5th century History behind the new tamil movie - 7-Aam Arivu (seventh sense)

it is interesting to note that all Indian religions--hinduism, budhism, jainism, sikhism--originated in north india. moreover, budhism and jainism originated in and around U.P. Also, U.P. was where hinduism got consolidated (the Upanisads are said to have been composed in and around U.P.).

Is there something in the water of the ganges at U.P. that eminent philosophies and philosophers seem to have arisen from this great part of India?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:5th century History behind the new tamil movie - 7-Aam Arivu (seventh sense)

Talk of merging of hinduism and buddhism and no mention of hinyana and mahayana?

Religion in ancient times flowed through royal patronage or teachings of influential rishis, the latter being more important as they could influence the former.

Rashmun wrote:it is interesting to note that all Indian religions--hinduism, budhism, jainism, sikhism--originated in north india. moreover, budhism and jainism originated in and around U.P. Also, U.P. was where hinduism got consolidated (the Upanisads are said to have been composed in and around U.P.).

Is there something in the water of the ganges at U.P. that eminent philosophies and philosophers seem to have arisen from this great part of India?

Jainism and Buddhism were more Bihar than UP. And how did you come up with upanishads thing?

Civilizations thriving in fertile land of rivers is the norm. When people had prosperity, the philosophers, poets etc got patronage, else they were too busy earning their livelihood.

benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

Rashmun wrote:it is interesting to note that all Indian religions--hinduism, budhism, jainism, sikhism--originated in north india. moreover, budhism and jainism originated in and around U.P. Also, U.P. was where hinduism got consolidated (the Upanisads are said to have been composed in and around U.P.).

Is there something in the water of the ganges at U.P. that eminent philosophies and philosophers seem to have arisen from this great part of India?

Starting a religion, IMO, is vastly overrated. One has to be extremely pompous, self-deluded, ego-centric and bigoted to believe that one's beliefs represent the sole path to spiritual bliss and to thereafter build a personality cult (usually based on a lie or a delusion of divinity) to propagate those beliefs. South Indians tend to be too self-deprecating to get into all that.

Sure, the fertile riverine plains of the North which supported the early agrarian societies acted as Hinduism's cradle. But it is those very plains where Hinduism also stagnated and descended into a tyrannical dogma, full of meaningless and cruel rituals, leading to the rise of insurrectionist movements like Buddhism and Jainism. The rise of these cults into full-fledged religions is more a discredit to Hinduism and its high priests than it is any credit to the founders themselves.

After the 10th century in particular, North India was just one big intellectual wasteland. All great thinkers and philosophers - be it Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva or Bhaskara - came from the South. And no, I don't count the founding of Sikhism as either a philosophical or intellectual achievement.

Rashmun wrote:it is interesting to note that all Indian religions--hinduism, budhism, jainism, sikhism--originated in north india. moreover, budhism and jainism originated in and around U.P. Also, U.P. was where hinduism got consolidated (the Upanisads are said to have been composed in and around U.P.).

Is there something in the water of the ganges at U.P. that eminent philosophies and philosophers seem to have arisen from this great part of India?

**hinduism is not a religion and hindu practices did not originate in north india. moreover, nothing of eminence has occurred along the banks of the ganga. maybe some outbreaks of cholera, amebiasis and dysentery.

Uttar Pradesh is where the worst crooks have originated and are presently consolidated

Bihar is the state where Buddha and Jain resided , achieved enlightenment and later taught their philosophy

Both were contemporaries living upto 80 years

Amazing isnt it ?

I wonder if they ever met

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

More than Benares, it was Gaya (bodh gaya) , Vaishali and other places in Magadh that were the center of both movements.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
After the 10th century in particular, North India was just one big intellectual wasteland. All great thinkers and philosophers - be it Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva or Bhaskara - came from the South. And no, I don't count the founding of Sikhism as either a philosophical or intellectual achievement.

The lack of intellectual pourings can be attributed to the lack of political patronage and an era of persecution. South india was relatively peaceful and still allowed for royal patronage. The intellect in North India was diverted to solving their probelms then. The rise of sufism and bhakti movements were solutions to the problems facing them then.

The movie also states that the tamil literature and the tamil library (at Sri Lanka) was destroyed. We may not be able to get a solid knowledge on these subjects except assumptions.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

One has to be extremely pompous, self-deluded, ego-centric and bigoted to believe that one's beliefs represent the sole path to spiritual bliss and to thereafter build a personality cult (usually based on a lie or a delusion of divinity) to propagate those beliefs.

prophet muhammad was such an asshole as you described above

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
After the 10th century in particular, North India was just one big intellectual wasteland. All great thinkers and philosophers - be it Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva or Bhaskara - came from the South. And no, I don't count the founding of Sikhism as either a philosophical or intellectual achievement.

after the 10th century , north india was subjected to repeated raids by the muslim invaders who raped , pillaged and conquered the land . THATS why it becase such an intellectual wasteland .

the founding of sikhism is what has saved that part of punjab from going to pakistan where the sikhs are in a majority . otherwise the pakistanis would have been knocking on the doors of delhi .

Btw, I watched the movie and it was nice. Though with the usual Murugadoss touches like...lead heroine living alone (No Parents) and fictioning the facts.

I loved Shruthi Hassan in that movie. The long hair and bangles she wore were inspiring. Surya, as usual acting and attractive and magnetic! Sigh!!

The movie ending was so filmy with quotes about Manjal and Saani! Overall....Vazhga Murugadoss! Vazhga 7 aam arivu! Vazhga Murugadoss!

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

Benaras is considered a part of UP and not Bihar, at least as of now. i believe the ancient kingdom of Magadha contained within it large parts of modern Bihar and UP.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:it is interesting to note that all Indian religions--hinduism, budhism, jainism, sikhism--originated in north india. moreover, budhism and jainism originated in and around U.P. Also, U.P. was where hinduism got consolidated (the Upanisads are said to have been composed in and around U.P.).

Is there something in the water of the ganges at U.P. that eminent philosophies and philosophers seem to have arisen from this great part of India?

Starting a religion, IMO, is vastly overrated. One has to be extremely pompous, self-deluded, ego-centric and bigoted to believe that one's beliefs represent the sole path to spiritual bliss and to thereafter build a personality cult (usually based on a lie or a delusion of divinity) to propagate those beliefs. South Indians tend to be too self-deprecating to get into all that.

Sure, the fertile riverine plains of the North which supported the early agrarian societies acted as Hinduism's cradle. But it is those very plains where Hinduism also stagnated and descended into a tyrannical dogma, full of meaningless and cruel rituals, leading to the rise of insurrectionist movements like Buddhism and Jainism. The rise of these cults into full-fledged religions is more a discredit to Hinduism and its high priests than it is any credit to the founders themselves.

After the 10th century in particular, North India was just one big intellectual wasteland. All great thinkers and philosophers - be it Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva or Bhaskara - came from the South. And no, I don't count the founding of Sikhism as either a philosophical or intellectual achievement.

--> this is in response to your words which i have put in bold:

1. why was it that the revolt against some of the dogmas that had become part of hinduism (for instance caste system) started in north india, and not south india? at least in their original form jainism, budhism, and sikhism all rejected the caste system and announced the equality of all men.

2. why was it that budhism and jainism originated in regions in and around modern U.P.?

3. i disagree that south indians are self deprecating and hence no religion originated in south india. Adi Sankara travelled all the way to Benaras to take part in philosophical debates and indeed he won over many north indian intellectuals to his point of view. Ramanuja went to Orissa to convert the Saiva king there to Vaisnavism. We are informed that the temple at Puri was originally a Shiva temple and that it subsequently became a Vishnu temple because of the efforts of Ramanuja who it seems was a passionate Vaisnava (no wonder he had to leave his native Tamil Nadu and find refuge in Karnataka because the Saivas in Tamil Nadu did not like his strident Vaisnavism and must have started persecuting him).

4. Was the Budha pompous, egocentric, self righteous, etc as you would like to characterize people like him? I think not. He was simply voicing his protest over what he saw to be injustices. For instance, is it justified to chop off the head of a sudra just because he has knowledge of the Vedas (this is in reference to the sambuka incident in the Ramayana)? Likewise for Guru Nanak. One should also take note here of reformers who tried to initiate reforms within hinduism--for instance chaitanya mahaprabhu who also preached the equality of all men and among whose followers were said to be muslims. chaitanya mahaprabhu was a bengali.

5. Another thing to think about is that there have been violent clashes between Saivas and Vaisnavas in South India (to the extent that people have gotten killed) while there has been no such bloodshed in North India. The standard way to maintain harmony in this respect is to have Vishnu show respect to Shiva and vice versa. This is what is depicted in Tulsi Das's Ramacharitamanas.

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

Benaras is considered a part of UP and not Bihar, at least as of now. i believe the ancient kingdom of Magadha contained within it large parts of modern Bihar and UP.

Don't Gaya, Vaishali, Pataliputra come in bihar even now?

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

Benaras is considered a part of UP and not Bihar, at least as of now. i believe the ancient kingdom of Magadha contained within it large parts of modern Bihar and UP.

Don't Gaya, Vaishali, Pataliputra come in bihar even now?

they do. and the budha is said to have attained enlightenment under a tree in Gaya. On the other hand, Budhism definitely started in modern UP since the Budha's first sermon is recorded to have been given in Sarnath, which is just on the outskirts of Benaras (which is in modern UP). Also, the Budha was born in Kapilavastu, now in present Nepal, but very close to the Nepal/UP border.

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

Benaras is considered a part of UP and not Bihar, at least as of now. i believe the ancient kingdom of Magadha contained within it large parts of modern Bihar and UP.

Don't Gaya, Vaishali, Pataliputra come in bihar even now?

they do. and the budha is said to have attained enlightenment under a tree in Gaya. On the other hand, Budhism definitely started in modern UP since the Budha's first sermon is recorded to have been given in Sarnath, which is just on the outskirts of Benaras (which is in modern UP). Also, the Budha was born in Kapilavastu, now in present Nepal, but very close to the Nepal/UP border.

Nepal is Nepal, Bihar is Bihar and UP is UP. If you want to include all of them use a more inclusive term than UP. He may have preached in Sarnath and he may have preached beyond UP as well. In general, it jsut shows how far UP and Bihar have fallen in terms of intellectual contributions.

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

Benaras is considered a part of UP and not Bihar, at least as of now. i believe the ancient kingdom of Magadha contained within it large parts of modern Bihar and UP.

Don't Gaya, Vaishali, Pataliputra come in bihar even now?

they do. and the budha is said to have attained enlightenment under a tree in Gaya. On the other hand, Budhism definitely started in modern UP since the Budha's first sermon is recorded to have been given in Sarnath, which is just on the outskirts of Benaras (which is in modern UP). Also, the Budha was born in Kapilavastu, now in present Nepal, but very close to the Nepal/UP border.

Nepal is Nepal, Bihar is Bihar and UP is UP. If you want to include all of them use a more inclusive term than UP. He may have preached in Sarnath and he may have preached beyond UP as well. In general, it jsut shows how far UP and Bihar have fallen in terms of intellectual contributions.

You can call the region Greater Bihar or Greater UP. Doesn't really matter that much. In the context of Budhism, calling the region Greater UP makes more sense though since Kapilavastu (birthplace of Budha) is right near the U.P./Nepal border.

artood2 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

More than Benares, it was Gaya (bodh gaya) , Vaishali and other places in Magadh that were the center of both movements.

i singled out benares because that is the only claim UP has over the two religions. other important towns are pavapuri (for jainism) and nalanda (for buddhism) in bihar.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

More than Benares, it was Gaya (bodh gaya) , Vaishali and other places in Magadh that were the center of both movements.

i singled out benares because that is the only claim UP has over the two religions. other important towns are pavapuri (for jainism) and nalanda (for buddhism) in bihar.

What about Kapilavastu--birthplace of Budha and right near the UP/Nepal border.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

More than Benares, it was Gaya (bodh gaya) , Vaishali and other places in Magadh that were the center of both movements.

i singled out benares because that is the only claim UP has over the two religions. other important towns are pavapuri (for jainism) and nalanda (for buddhism) in bihar.

got it. Magadha under the Mauryas was the epicenter in those days.

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:benares, from where gautama and mahavira popularized their religions, is the westernmost city of bihar and bihar should fight for it's inclusion in bihar and not UP. culturally, and in common perception, benares is in bihar. guru nanak's 10 or so gurus, who helped him shape sikhism, were from all over india and not just north. more importantly, guru gobind singh was born and raised in patna -- so he was a bihari. gautama and mahavira were also born and raised in bihar. so, it is the ganges water of bihar that has the highest philosophical quotient. case closed.

More than Benares, it was Gaya (bodh gaya) , Vaishali and other places in Magadh that were the center of both movements.

i singled out benares because that is the only claim UP has over the two religions. other important towns are pavapuri (for jainism) and nalanda (for buddhism) in bihar.

What about Kapilavastu--birthplace of Budha and right near the UP/Nepal border.

And Kushinagar--the place where the Budha died--is actually in modern UP.

So he was born near the U.P./Nepal border (but on the Nepal side of the border), he gave his first sermon in U.P., and he died in U.P.

artood2 wrote:got it. Magadha under the Mauryas was the epicenter in those days.

actually no. ashoka was a contemporary of bimbisara who had a grand magadha kingdom of his own which only grew under the mauryas (later). bimbisara had ensnared amrapali from the lichavis (where she was a royal consort) and who eventually became a nun in vaishali when she met buddha there. bimbisara was also a patron of buddha.

Rashmun wrote:
And Kushinagar--the place where the Budha died--is actually in modern UP.

i was hoping you wouldn't mention this. what does place of death have to do with enlightenment?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:got it. Magadha under the Mauryas was the epicenter in those days.

actually no. ashoka was a contemporary of bimbisara who had a grand magadha kingdom of his own which only grew under the mauryas (later). bimbisara had ensnared amrapali from the lichavis (where she was a royal consort) and who eventually became a nun in vaishali when she met buddha there. bimbisara was also a patron of buddha.

yes i got my history messed up. Mauryas were later. However the 16 janpadas were in magadh and adjacent areas?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
And Kushinagar--the place where the Budha died--is actually in modern UP.

i was hoping you wouldn't mention this. what does place of death have to do with enlightenment?

near bihar border if that is relevant.

lol, good point! magadha kingdom in any case.

artood2 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:got it. Magadha under the Mauryas was the epicenter in those days.

actually no. ashoka was a contemporary of bimbisara who had a grand magadha kingdom of his own which only grew under the mauryas (later). bimbisara had ensnared amrapali from the lichavis (where she was a royal consort) and who eventually became a nun in vaishali when she met buddha there. bimbisara was also a patron of buddha.

yes i got my history messed up. Mauryas were later. However the 16 janpadas were in magadh and adjacent areas?

yes, if by adjacent areas you mean whole of india. magadha was one of the mahajanapadhas (republic or kingdom). i think lichavis were the odd one out -- i'm not sure but they were not a mahajanapada (republic or kingdom). i think they were a tribe or something. but then gautama was a prince -- i think there were multiple royalties in the lichavi clan.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

artood2 wrote:got it. Magadha under the Mauryas was the epicenter in those days.

actually no. ashoka was a contemporary of bimbisara who had a grand magadha kingdom of his own which only grew under the mauryas (later). bimbisara had ensnared amrapali from the lichavis (where she was a royal consort) and who eventually became a nun in vaishali when she met buddha there. bimbisara was also a patron of buddha.

yes i got my history messed up. Mauryas were later. However the 16 janpadas were in magadh and adjacent areas?

yes, if by adjacent areas you mean whole of india. magadha was one of the mahajanapadhas (republic or kingdom). i think lichavis were the odd one out -- i'm not sure but they were not a mahajanapada (republic or kingdom). i think they were a tribe or something. but then gautama was a prince -- i think there were multiple royalties in the lichavi clan.

of course, magadh was one of the 16. i should sleep. sorry.

good night. we have to force blebo to come to chat for a day for old times sake.

ok, i just googled. so kashi (benares) was a distinct mahajanapadha and not a part of magadha -- at least not in buddha's time.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i think lichavis were the odd one out -- i'm not sure but they were not a mahajanapada (republic or kingdom).

no, the lichavis were considered a majanapada, classified under the vajji or vriji mahajanapada. but it remains that in reality they were a tribal confederacy.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
And Kushinagar--the place where the Budha died--is actually in modern UP.

i was hoping you wouldn't mention this. what does place of death have to do with enlightenment?

--> it is indicative of the fact that the Budha spent his life in and
around modern U.P.(Kushinagar is not far from the place where he was born actually).
In fact, i do not think he traveled anywhere outside modern U.P. and
Bihar in his entire life.

pravalika nanda wrote:

Rashmun wrote:it is interesting to note that all Indian religions--hinduism, budhism, jainism, sikhism--originated in north india. moreover, budhism and jainism originated in and around U.P. Also, U.P. was where hinduism got consolidated (the Upanisads are said to have been composed in and around U.P.).

Is there something in the water of the ganges at U.P. that eminent philosophies and philosophers seem to have arisen from this great part of India?

**hinduism is not a religion and hindu practices did not originate in north india. moreover, nothing of eminence has occurred along the banks of the ganga. maybe some outbreaks of cholera, amebiasis and dysentery.

I need enlightenment....pliss to enlighten me!

P.S: Let's not divide the discussion by mere directions and lose the direction of the intellectual simulation here. Forget the north/south divide and think - most of the pilgrims (commercialized these days!) are located in North...may be it has something to do with birth of Rama/Krishna and the rivers. I suppose it is good for any religious people to visit those places once in a life time and that's that.

@ rashmun - I have no idea what point you are trying to make. hitherto I was being mock serious - I mean in my first post in this thread. If you are so concerned about which state has the exclusive right to lay claim to his legacy, here's my answer - nepal only nepal.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:@ rashmun - I have no idea what point you are trying to make. hitherto I was being mock serious - I mean in my first post in this thread. If you are so concerned about which state has the exclusive right to lay claim to his legacy, here's my answer - nepal only nepal.

--> but Budha spent his working life in India. For instance, he attained enlightenment under a tree in Gaya and gave his first sermon at Sarnath (near Benaras). He also died in Kushinagar which is in India.

--> Also, the border between Nepal and India were not demarcated in the Budha's times as they are today and further in future Nepal may formally become a part of India.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:@ rashmun - I have no idea what point you are trying to make. hitherto I was being mock serious - I mean in my first post in this thread. If you are so concerned about which state has the exclusive right to lay claim to his legacy, here's my answer - nepal only nepal.

--> my point is that why was it that the region in and around modern U.P. gave rise to Budhism and Jainism and was also the region where Hinduism got consolidated (since the Upanisads are believed to have been written in the region in and around modern U.P.). I was being facetious when i said it has something to do with the water in the ganges at U.P. But the primary question is a serious one.

Rashmun wrote:
--> Also, the border between Nepal and India were not demarcated in the Budha's times as they are today and further in future Nepal may formally become a part of India.

Just look above in your earlier thread on whether Benares should be in UP or Bihar you bluntly said "as of today Benares is in UP"

So as of today Nepal is Nepal and Budha was born in Nepal.

Started applying - as usual - your "Rashmun Concept" of slowly moving the goalpost to your convenience.

Rashmun wrote:...and further in future Nepal may formally become a part of India.

all right!

Rashmun wrote:
--> in future Nepal may formally become a part of India.

Welcome to the RSS view of akhand bharat!

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:@ rashmun - I have no idea what point you are trying to make. hitherto I was being mock serious - I mean in my first post in this thread. If you are so concerned about which state has the exclusive right to lay claim to his legacy, here's my answer - nepal only nepal.

--> my point is that why was it that the region in and around modern U.P. gave rise to Budhism and Jainism and was also the region where Hinduism got consolidated (since the Upanisads are believed to have been written in the region in and around modern U.P.). I was being facetious when i said it has something to do with the water in the ganges at U.P. But the primary question is a serious one.

--> the primary question i have raised remains unanswered.

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
--> in future Nepal may formally become a part of India.

Welcome to the RSS view of akhand bharat!

--> By this logic vegetarians are evil people since hitler was a vegetarian.

Rashmun wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
--> in future Nepal may formally become a part of India.

Welcome to the RSS view of akhand bharat!

--> By this logic vegetarians are evil people since hitler was a vegetarian.

how, pray, explain.

Rashmun wrote:1. why was it that the revolt against some of the dogmas that had become part of hinduism (for instance caste system) started in north india, and not south india?

Your fundamental premise that all the exciting stuff happened in NI is wrong. I would argue that Ramanujacharya's Shrivaishnavism is as much a revolution against the orthodoxy as Buddhism. Ramanuja also attracted followers from all castes, and unlike the Buddha who is curiously silent on caste - despite our very strong modern-day perceptions that he was anti-caste - Ramanuja explicitly worked to integrate other castes into the Shrivaishnavite movement. Today, the only reason we view Buddhism as a separate religion but not Shrivaishnavism only because the former got internationalized and its overseas followers didn't swallow the co-optive story of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu etc, while the latter was sucessfully co-opted as another school of thought within Hinduism.

Rashmun wrote:at least in their original form jainism, budhism, and sikhism all rejected the caste system and announced the equality of all men.

I believe this is a very simplistic view, fed by NCERT text-books. AFAIK, the Buddha is quite silent on the caste system (and invite you to supply any credible references to the contrary). At best, one can say he was indifferent to it. But early Buddhism was not at all anti-caste. The Lalitavistara sutra, a foundational Buddhist scripture dating back to 3rd century CE, specifies how the Bodhisattva can only be of Brahmana or Kshatriya birth. Elsewhere, the Buddha is quoted describing his lineage, suitably high-born of course, complete with mention of the (high) caste and gothra of each of his ancestors. The anti-caste flavor, IMO, was a later day inference seeing how the Buddha took on the Brahminical establishment head-on. But anti-Brahminism doesn't mean anti-casteism. Of course, this anti-caste interpretation was expedient for the Sangha which had by then become a very powerful political organization and helped it rationalize its business expansion by sending missionaries overseas to evangelize this religion to (untouchable) mlechchas.

Rashmun wrote:Adi Sankara travelled all the way to Benaras to take part in philosophical debates and indeed he won over many north indian intellectuals to his point of view. Ramanuja went to Orissa to convert the Saiva king there to Vaisnavism.

True. But doesn't this negate your claim that it was only North India which provided all the great religions? Shankara was evangelizing shaivism backed by advaita, Ramanuja was evangelizing shrivaishnavism backed by vishishtadvaita. Just because we today view these and other different philosophies and religious movements under one catchall term called Hinduism, it doesn't mean that was a valid view one millenium ago. It was easier for the Brahmin orthodoxy to co-opt certain religions / movements and much harder in some other cases. So merely because Sankara and Ramnuja were both successfully co-opted doesn't make their achievments any lesser than that of Buddha and Mahavira (Incidentally, the last is not even a founder of a religion - just the last tirthankara in a long line.)

Rashmun wrote:5. Another thing to think about is that there have been violent clashes between Saivas and Vaisnavas in South India (to the extent that people have gotten killed) while there has been no such bloodshed in North India. The standard way to maintain harmony in this respect is to have Vishnu show respect to Shiva and vice versa. This is what is depicted in Tulsi Das's Ramacharitamanas.

All those shaivite vs vaishnavite rivalries in the South were over political patronage. By the time Vaishnavism came up and Tulsidas penned his magnum opus, North India had already been under Muslim rule for five centuries and the new ruling class had no interest in encouraging - leave alone patronizing - any other religion. As a subject class, North Indian Hindus hardly had the luxury of pitting one deity against another. What better way to please both than to depict them as showing mutual respect?

Merlot Daruwala wrote: AFAIK, the Buddha is quite silent on the caste system (and invite you to supply any credible references to the contrary).

in fact, the buddha was not much for gender equality either. it took a long time for him to accept that indeed women could also attain nirvana. his mother or his aunt doggedly insisted that he take her as an arahant -- that's when buddha broke his rule. had it not been for this incident, buddhist arahants would have been only men.

correction: not as an arahant but as a disciple in my above post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Travels_and_teaching wrote:The king's death and cremation was to inspire the creation of an
order of nuns. Buddhist texts record that the Buddha was reluctant to
ordain women. His foster mother Maha Pajapati,
for example, approached him, asking to join the sangha, but he refused.
Maha Pajapati, however, was so intent on the path of awakening that she
led a group of royal Sakyan and Koliyan ladies, which followed the
sangha on a long journey to Rajagaha. In time, after Ananda championed
their cause, the Buddha is said to have reconsidered and, five years
after the formation of the sangha, agreed to the ordination of women as
nuns. He reasoned that males and females had an equal capacity for
awakening. But he gave women additional rules (Vinaya) to follow.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:1. why was it that the revolt against some of the dogmas that had become part of hinduism (for instance caste system) started in north india, and not south india?

Your fundamental premise that all the exciting stuff happened in NI is wrong. I would argue that Ramanujacharya's Shrivaishnavism is as much a revolution against the orthodoxy as Buddhism. Ramanuja also attracted followers from all castes, and unlike the Buddha who is curiously silent on caste - despite our very strong modern-day perceptions that he was anti-caste - Ramanuja explicitly worked to integrate other castes into the Shrivaishnavite movement. Today, the only reason we view Buddhism as a separate religion but not Shrivaishnavism only because the former got internationalized and its overseas followers didn't swallow the co-optive story of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu etc, while the latter was sucessfully co-opted as another school of thought within Hinduism.

--> i am not claiming that all the exciting stuff was happening in north india. i am only claiming that no new religion started in south india.

--> the reason we think of Ramanuja's philosophy as a philosophy within hinduism is because Ramanuja accepts the validity of the Vedas. His philosophy is known as Visistadvaita and it is classified as a sub-sect of Vedanta. The reason why it is a sub-sect of Vedanta is because Ramanuja accepted the authority of the Brahma sutra and wrote a commentary on it. Anyone who wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutra is considered a Vedantin because the Brahma sutra is claimed to be be a highly condensed and cryptic text containing the ideas in the Upanisads.

Rashmun wrote:at least in their original form jainism, budhism, and sikhism all rejected the caste system and announced the equality of all men.

Merlot wrote:I believe this is a very simplistic view, fed by NCERT text-books. AFAIK, the Buddha is quite silent on the caste system (and invite you to supply any credible references to the contrary). At best, one can say he was indifferent to it. But early Buddhism was not at all anti-caste. The Lalitavistara sutra, a foundational Buddhist scripture dating back to 3rd century CE, specifies how the Bodhisattva can only be of Brahmana or Kshatriya birth. Elsewhere, the Buddha is quoted describing his lineage, suitably high-born of course, complete with mention of the (high) caste and gothra of each of his ancestors. The anti-caste flavor, IMO, was a later day inference seeing how the Buddha took on the Brahminical establishment head-on. But anti-Brahminism doesn't mean anti-casteism. Of course, this anti-caste interpretation was expedient for the Sangha which had by then become a very powerful political organization and helped it rationalize its business expansion by sending missionaries overseas to evangelize this religion to (untouchable) mlechchas.

--> There are two different views on Budha's approach to the caste system. One says that he did nothing to improve the lot of low caste hindus and they give the reasons. The second school of thought says that he did improve the lot of low caste hindus and they give their reasons. I accept the views of this second school. An important scholar of this second school of thought is Oldenberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Oldenberg

--> One of the reasons given by the second school is that anyone could become a member of the budhist sangha--even a low caste hindu--and once within the sangha he would be treated as an equal by everyone within the sangha.

--> it is true though that the budha did not try to eliminate the caste system but perhaps he wisely recognized that that was a task beyond his powers.

--> the sanghas became a powerful (and materially rich) organization long after the Budha had died. The Budha himself preferred that he and his followers should lead simple, austere lives. there was in fact a division within the budhist sangha some time after the budha's death was whether budhist monks should lead simple, austere lives or comfortable lives. this was the basis of the emergence of the hinayana (lesser vehicle) and mahayana (greater vehicle) schools of budhism. the hinayana schools of budhism are said to be closer in their outlook to original budhism than mahayana budhism. incidentally, the names hinayana and mahayana are coined by the self styled mahayana budhists.

Rashmun wrote:Adi Sankara travelled all the way to Benaras to take part in philosophical debates and indeed he won over many north indian intellectuals to his point of view. Ramanuja went to Orissa to convert the Saiva king there to Vaisnavism.

Merlot wrote:True. But doesn't this negate your claim that it was only North India which provided all the great religions? Shankara was evangelizing shaivism backed by advaita, Ramanuja was evangelizing shrivaishnavism backed by vishishtadvaita. Just because we today view these and other different philosophies and religious movements under one catchall term called Hinduism, it doesn't mean that was a valid view one millenium ago. It was easier for the Brahmin orthodoxy to co-opt certain religions / movements and much harder in some other cases. So merely because Sankara and Ramnuja were both successfully co-opted doesn't make their achievments any lesser than that of Buddha and Mahavira (Incidentally, the last is not even a founder of a religion - just the last tirthankara in a long line.)

--> the reason we view Adi Sankara and Ramanuja to be operating within hinduism is because they wrote commentaries on the Upanisads, the Gita, the Brahma sutra, etc.

--> Budha did not accept the validity of the Veda. In one of his dialogues the Budha is depicted as making fun of hindu gods: for instance he claims that if you approach Brahma and ask him some deep philosophical questions, Brahma himself might be unable to answer you. Budha rejects the caste system when he allows people of any caste to join the budhist sangha and announced the equality of everyone within the sangha.

Rashmun wrote:5. Another thing to think about is that there have been violent clashes between Saivas and Vaisnavas in South India (to the extent that people have gotten killed) while there has been no such bloodshed in North India. The standard way to maintain harmony in this respect is to have Vishnu show respect to Shiva and vice versa. This is what is depicted in Tulsi Das's Ramacharitamanas.

Merlot wrote:All those shaivite vs vaishnavite rivalries in the South were over political patronage. By the time Vaishnavism came up and Tulsidas penned his magnum opus, North India had already been under Muslim rule for five centuries and the new ruling class had no interest in encouraging - leave alone patronizing - any other religion. As a subject class, North Indian Hindus hardly had the luxury of pitting one deity against another. What better way to please both than to depict them as showing mutual respect?

--> this is a good point.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote: AFAIK, the Buddha is quite silent on the caste system (and invite you to supply any credible references to the contrary).

in fact, the buddha was not much for gender equality either. it took a long time for him to accept that indeed women could also attain nirvana. his mother or his aunt doggedly insisted that he take her as an arahant -- that's when buddha broke his rule. had it not been for this incident, buddhist arahants would have been only men.

in the budha's defense i would point out that there is not a single monastic order in Europe which includes both men and women. they are either all men or all women. physical proximity to the other sex would lead to temptation to indulge in carnal pleasures. Such temptations, if succumbed to, would result in becoming a monk only in name. this was perhaps the reason why the budha was reluctant to have women becoming full time monks residing within the sanghas alongside men.