Pharmacy Graduate Gets 17 1/2 Years for Aid to Al-Qaeda

[Developereo]

On the other hand you are just shifting goal posts. Now how does your current stand (acceptance they are slightly disparate faith structures which mutually influenced each other and both of which are in existance and practise today) stand against your initial assertion that South Indians were having a pre-Hindu religion and then one day the North Indian invader came and civilized us, giving us our religion, language etc and our pre-Hinduism religion is completely destroyed ? It doesn't stand up.

Nonsense. The claim was that adoption of "foreign" beliefs constituted religious/cultural conquest. By that yardstick, South Indians have been conquered by the Northerners.

No my claims are not self-contradictory

Your claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Northern imports of Sanskrit, Hindi, Vedic deities permeate the South. There is no comparable "interchange" of Southern language/deities which enjoys as much prevalence in the North.

Southerners have been "converted" in a cultural sense, and some still resist to varying degrees.

1) What are those 'archaelogical clues' ? Care to point out ?

Your lack or laziness of reading is not my problem. I provided the links to academic research. Feel free to educate yourself if you dare confront your indoctrination.

2) Now Pillaiyar has become a Northern Vedic import ? You never cease to amaze me. I will not even bother with that.

Academic research points clearly to the origins of Vinayaka from Vedic vedas. I provided the link which references academic research. If you wish to stick your head in the sand and ignore research, that is your choice.

3) When did language become an indicator of faith. You , sir are thoroughly confused as to what you are arguing and bringing in unrelated things to digress from the main topic you initially raised.

I said language and culture. Faith is an integral part of culture. The linguistic conquest of the South by the North is paralleled by the cultural conquest.

LOL. Culture has disappeared. ? This is why I asked have you visited South India ? Have you been to the villages to see the religious practises ?

Some aspects of the ancient culture have disappeared. Once again, I refer you to the Kupgal site.

Sufis are considered shirk by the Saudis.

And the village deities of the South are considered non-Aramic by the Hindu orthodoxy.

And what is that supposed to mean ?

You have wikipedia knowledge regarding Hindu deities and I have real puranic knowledge.

No, I have academic research to back my points, and you have religious indoctrination and fairy tales.

First understand that Vedic Hinduism which originated in IVC area is just one facet of Hinduism and does not constitute its entirety. And we South Indians dont follow much Vedic Hinduism. So that lays your initial laughable assertion to rest.

One of your top three popular deities is a Vedic import! Sanskrit and Hindi permeate your schools, while none of the Southern languages is returned the favor in the North.

I'm done with you.

Enjoy the sands of religious indoctrination while hiding from the light of scientific research.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Dharmic civilization is like Linux.

Linux may have originated with one individual, but it is what it is because of the contributions of people from all over.

It is fundamentally different from the Abrahamic model of conquest and subjugation.

There have been notable contributions to Dharma even from Tibet.

 

[Developereo]

The Dharmic civilization is like Linux.

Linux may have originated with one individual, but it is what it is because of the contributions of people from all over.

It is fundamentally different from the Abrahamic model of conquest and subjugation.

There have been notable contributions to Dharma even from Tibet.

There is plenty of archaeological evidence that northern contributions (vedas, deities, Sanskrit, etc.) permeated into the south, but I have seen no evidence of reverse incorporation. I keep asking for evidence of southern deities, language, etc. having any core reverence in northern communities, but no one has provided specifics other than vague statements of "mutual influence".

Please note that I am not talking about pious personalities or religious scholars. All religions have such personalities who garner widespread following, but that's not the issue here.

 

[Rig Vedic]

There is plenty of archaeological evidence that northern contributions (vedas, deities, Sanskrit, etc.) permeated into the south, but I have seen no evidence of reverse incorporation. I keep asking for evidence of southern deities, language, etc. having any core reverence in northern communities, but no one has provided specifics other than vague statements of "mutual influence".

The Vedas themselves have been influenced by the South - there are hymns in the Rig Veda that refer to the Rishi Agastya, from the South.

The South has been contributing to Dharma for millenia.

But the more important point to note is that Dharma is not about domination, it is about people benefiting from, and contributing to the common pool of knowledge.

Please note that I am not talking about pious personalities or religious scholars. All religions have such personalities who garner widespread following, but that's not the issue here.

In Dharma, there is no single holy book that allegedly comes from "God" through a single prophet, which everybody else has to submit to.

It is the realizations of enlightened sages (or "pious personalities", if you want to call them that) from all places and all times, such as Buddha or Adi Shankara (who was, incidentally, from the South), that define what Dharma is.

 

[Vinod2070]

The Vedas themselves have been influenced by the South - there are hymns in the Rig Veda that refer to the Rishi Agastya, from the South.

The South has been contributing to Dharma for millenia.

But the more important point to note is that Dharma is not about domination, it is about people benefiting from, and contributing to the common pool of knowledge.



In Dharma, there is no single holy book that allegedly comes from "God" through a single prophet, which everybody else has to submit to.

It is the realizations of enlightened sages (or "pious personalities", if you want to call them that) from all places and all times, such as Buddha or Adi Shankara (who was, incidentally, from the South), that define what Dharma is.

Adi Shankara has had a major influence on Hinduism thought and philosophy.

A lot of Vedanta treatise and other high philosophy (that remain amazing to this day) have come from South that have influenced the Dharma enormously.

 

[Roybot]

Isn't Shiv a "Southern Indian" diety?

 

[Developereo]

The Vedas themselves have been influenced by the South - there are hymns in the Rig Veda that refer to the Rishi Agastya, from the South.

The South has been contributing to Dharma for millenia.

But the more important point to note is that Dharma is not about domination, it is about people benefiting from, and contributing to the common pool of knowledge.



In Dharma, there is no single holy book that allegedly comes from "God" through a single prophet, which everybody else has to submit to.

It is the realizations of enlightened sages (or "pious personalities", if you want to call them that) from all places and all times, such as Buddha or Adi Shankara (who was, incidentally, from the South), that define what Dharma is.

There are parallels in Hinduism to what exists in the Abrahamic religions. Dharma corresponds to philosophy or schools of thought, sages correspond to saints and mystics, the Vedas (and Sangam) correspond to the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions. Granted, the Hindu Vedas are written by humans, not Gods, but they do hold a special sacred place in the belief system.

Adi Shankara was, as you noted, a pious man, a saint. He may have had a wide following, but he is not a deity. There are plenty of saints in the Abrahmic religions also.

As for Agastya, the wikipedia article is very informative and references scholarly works. The prevailing view seems to be that he was a northerner who migrated to the south.

"Due to the weight of the population in the North the Earth started to Tilt. Lord Shiva then requested Agasthya Muni to rush to the then South India and balance the Earth from further tilting"

 

[Rig Vedic]

"Due to the weight of the population in the North the Earth started to Tilt. Lord Shiva then requested Agasthya Muni to rush to the then South India and balance the Earth from further tilting"

There are numerous such legends, which are obviously symbolic rather than literal.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Adi Shankara was, as you noted, a pious man, a saint. He may have had a wide following, but he is not a deity. There are plenty of saints in the Abrahmic religions also.

A core difference between Dharma and the Abrahamic doctrines is that in Dharma, each soul is an expression of divinity. From a post of mine on another thread -

A feature of Abrahamic religions is a prophet with an exclusive direct connection to God. The prophet may be given an exclusive status as the sole "son of God" or as the "last prophet". The exclusive status of these prophets and the message received through them is not open to debate.

As per the Dharmic view, however, each human is an expression of divinity. Each human can reach the same state of consciousness as a Christ or a Buddha. In fact, that is supposed to be our "native" or original state, which is obscured by the turmoil of our minds, being caught up in the dualities of the world - pleasure and pain, success and failure, birth and death.

Dharma sees human spiritual evolution as a science, with laws that can be discovered by experimentation and verified by anybody through their personal experience.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/167641-yoga-dharma-pakistan.html

Adi Shankara can be regarded as an Avatar, a fully free and enlightened being. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Adi Shankara and the Buddha, for example.

 

[anonymus]

There is plenty of archaeological evidence that northern contributions (vedas, deities, Sanskrit, etc.) permeated into the south, but I have seen no evidence of reverse incorporation. I keep asking for evidence of southern deities, language, etc. having any core reverence in northern communities, but no one has provided specifics other than vague statements of "mutual influence".

Please note that I am not talking about pious personalities or religious scholars. All religions have such personalities who garner widespread following, but that's not the issue here.

You are wrong on this count.

One of the most popular deity of north Indians is Shiva who origin lies in South Indian mythology.

 

[Developereo]

You are wrong on this count.

One of the most popular deity of north Indians is Shiva who origin lies in South Indian mythology.

Shiva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The South had a Shiva, but Vedic Hinduism had its own independent version of Shiva, possibly going back as far back as Mohejo-Daro.

 

[Vinod2070]

d as an Avatar, a fully free and enlightened being. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Adi Shankara and the Buddha, for example.

I recently started reading a book by Swami Vivekananda "Buddha and his message". It is actually based on some of his lectures where he talked of Buddha.

He considered Buddha as the greatest human being ever. In his words:

"The whole human race has produced but one such person, such high philosophy, such wide sympathy. The great philosopher, preaching the highest philosophy, yet has the deepest sympathy for the lowest animals, and never puts forward a claim for himself. He is the ideal Karma Yogi, acting entirely without motive, and the history of humanity shows him to have been the greatest man ever born, beyond compare, the greatest combination of heart and brain that ever existed.” Swami Vivekananda.

And

"Buddhism is historically the most important religion — historically, not philosophically — because it was the most tremendous religious movement that the world ever saw, the most gigantic spiritual wave ever to burst upon human society. There is no civilisation on which its effect has not been felt in some way or other.

The followers of Buddha were most enthusiastic and very missionary in spirit. They were the first among the adherents of various religions not to remain content with the limited sphere of their Mother Church. They spread far and wide. They travelled east and west, north and south. They reached into darkest Tibet; they went into Persia, Asia Minor; they went into Russia, Poland, and many other countries of the Western world. They went into China, Korea, Japan; they went into Burma, Siam, the East Indies, and beyond. When Alexander the Great, through his military conquests, brought the Mediterranean world in contact with India, the wisdom of India at once found a channel through which to spread over vast portions of Asia and Europe. Buddhist priests went out teaching among the different nations; and as they taught, superstition and priestcraft began to vanish like mist before the sun. "

He viewed Buddhism as a fulfillment of Hinduism. That it didn't take off so widely in India (or got absorbed later) was for the similar reasons for which Christianity never got popular among the Jews.

This was Buddha's greatness. Such high philosophy and not a claim for himself. Even on his deathbed, he asked his disciples to find the truth for themselves. It was never about a person but about the idea.