana sect for example. All it did was develop in East Asian countries without much contact with Hinduism while India was besieged with invasions and hence there are some distinctions. All Hindus and Buddhist as far as I know acknowledge this fact. What is there to not acknowledge in this? As far as I know Hindus including the so called extremist Hindu organizations have no issues if a Hindu "converts" to Buddhism.



If Buddhism grew without opposition from Hinduism, why would not reverse happen? Why cannot Hinduism grow without opposition from Buddhism? Why according to you Hinduism only grew in India because it drove away all Buddhists but when Buddhism grew there was no driving away of Hindus from India?

Buddhism reduced to a large extent in the places invaded by Islam. That is why it lost out both in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in India. Nepal was not affected by Islam nor was Burma to any great extent nor was Thailand or China. So there is you answer as to why Buddhism still flourishes in those countries but not so much in India.

Add to the fact that all Hindu deities are worshiped in Buddhist countries but under their regional names, then you will come to know that Hinduism is very much in existence in all Buddhist countries.



Yes, you should follow your own prescription and not stick to faulty logic of the marxists.



It spread though reasoning exactly the way Hinduism spread back in India.



Religion was never against the point of sword in Dharma. Stop giving every religion an Abrahamic interpretation. In your world there are no colors perhaps, only calculations exist. Not so everywhere. Yin-yang is a reality as is night and day.

Let me at the outset point out some of the erroneous arguments you've used.

First, I never said Buddhism was not spread at the point of the sword by ashoka, against Hinduism.

Second the ouster of Buddhism, if it was done by the onset of Islam, and not by Hinduism itself, presents a conspiracy theory, that Islam to negate Buddhism introduced a new religion of Hinduism in lieu of Buddhism into India. Which contradicts, everything, it being well established through archeological and other historical means that Hinduism definitely predated Buddhism.

Third, you've denigrated, this to monotheism vs polytheism, whereas there is a monotheistic element prevalent in Hinduism since its inception.

Fourth, I know it for a fact that neither Buddhist not Hindu religions has any problems with conversions to another religion.

Fifth, and most illuminating example of your faulty reasoning, shaivism, is not shivism, it has nothing to do with parvati, or ganpati, or shiva himself, but a branch of Hinduism which believed in austere and ascetic living and thinking, vs the polytheism which was in stark contrast to that.

Sixth, transgression doesn't imply superiority, but simply that one religion transgressed to another, it's offshoot under ashoka's rule.

Seventh, (need I go on at this stage), the allegation about Marxism addressed in my preceding post.

Thanks buddy. (Please apply basic logic in corresponding on this thread further)

 

[takeiteasy]

Abrahamic religions were only following the shaivism school of thought of Hinduism

That is about Islam. Judaism(and Christianity) are against polytheists at least in their core beliefs. Except for Christianity, the other two still have the anti-polytheists mindset among the followers.

 

[Dragon Ball]

Second the ouster of Buddhism, if it was done by the onset of Islam, and not by Hinduism itself, presents a conspiracy theory, that Islam to negate Buddhism introduced a new religion of Hinduism in lieu of Buddhism into India. Which contradicts, everything, it being well established through archeological and other hospital means that Hinduism definitely predated Buddhism.

The ouster of Buddhism was done by Islam because Buddhism was institutionalized by the monks. Destroying their viharas and their centers of learning which contained hundreds of thousands of Buddhist monks is how Buddhism waned. Hindus on the other hand had a very decentralized structure with vedic studies being imparted in homes and small temples rather than at huge monasteries. So there is no conspiracy theory to this. Also by the time of Islamic invasions most of the rulers were Hindus who patronized Buddhism and Buddhist universities. While the Buddhists were far too pacifists and did not have an army, the Hindus did. They fought back.

Your understanding of history is very weak. Both Hinduism and Buddhism co-existed in India until 1700s, so it does not give rise to any conspiracy theory of Islam introducing a new religion called Hinduism.

First, I never said Buddhism was not spread at the point of the sword by ashoka, against Hinduism

You brought in the argument of Buddhism spreading through sword rather late in the discussion. Buddhism did not spread through sword as evidenced by the numerous Hindu temples existing all over SA and East Asia. Just looking at Ellora and Ajanta caves and paintings should put to rest the lie that these religions were born antagonists or they spread through sword at the cost of each other.

Third, you've denigrated, this to monotheism vs polytheism, whereas there is a monotheistic element prevalent in Hinduism since its inception.

No, there is none except in the imagination of Marxist.

Fifth, and most illuminating example of your faulty reasoning, shaivism, is not shivism, it has nothing to do with parvati, or ganpati, or shiva himself, but a branch of Hinduism which believed in austere and ascetic living and thinking, vs the polytheism which was in stark contrast to that.

There is no such distinction between Shavisim and Shivism. It is only a matter of spelling in English. Shiva is associated with austere ascetism and that is where the practice takes its name from. So whether you call it Shavism or Shivism, it does not matter.

While there are sects within Shaivism which may focus on the tapas/meditative aspect of Shiva, they at no point deny or dissociate from Shakti which would be negation of Shiva himself.

transgression doesn't imply superiority, but simply that one religion transgressed to another, it's offshoot under ashoka's rule.

Transgression means to go against. No where in history is it recorded that Buddhism's birth or Buddhism's spread was against Hindus including under Ashoka.

 

[ManavKalia]

The ouster of Buddhism was done by Islam because Buddhism was institutionalized by the monks. Destroying their viharas and their centers of learning which contained hundreds of thousands of Buddhist monks is how Buddhism waned. Hindus on the other hand had a very decentralized structure with vedic studies being imparted in homes and small temples rather than at huge monasteries. So there is no conspiracy theory to this. Also by the time of Islamic invasions most of the rulers were Hindus who patronized Buddhism and Buddhist universities. While the Buddhists were far too pacifists and did not have an army, the Hindus did. They fought back.

Your understanding of history is very weak. Both Hinduism and Buddhism co-existed in India until 1700s, so it does not give rise to any conspiracy theory of Islam introducing a new religion called Hinduism.



You brought in the argument of Buddhism spreading through sword rather late in the discussion. Buddhism did not spread through sword as evidenced by the numerous Hindu temples existing all over SA and East Asia. Just looking at Ellora and Ajanta caves and paintings should put to rest the lie that these religions were born antagonists or they spread through sword at the cost of each other.


No, there is none except in the imagination of Marxist.



There is no such distinction between Shavisim and Shivism. It is only a matter of spelling in English. Shiva is associated with austere ascetism and that is where the practice takes its name from. So whether you call it Shavism or Shivism, it does not matter.

While there are sects within Shaivism which may focus on the tapas/meditative aspect of Shiva, they at no point deny or dissociate from Shakti which would be negation of Shiva himself.




Transgression means to go against. No where in history is it recorded that Buddhism's birth or Buddhism's spread was against Hindus including under Ashoka.

Buddhism and Hinduism schism appeared much before 17th century or 18th century.

Shaivism, is the ascetic version of proto shiva, which as of now has no proven link to shiva.

Buddhism transgressed Hinduism under ashoka, means that from Hinduism being the dominant religion, Buddhism became the dominant religion. Any other definition in the English language please let me know.

All religions coexisted in the Indian subcontinent, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam. You mean to say that Islam wasn't spread at the point of the sword? You surely need to understand ashoka better than this.

As I said, I am neither Hindu or Buddhist in my way of life, an atheist kind of confirms that up front, but I don't adhere to faulty logic, no matter whom it might favor.

That is about Islam. Judaism(and Christianity) are against polytheists at least in their core beliefs. Except for Christianity, the other two still have the anti-polytheists mindset among the followers.

Christians have the same anti polytheism mindset, just that they are more subtle and cunning about it..

 

[Dragon Ball]

Buddhism and Hinduism schism appeared much before 17th century or 18th century

There is no schism between Buddhism and Hinduism except the one introduced by the English.

Shaivism, is the ascetic version of proto shiva, which as of now has no proven link to shiva.

Stop making up facts as you go along. Rudra and Shiva are one and the same. The emergence of Shaivism starts with Rudra which is just a vedic name for Shiva. The very fact that they did not call themselves Rudraism but call themselves as Shivas should tell you that.

Buddhism transgressed Hinduism under ashoka, means that from Hinduism being the dominant religion, Buddhism became the dominant religion. Any other definition in the English language please let me know.

That is not known as transgression. Transgression is an extremely offensive term to be used in this context. The growth or any guru or followers in Hinduism is not looked upon as transgression, rather it is encouraged and that is how India is literally a factory churning out gurus in their thousands.

All religions coexisted in the Indian subcontinent, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam. You mean to say that Islam wasn't spread at the point of the sword? You surely need to understand ashoka better than this.

No, all religions did not co-exist in India together. The animosity that is patently visible between the Muslims and the Dharmics, be it of any stripe, Jain, Buddhist, Hindus, or Sikhs, is testimony to the fact that Islam's spread was not peaceful nor was there co-existence between Islam and the Dharmics. What did exist after Islam established itself in India was enclaves of Dharmics and enclaves of Muslims. Very unlike the Dharmics who never ghettoized themselves against each other.

As I said, I am neither Hindu or Buddhist in my way of life, an atheist kind of confirms that up front, but I don't adhere to faulty logic, no matter whom it might favor.

Being an atheist is not a foolproof guarantee that your logic is not faulty. In fact I dare say there are more illogical people among the atheists than among the theists.

 

[ManavKalia]

There is no schism between Buddhism and Hinduism except the one introduced by the English.


Stop making up facts as you go along. Rudra and Shiva are one and the same. The emergence of Shaivism starts with Rudra which is just a vedic name for Shiva. The very fact that they did not call themselves Rudraism but call themselves as Shivas should tell you that.


That is not known as transgression. Transgression is an extremely offensive term to be used in this context. The growth or any guru or followers in Hinduism is not looked upon as transgression, rather it is encouraged and that is how India is literally a factory churning out gurus in their thousands.



No, all religions did not co-exist in India together. The animosity that is patently visible between the Muslims and the Dharmics, be it of any stripe, Jain, Buddhist, Hindus, or Sikhs, is testimony to the fact that Islam's spread was not peaceful nor was there co-existence between Islam and the Dharmics. What did exist after Islam established itself in India was enclaves of Dharmics and enclaves of Muslims. Very unlike the Dharmics who never ghettoized themselves against each other.



Being an atheist is not a foolproof guarantee that your logic is not faulty. In fact I dare say there are more illogical people among the atheists than among the theists.

By your last post (remember that I had urged you to apply logic to your inputs on the matter? ) you made it apparent to me that the Vedic textbooks that you're gleaning your knowledge from are very different from my sources.

In the previous post you blamed Islam for the schism, now you're blaming the British. Please make up your mind, who you want to ultimately blame and in which era?

Lord rudra was mythologically a previous incarnation of shiva, so the assimilation doesn't make any sense. Hope you realise that shiva, ram, and Buddha, and Christ and prophet Mohammed are mythological figures, and have no historical record.

If you think gurus are a transgression of Hinduism, I rest my case here and now, nothing further to say after this.

There have been instances of different religious denominations coexisting peacefully together in India throughout history, up to the present day, (without ghetto like conditions), if you don't believe me please come to Delhi, I'll show you around.

I only mentioned being an atheist, to reassure you that I'm not partial to either religious denomination, Hindu or Buddhist, atheist has no link to logic any more than any religion does.

 

[Dragon Ball]

By your last post (remember that I had urged you to apply logic to your inputs on the matter? ) you made it apparent to me that the Vedic textbooks that you're gleaning your knowledge from are very different from my sources.

For arguments on early Hinduism, you mean there is better source than Vedas?

In the previous post you blamed Islam for the schism, now you're blaming the British. Please make up your mind, who you want to ultimately blame and in which era?

I did not blame Islam for schism between Hindus and Muslims but blamed Islam for the waning of Buddhism from India. Learn to read please. I blame the British who in their attempt to understand the religions of India classified Hinduism and Buddhism as separate religions for the early schism. This was exaggerated and amplified by the Marxists.

Lord rudra was mythologically a previous incarnation of shiva, so the assimilation doesn't make any sense. Hope you realise that shiva, ram, and Buddha, and Christ and prophet Mohammed are mythological figures, and have no historical record.

Why does it not make any sense for Rudra to be called Shiva later on? Each god has dozens to hundreds of names based on their qualities. Rudra is not an incarnation of Shiva but Shiva himself. Hindu history is classified as mythology because it was among the first of religions and there is corroborating account of its history from competing sources, does not mean in lack of witness the history never happened.

By claiming Buddha and Prophet Mohammed are Mythological figures and not historical figures you are risking yourself to be laughed out of any argument on this subject anywhere on the planet.

If you think gurus are a transgression of Hinduism, I rest my case here and now, nothing further to say after this.

Hello. Comprehension issues? I said the very fact that Hinduism brews out gurus by their thousands proves that spread of Buddhism was no transgression but rather a natural outcome of the very nature of Hinduism.

There have been instances of different religious denominations coexisting peacefully together in India throughout history, up to the present day, (without ghetto like conditions), if you don't believe me please come to Delhi, I'll show you around.

Different religious denominations can exist together peacefully as long as they are Dharmic religions. For any other religious combination ghettoization is self-evident. Please even in Delhi, Muslims are ghettoized except in some posh areas where there is a smattering of rich Muslim households.

 

[ManavKalia]

For arguments on early Hinduism, you mean there is better source than Vedas?



I did not blame Islam for schism between Hindus and Muslims but blamed Islam for the waning of Buddhism from India. Learn to read please. I blame the British who in their attempt to understand the religions of India classified Hinduism and Buddhism as separate religions for the early schism. This was exaggerated and amplified by the Marxists.



Why does it not make any sense for Rudra to be called Shiva later on? Each god has dozens to hundreds of names based on their qualities. Rudra is not an incarnation of Shiva but Shiva himself. Hindu history is classified as mythology because it was among the first of religions and there is corroborating account of its history from competing sources, does not mean in lack of witness the history never happened.

By claiming Buddha and Prophet Mohammed are Mythological figures and not historical figures you are risking yourself to be laughed out of any argument on this subject anywhere on the planet.



Hello. Comprehension issues? I said the very fact that Hinduism brews out gurus by their thousands proves that spread of Buddhism was no transgression but rather a natural outcome of the very nature of Hinduism.



Different religious denominations can exist together peacefully as long as they are Dharmic religions. For any other religious combination ghettoization is self-evident. Please even in Delhi, Muslims are ghettoized except in some posh areas where there is a smattering of rich Muslim households.

Yes, I take my oldest source to happaran times, which predated the Vedic era.

Anyways to make your previous argument fallacious, all Buddhist scriptures, which predate British, already confirm schism between Hinduism and Buddhism at the time of inception, Islam and British came much later into the picture.

There is no historical RECORD of ram, shiva, Jesus, prophet Mohammed, Buddha, Moses etc. Please laugh me out if possible, let's see who has the last laugh regarding this subject.

Regarding guru's, compare Buddhism's followers, and any guru of your own choosing, are you joking or are you serious?

Regarding rich Muslims, you betrayed your mindset already, by mentioning Muslims whereas I only mentioned religious denominations.

Difference between you and me. We would both consider ourselves patriotic. But I would love every Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist as long as he held allegiance to the Indian state.

You on the other hand, would only love those who hold allegiance to Hindu nation. I think my brand of patriots easily outnumbers yours.