Miscellaneous News

A

A potato

Junior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Buddhism holy books are written in prakrit which is derived from sanskrit. Nepal is basically part of indian subcontinent in terms of culture, race and language. Buddha himself travelled all over Indian subcontinent and gained Buddhahood not in Nepal but in current India.

Entire mythology of Buddhism including all the names and concept comes from Hinduism. Buddhism is basically an alteration or answer to hinduism and what Buddha thought was wrong with it.

So, its disingenuous to say Buddhism is not Indian.

Better question is why did the Chinese adopt a foreign religion when they had perfectly good local religion like taoism. Chinese should maybe abandon buddhism and go back to local religions. Think about that.
Click to expand...
Taoism isn't a religion and buddhism was adopted because it's teachings is influential and it came from exchanges and thus buddhism only focuses on teachings on certain aspects of life that Confucism and Taoism didn't cover.

Buddhism has nothing to do with Hinduism as it rejects Ishavra therefore they're not hindus plus Hinduism isn't exactally a unified religion.
To say Buddhism is Indian because of Sanskirt is ridiculous statement because by that logic Islam should a Persian religion because Persian was used its sacred language.

Those sites that ended up in India dosen't make it Indian because those sites belonged to the Shakya republic which like I said before is culturally Nepalese.
 
Last edited:
Randomuser

Randomuser

Major
Registered Member
A potato said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's funny how Indians like to claim Kung Fu is from India due to buddhism.

Yet China has a far better claim buddhism than India because buddhist in India disapeared while it thrives in China but China is the only country in the world to have all three buddhist traditions (Mahayana, Therevada and Vajrayana) coexist natively.

Also Buddha is nepalese and the sites that are in India belong to the Shayka civilization which is culturally Nepalese therefore I refuse to believe Buddhism is an Indian religion.
Click to expand...
Fun fact. Shaolin Kung Fu became a formal thing only in the Ming dynasty. Prior to that for 800 years, Shaolin Temple was a literal who.

If Indians had such a great style that created Kung Fu, they should be able to point to it and claim pride over that.
tamsen_ikard said:
Buddhism holy books are written in prakrit which is derived from sanskrit. Nepal is basically part of indian subcontinent in terms of culture, race and language. Buddha himself travelled all over Indian subcontinent and gained Buddhahood not in Nepal but in current India.

Entire mythology of Buddhism including all the names and concept comes from Hinduism. Buddhism is basically an alteration or answer to hinduism and what Buddha thought was wrong with it.

So, its disingenuous to say Buddhism is not Indian.

Better question is why did the Chinese adopt a foreign religion when they had perfectly good local religion like taoism. Chinese should maybe abandon buddhism and go back to local religions. Think about that.
Click to expand...
I never really understood the whole point of where xxx gained his enlightenment or became popular thing.

Gandhi gained his enlightenment in Africa. Sun Yat Sen gained his enlightenment in the west. Jesus gained his enlightenment in God knows where going east. No one considers Gandhi an African (he certainly wouldn't) or Sun Yat Sen an American. Christianity basically exploded out of Rome.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
A potato said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's funny how Indians like to claim Kung Fu is from India due to buddhism.

Yet China has a far better claim buddhism than India because buddhist in India disapeared while it thrives in China but China is the only country in the world to have all three buddhist traditions (Mahayana, Therevada and Vajrayana) coexist natively.

Also Buddha is nepalese and the sites that are in India belong to the Shayka civilization which is culturally Nepalese therefore I refuse to believe Buddhism is an Indian religion.
Click to expand...
They were claiming Sun Wukong was based on Hanuman when Black Myth Wukong came out, zero people cared.

If you want to claim ownership of buddhism how about pushing out works like BMW or Nezha and get millions of people into buddhist aesthetics first.
 
Randomuser

Randomuser

Major
Registered Member
A potato said:
Taoism isn't a religion and buddhism was adopted because it's teachings is influential and it came from exchanges and thus buddhism only focuses on teachings on certain aspects of life that Confucism and Taoism didn't cover.

Buddhism has nothing to do with Hinduism as it rejects Ishavra therefore they're not hindus plus Hinduism isn't exactally a unified religion.
To say Buddhism is Indian because of Sanskirt is ridiculous statement because by that logic Islam should a Persian religion because Persian was used its sacred language.

Those sites that ended up in India dosen't make it Indian because those sites belonged to the Shakya republic which like I said before is culturally Nepalese.
Click to expand...
You know something that irked me is why Hindus and Indians are so confident claiming Buddhism as their own but not Sikhism which is also Hindu influenced and born in the Indian subcontinent (Punjab messy to describe)

Apparently one reason is because Sikhs fought back to say no you cannot claim us. And they made this very clear when they literally killed an Indian prime minister. If they had even more power, I would be surprised if they had their own country. I guess this is what Khalistan is about.

So apparently whether something is heavily Indian or not is simply a political thing based on whether it's followers take up arms? Thats probably one reason they wouldn't like Islam then since the religion was born from desert warlords.
 
Last edited:
P

PandaAI

Junior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Buddhism holy books are written in prakrit which is derived from sanskrit. Nepal is basically part of indian subcontinent in terms of culture, race and language. Buddha himself travelled all over Indian subcontinent and gained Buddhahood not in Nepal but in current India.

Entire mythology of Buddhism including all the names and concept comes from Hinduism. Buddhism is basically an alteration or answer to hinduism and what Buddha thought was wrong with it.

So, its disingenuous to say Buddhism is not Indian.

Better question is why did the Chinese adopt a foreign religion when they had perfectly good local religion like taoism. Chinese should maybe abandon buddhism and go back to local religions. Think about that.
Click to expand...

All these stories are just made up lies from thousands of years ago. Indians lie about a war they got their ass kicked just this year. Of course they will lie and exaggerate about made up stories of ‘gods’ from thousands of years ago. Human beings can’t die and be reborn a few days later. It’s impossible. This hasn’t changed from thousands of years ago to now. These religions are all cults that defy the laws of science. Myths and stories spread by people throughout centuries.
 
Last edited:
TK3600

TK3600

Colonel
Registered Member
Faisal Iqbal said:

Two years of genocide in Gaza and their blatant bias towards Isreal didn't compel them to resign, but now the Telegraph piece on Trump January 6, 2021 doctored speech has finally forced both the DG and CEO of news in the BBC to resign.

Who is their Pied piper, whose bidding are they doing?
Click to expand...
Maybe it is precisely they did not brainwash people enough on gaza that show they outlived usefulness. Now just find random excuse and rid of them.
 
Faisal Iqbal

Faisal Iqbal

Junior Member
Registered Member
Randomuser said:
You know something that irked me is why Hindus and Indians are so confident claiming Buddhism as their own but not Sikhism which is also Hindu influenced and born in the Indian subcontinent (Punjab messy to describe)

Apparently one reason is because Sikhs fought back to say no you cannot claim us. And they made this very clear when they literally killed an Indian prime minister. If they had even more power, I would be surprised if they had their own country. I guess this is what Khalistan is about.

So apparently whether something is Indian or not is simply a political thing based on whether it's followers take up arms?
Click to expand...
Hindus have no love for anyone but themselves, Buddhist claim is only due to providing asylum to Dalai Lama and political point scoring with China and keeping the Tibet option open, but there are bounderies set till Dharamsala and not beyond.

In the east they have 1600+ Km long border with Myanmar, even with their Act East policy they keep them at arms length.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top