RE:Brahmins were benefited by Muslim Conquest
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:29 PM Permalink
First you know about Indian History then think about other countries.
RE:Brahmins were benefited by Muslim Conquest
by snpost on Mar 13, 2008 05:31 PM Permalink
1000 years ago- Norther India,pakistan and afghanistan were one country- remember history student. :)
RE:Brahmins were benefited by Muslim Conquest
by on Mar 13, 2008 05:50 PM Permalink
Advertisement chalu?U be happy with ur religion...Why bother about us?u had converted,Sabh ko gndu samja kya?
RE:Brahmins were benefited by Muslim Conquest
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:28 PM Permalink
"One of the first signs of Brahmanical revival, as in the past, was the promulgation of new Shastras, Puranas and other religious literature alleged to be the works of ancient sages. The priests must have been conscious of the untenability of their doctrines and their own unworthiness to lay down rules for the good of society, for they wrote new works in the name of ancient authors and altered ancient works to suit their present contentions. There is hardly any Sanskrit composition which has not been tampered with, altered or added to by them. There is no famous Rishi or teacher in whose name they have not concocted scriptures. There is no sacred book into which fiction and legend and imaginary history have not been interpolated. The most ancient of scriptures, the Rig-Veda, has not escaped the profane hand of interpolators and its tenth book is wholly ascribed to gods as if to conceal their true origin and later authorship. Veracity as to facts was never a feature of Brahman authors, so much so that historical unreliability has become a universal literary characteristics of the Sanskrit language. The best critic would be unable to separate the grain from the chaff, to say where facts end and fiction begins. This is even more the case in regard to the so-called sacred literature. The period of brahmanical revival naturally abounds in such fraudulent Shastras and Puranas." [Dharma Teertha, p. 124 ff.]
RE:Brahmins were benefited by Muslim Conquest
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:27 PM Permalink
"Another great advantage was that, for the first time in history, all the peoples of India, of all sects and denominations, were brought under the supremacy of the Brahmans. Till then they had claimed to be priest of the three higher castes only and did not presume to speak for the Sudras and other Indian peoples except to keep them at a safe distance. The Mohammedans called all the non-Muslims inhabitants, without any discrimination, by the common name "Hindu", which practically meant non-Muslims and nothing more. This simple fact contributed to the unification of India more than any other single event, but also, at the same time, condemned the dumb millions of the country to perpetual subjection to their priestly exploiters. Indians became "Hindus," their religion became Hinduism and Brahmans their masters.
"The word Hindu itself is a foreign one. The Hindus never used it in any Sanskrit writing, that is those which were written before the Mohammedan invasion." [p. 22, An Essay on Hinduism, by Kelkar]
Sorry to write such truth but I am forced to do so. Most of the writer who write regularly in rediff are educated by untrustable media based knowledge. Internet based information or so called nowledge are twisted and destorted for propogonda. Most of the time same information is used by number of sources by addinfg a few word here and there. That is why we see so much of fights and abuses here every day. Only way for a sober discussion is reading authentic books.
RE:Hindus have to be like Jews
by Imran on Mar 13, 2008 04:52 PM Permalink
Lalu mulsims or no mulsims hindus will fight against each other they will never be united so stop dreaming.
RE:Question to muslims?
by Imran on Mar 13, 2008 04:46 PM Permalink
Bcoz people are blind they don%u2019t see others religions when they commit a crime they only see muslims. Bush killed so many innocents but no one called him Christian terrorist y
RE:Question to muslims?
by snpost on Mar 13, 2008 04:51 PM Permalink
Bush is kicking the butts of Arabs and Afghan - he is getting paid with cheap petrol in return. So what he is doing is not good- but he is a texan. You can't mess with a texan, and express surprise when the Texan cowboys on horseback (helicopter now) and guns come looking for you. The Arabs and the Afghan gave him an excuse to loot , so he is happy doing that. But still- the news is so fill with muslim killing, bombing, causing mayhem etc
RE:Question to muslims?
by snpost on Mar 13, 2008 05:05 PM Permalink
How- by killing and sending them back in medieval time. The Arabs and the Afghans has missed the new knowledge revolution, just like India missed the Industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th century. Bush guys are brainy- 5-10 years in Arab and Afghan land- he has won. He does not need to win the war itself. The Arabs and the Afghan knew what were comming to them, by attacking the US. Just like japan, knew what was comming after pearl harbour. The only way out of this mess- is for the arabs and Afghan - accepts the US as their protector. Otherwise- the arabs and Afghan will be send back to medieval time. They will need lots of jihadis nad virging in heaven to continue for the next 5 or so years- just enough time for the Us to achieve its objective.
RE:Question to muslims?
by Chandra Prakash on Mar 13, 2008 04:52 PM Permalink
Sorry Imran Puttar, any knowledgeble person will call Bush a top terrorist. And the same knowledgeble person will say in the same breath that muslims made him a terrorist.
Your basic point is wrong. You are saying as though Hinduism and Buddhism were fighting with each other, which is totally false. Buddhism was considered to be a part of Hinduism. It was never seen as a threat.
Only politicians like Ambedkar started projecting as though they were different.
In ancient India, there were only intellectual debates between Buddhist and Hindu philosophies. They were similar to a great extent and differed only a little.
"Buddhism and Jainism were alternatives to brahmanism (read hinduism)."
This is your ignorance.
The problem with you (and others like you) is you are anti-Brahmin. That is the reason for your biased thinking.
In one of the mesages here, you also wrote about "Brahmins' supremacy over the masses".
Brahmins never had any supremacy over the masses.
According to the varna system, Brahmins lived a life dedicated to spiritual pursuits and service of God. They were not allowed to amass any wealth. They are supposed to live like beggars with limited means.
Throughout the history, most of the Brahmins (there will always be exceptions) lived a frugal life. Even when kings donated land and money to them, either they gave it away in charity to other caste or donated that to temples, so that it will be sueful to the entire community.
Brahmins may have been arrogant due to their knowledge, but they were never "powerful". They were the least powerless among the varnas.
You know very little about Brahmins, for that matter, about the four varnas. But you keep commenting on that.
Yet another point is: caste by birth is a recent phenomenon.
According to the original varna system, "janmanaa jaayathe sudrah", which means that everyone is a sudra by birth.
Lord Krishna too says in Gita, "chaathur varnam mayaa srushtam guna karma vibhaagasah", which means that the four varnas were created on the basis of guna and karma, not on the basis of birth. Some ignorant people translate "karma" as profession or occupation, but nowhere in the Gita, krishna talks about any professional duties. "karma" means action, and it is classified as selfish and slefless actions, to put it simply. So, a person belongs to one of the varnas on the basis of his qualities and the type of actions he performs. Varna does not come by birth.
When barbarians after barbarians started plundering the country, these structures that were there were destroyed by them. Sometime during these invasions, murders and rapes, everything degenerated and people started following caste by birth.
What I want to say is don't just accuse Brahmins for everything. They were the most powerless people all along. But they were respected for their knowledge.
People see the Brahmins of the last two or more centuries and form their opinions about ancient Brahmins and Indians. You are bound to be wrong.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:10 PM Permalink
brahmins were always at the back of kings who usually kshatriyas. They always side with powerful kings to dominate the society. In the name of beggars and priests they exploited the public wealth. In trvancore kingdom 7.5% of the govt. expense was for maintaining ootupuras, places where brahmins were fed.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 04:42 PM Permalink
The persecution of Buddhists was started by the Brahmins long time back. The authority of Brahmins over the masses was tremendous. Masses following Buddhist tenets was a great danger to Brahmin supremacy. They had tried to sabotage Buddhist sangha and Asoka had to drive away sixty thousands of fake bhikus. Real persecution of Buddhists had started at the time of Pushyamitra Shunga, who burnt monasteries and killed many monks.
Persecution by Mihirgula was so horrible, that he was declared by Brahmins to be an avatar of "Kalanki", the tenth avatar of Vishnu, which now they say is yet to come. He built big temples for the benefit of Brahmins and wiped out all Buddhist monasteries.
All this had happened before the Brahmins brought in the Rajputs. But there was some life left in Buddhism, the religion of masses. This was wiped out during the Rajput period. this period was the "Dark Age" of India. Mentioning about this period, Swami Dharmateertha rightly observes:
"But so long as India had at least a glimmer of national life and freedom, she made incessant efforts to assert her self-respect and thwart Brahman tyranny and it was only when the country ultimately fell a victim into the hands of foreigners the Buddhism was crushed to death and Brahmanism spread its fangs over the prostrate people.
If you are trying to project as though Buddhism declined because of Hindus or Hindus persecuted Buddhism, you are totally wrong.
A couple of Hindus were definitely anti-Buddhist, but many other kings encouraged and spread Buddhism (inclusding Ashoka).
Hindus never considered in the past or present as though they were opposed to Buddhism. In fact, Hindus can never oppose any religion, leave alone Buddhism. Because the basic thought in Hindus is that God can be worshipped in several forms and in several ways.
Even if Buddhism preached a diametrically opposite philosophy, Hindus would still welcome it, because Hindus believe that there can not be one single definition of God. Tolerance is inbuilt into our religion.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:06 PM Permalink
I am talking about history. You are talking what you think. Again hindus, I mean common people, never opposed any religion but it is brahmins self-styled authors of hinduism made kings as puppets to persecute buddhists and jains. Ashoka patronized buddhism but later on brahmins could find kjngs who can dance to their tune. Read Indian history before muslim invasion from available sources you may get some wisdom.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 04:40 PM Permalink
Formerly a feudatory of Chalukya, Dantidurga was the founder of Rastrakuta dynasty, a strong, aggresive and militant supporter of Brahmanism. Cave XV at Ellora called Dasavtara, which has a long undated inscription of Dantidurga carved on its entrance, was originally a Buddhist Vihara, which was converted to Brrahmanic Temple, by chiseling out Buddhist images. [Yazdani: 1960: 731]
RE:6 MILLION MUSLIMS LEAVE ISLAM IN AFRICA ALONE EVERY YEAR
by praada on Mar 13, 2008 04:39 PM Permalink
casteist funky, check what happens with Dalit christians in their EGILATARIAN SOCIETY
