It took me hours to find it so i marked it for convenience ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://preview.redd.it/vhvr9frses3d1.jpeg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=591da706bad9c79806f69bc25f2601fe5f2f9eae
⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Buddhisam was founded a long time after Gita(a religious book in Hinduism) was written.
Aryabhatta was an Indian mathematician who was alive in 400-500 AD.
Aryabhatta, an Indian scholar/sage/inventor, came up with the base 10 number system (writing numbers with 0s like 10, 20, 30, etc., rather than having specific symbols like X, V, C, M, etc.), which is also referred to as the Arabic numerals as the west was introduced to it by the arabs who themselves learned it from India.
In other words, Aryabhatta invented '0', which is the key to the base 10 system. The commenter in the burn is referring to this fact sarcastically. Hinduism and Bhagavadgita precede Buddism by millenia and Buddism borrows heavily from Hinduism.
Lack of skills on their part never seems to be an obstacle for any issue they’ve pushed in the past. In fact, they’ve always been proud of their ignorance.
Thank you!
I still try to use it every year, even though the Indian numbers will get explained every year too. I try to look at it as creating a learning opportunity.
Then do the full research. Just reading an article doesn’t count as research, does it?
Zero, for the first time, was used as a mathematical symbol and in arithmetic computations by Indians.
The zero you are referring to is a primitive symbol for not having what was there.
Philosophically and mathematically, Indians were the first.
No. They didn’t get together to come up with it. Zero was a concept developed by different cultures that had nothing to do with each other at different times. First Mesopotamia, then Mayans, followed by India and then China. [This article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-origin-of-zer/) gives you the timeline.
Mayans were independent from everyone else.
Well yeah. They just appeared. And then disappeared.
It's the same thing as North American Indians. Their genetics are Asiatic. They aren't from this continent. Well. The ones that the government sanction anyway.
None of that is true. Mayans didn’t appear and then “disappear”. There are Mayan people nowadays, just not Mayan empire. Which fell for a number of reasons. And our North and South American indigenous genetics are not “Asiatic” although our ancestors did come through the Bering Strait from the Eurasian continent about 30,000 years ago.
A long time?
Buddhism: [The Buddha ("the Awakened One") was a Śramaṇa who lived in South Asia c. **6th or 5th century BCE**.[33][34] Followers of Buddhism, called Buddhists in English, referred to themselves as Sakyan-s or Sakyabhiksu in ancient India.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism)
Bhagavad Gita [Theories on the date of the composition of the Gita vary considerably. The text is generally dated to the second half of the first millennium BCE.[10] Some scholars accept dates from the **5th century BCE to the 2nd century BCE** as the probable range, **the latter likely**. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita)
More like slightly younger to a lot younger.
Bhagavad-Gita is part codification of a religion which had been around for at least 1500 years before the book. There were 4 Vedas written before the Gita.
That's like saying Christianity is 2 thousand years older because it builds on the Jewish scripture.
The Bhagavad-Gita is 5th to 2nd century BCE. Period.
No it's not. Just because the movie Thor was made in 2011 doesn't mean the old Norse gods and religions didn't exist before that.
You are confusing when a religion starts with when a major book was written about it. Christianity also began before the Bible (new testament) was written.
> No it's not. Just because the movie Thor was made in 2011 doesn't mean the old Norse gods and religions didn't exist before that.
The idea of Thor is still older. That story about that fat guy hanging out with a billionaire in a robot armor - *that*'s 2011.
And no, Christianity begins as earliest definition with the action of that fella calle Christ. That doesn't make any of the testaments older - they still be 200 years younger than Christianity.
Bhagavad Gita might base on something older - *but it is aged at 5th to 2nd BCE*. And that's it.
I don't remember me saying the age of the testaments changes and become older. How the hell did you make that interpretation?
I don't understand, you admit that it's based on something older. Which means, that the concepts like Nirvana do have their origin in Hinduism, and not in Buddhism and that there is a big gap between when these concepts were introduced in Hinduism vs when they were introduced in Buddhism.
So what is the point of your argument? Is it just the pedantic point that the book was written much more recently? Because that pretty weird. Ideas are valid even if they aren't written down somewhere, especially if they are formed before writing was invented.
So:
> Buddhisam was founded a long time after Gita(a religious book in Hinduism) was written.
this is the fucking comment I replied to.
When was the fucking Gita written? **After Buddhism** came into existence. You fucking do know what the word **written** does mean, right?
Now the Gita might write about the Big Bang and the creation of universe 13 billion years in the past - still doesn't make the Gita fucking older than Buddhism.
If you have any knowledge of Indian history you would immediately see the discrepancies in above claim. Composition of Gita cannot be dated separately from the events of Mahabharat. It was narrated by Krishna during the war.
There is a similar case with Rigveda - the oldest written text by humans. It is dated as 3000 BC, but it was in existence way before that in the form of oral knowledge.
So, don't go by Wikipedia. They are mostly quoting western researchers.
But the western researchers have been known to be wrong about many things like the Aryan invasion. They don't understand the context of Indian culture.
Even in modern times western analyzers twist the narrative to suit their agenda. I say we should trust any researchers that provide solid evidence and whose theories fit the logical timeline. And whatever is mentioned on Wikipedia is contradictory to evidence.
Aryan invasion theory is not wrong. Quit your bullshit. Vedic Hinduism did not originate in India and it's a known fact. Stop Hindutva-washing it. There's genetic proof, linguistic proof, and archaeological proof for the Aryan Migration Theory. All you people are doing is claiming that genetic and linguistic mapping itself is not a correct approach. Yeah, right. You all are basically denying science.
Aryan invasion theory is wrong. It has been proven wrong using archeological and genetical evidence.
Just one of the articles after casual googling - https://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid\_evidence\_debunking\_aryan\_invasion.htm. I can provide so many other articles and videos, but as I said, a casual google search provides you with everything you need to know.
So, do not spread your falsehoods. You know nothing about Indian history.
Imagine being this retarded. Hinduism completely originated in India. That's why all epics, stories, poems, tales of Hinudism take place in India, and not central Asia.
"learn to think better"
Wow.
I was being sarcastic, you are an idiot.
it's completely insane to suggest Buddhism and Hindu are relatively close in age. If you can even start to question that Hinduism isn't far far far older, you might as well get all your advice from people who know absolutely nothing.
We’re talking about the Bhagavad Gita, not “Hinduism.” The vedas and the upanishads are much older than Buddhism, obviously. You should add a /s to your sarcastic posts so people know, since you’re not good at conveying it. Still not seeing the “thinking” in this response though.
> Rigveda
Not dated 3000 BCE and not the oldest written text. Estimates put it anywhere from 1900 to 1200 BCE. It is the oldest known Sanskrit text, but Cuneiform writing existed for 1000 years before Sanskrit.
I don't want to get into semantics and I am not an expert at this, so I will take your statement at face value.
My point still stands, though. Composition of Gita cannot be separated from the events of Mahabharat irrespective of when it was put down in written form.
> the events of Mahabharat
[The bulk of the Mahābhārata was probably compiled between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, with the oldest preserved parts not much older than around 400 BCE.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata)
> the oldest written text by humans.
That would be the [Kish tablet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_documents). The Rigveda is some oral tradition that got later written down. Like the Tora for instance. And many other myths and stories.
And your point being? I know what written means. Do you understand what I am saying? That Mahabharat being compiled at a certain point in time does not mean it happened at that time. Especially since India's tradition of oral knowledge transfer is very strong.
In fact, I don't even agree to the timeframe you mentioned about when Mahabharat was compiled. But, it doesn't matter to the point I am making so I did not harp on about it.
Hinduism was a precursor to Buddhism.
Sort of like Judaism was a precursor to christianity.
The dumb quote above is like saying "the Jews stole the idea of yahweh from the christians."
Yahweh is just the name for their god. I don't like to just say 'god' all the time b/c I frequently debate theists of all kinds: monotheists and polythesists, so I prefer names to be less confusing.
Buddhism is originally a sect of Hinduism. There are paintings of early Buddhism where the Hindu gods (Indra and... Brahma, IIRC) went to meet the Buddha (Gautama), so he was originally.part of that pantheon. But it didn't grow big in India (arguably it got wiped out during the rise of Islam) and instead became huge in China, where the Hindu elements got phased out.
Christianity is cobbled together from several local religions. Jesus is a conglomerate of myths, including some about Osiris, so arguably Christianity is much older than Judaism.
Judaism is also cobbled together from several other religions. Genesis borrows heavily from Mesopotamian mythology. So no, Christianity isn't older for having borrowed from multiple sources.
I'm not well enough acquainted to make a definitive answer. Both societies seem to originate around the same time in the past. They doubtless influenced each other. But Christianity would've been borrowing from Egyptian mythology around 2000 years ago. Judaism was borrowing from several hundred to several thousand years earlier. Also, Egypt and Mesopotamia doubtless influenced each other. Also, Judaism also likely borrowed from Egyptian religions.
Looking at it another way, if I quarry rocks and build a house, that doesn't make my house the age of the rocks. If I reuse bricks from an ancient structure to build my house, it still doesn't make my house as old as the bricks. If I find an ancient ruin and build my house using whatever elements were left of that ruin, it still doesn't make my house as old as the ruin, even if parts of it are.
Luckily, we do not measure religions in geological time. You have not provided any particular examples of Judaism borrowing from any society in particular, just Mesopotamia as a place.
Osiris depictions are traced back to at least 2300 BCE, so "Christianity" is at least 4300 years old.
Mesopotamia is a specific society. Just as specific, if not more so, than Egypt. But if you want more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
And again, borrowing from others doesn't make you as old as what you borrowed from.
The Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, and Babylonian civilizations are not the same society. Mesopotamia is where they existed.
If you're going to 'but actually' show us more than your butt.
First of all the whole Osiris == Jesus thing, to my knowledge, is some shit that the movie Zeitgeist basically just made up
Second of all, there are traces of various Messopotamian cultures all over Torah, from Baal to Cyrus II
There are many parallels between HaShem and Ba'al Haddad for example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)#Hebrew_Bible
That's bullshit. There's a whole industry of bullshitters and you fell for them. There's been centuries of people finding sticks and pretending it's Noah's ark, or a scrap of clothing and saying it's his shroud.
Archaeologists were never the target of these lies, just stupid people looking to get their religion confirmed back to them.
No, seriously, virtually every historian of antiquity, even those that aren't religious, agrees that Jesus was a historical person. That Jesus wasn't an actual person has been a fringe theory since the early 1900s.
Now, in a historical sense, what we can say for sure is pretty limited. Historians agree that:
* There was a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth who existed in the Judea area in the early 1st century and was born circa 4 BC.
* He was baptized by John the Baptist.
* He was crucified by the Romans when he was about 30 years old.
That's pretty much it. Any water into wine stuff or feeding 5000 with five loaves of bread and two fish, no historical evidence. *A* man named Jesus existed, but he wasn't the Jesus we now see in the Bible.
The shroud of turin alone was an entire scam industry. Whole empires have risen and fallen while churches have collected money with fake artifacts. The Vatican would have been bankrupt without people spending their life savings on pilgrimages to fake 'evidence'.
Scammers will promote whatever historians will promote the scam, but archaeologists are not stupid people.
There is no evidence of anyone with that name being crucified. No evidence they were 30 years old or got wet or that there was a John the Baptist to get them wet.
Prophets were a dime a dozen, just like today. The Romans did not crucify people on crosses, they tortured people on poles, and such public displays of cruelty were rare. Rare enough that a lack of documentation is damning.
Nobody wrote about a fictional character like that until hundreds of years later, and J sounds weren't used for first names.
The Shroud of Turin doesn't even enter into it. I don't think it's proof either - it's used as evidence of *divinity,* which is where historians and theologians will disagree. Wasn't it carbon dated to the 1300s?
Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus mentions Jesus in the Annals. These were written no more than a century after Jesus's death, and by non-Christian writers to boot.
There need not be archaeological evidence. You'll find there is in fact very little archaeological evidence for *any* person who lived at the time.
The shroud of Turin is fake. My point is people have been faking forever. A compromised version without supernatural elements isn't real just because the compromised versions are removed.
Who's to say if the sources you see are as trustworthy are any more real than the shroud? Did the writer hear a story and repeat it or did somebody else insert their religion? Voltare says the Annals are untrustworthy, and half of what's left have ... gone missing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
600 years from now people will tell doubters that wealthy Nigerian internet princes were real, but that there was no evidence they ever successfully transferred their money.
I don't care what Voltaire, a historian who died over 200 years ago, thought. Historians today differ. Jesus is mentioned once in the Annals and historians today consider it genuine. The rest of the Annals is Roman history and doesn't concern Jesus at all. It's not at all strange for ancient writings to be incomplete or lost entirely - such is the case for many ancient Greek philosophers.
Case in point: there is a second mention of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews that is indeed considered fabricated. But the other is considered genuine. If the vast majority of historians think "yeah, seems legit," then... yeah, seems legit.
Jesus was a real person, as real as Muhammad or the Buddha. It's not that the spiritual one came first and was toned down for a historical version; it's that the historical version came first and the spiritual one was based off the actual person.
You need only know three data points. Buddha was a Hindu, the Gita is Hindu scripture, and Aryabhata is an ancient Indian mathematician.
Knowing the first two, the third can be inferred. Aryabhata's claim to inventing zero is more tenuous than others', but that doesn't really matter. Any ancient number notable would do.
I suppose, in a Western context, you could offer:
"The Torah stole the idea of Original Sin from Christianity."
"Ptolemy stole the concept of Zero from your IQ."
You needn't really know much about Ptolemy, you'd still get the idea.
Indiadiscussion is a Hindu right wing sub. Hence the upvotes on the post.
Hinduism as you know it today , like India (as you know it today) probably didn't exist in the time the post is referencing . It is an amalgamation of the many belief systems that existed in the subcontinent just like how modern India is an amalgamation of the many princely states that existed in the subcontinent.
Only someone educated in India would consider this to be a murder. It's a gratuitous mindless insult and also incorrect, so it's a suicide at best.
I don't know enough about the history of buddhism and hinduism (western scholars place the Gida a few hundreds of years after Buddha, but indian scholars disagree), but there is evidence of usage of zero in Babylon/Sumeria hundreds of years before the birth of Aryabhatta. But I expect Indian schools to teach that he invented the concept of zero.
As an explanatory for someone who doesn't know it:
The concept of Nirvana/Moksha has been around since longer than the birth of Buddhism as we call it these days. When the teachings of Gautama Buddha spread far and wide starting from his later years in 5th Century BCE, the concept of primal importance is Nirvana, which is the freedom from the cycle of birth and death. This concept has been there from long back even in the Vedas, but it was preached to the common people along with other teachings only around the time Buddhism had started through the means of sramanic movements (as in Jainism and Buddhism, which were brought about by important figures who spread teachings), meaning that the emphasis was increased at that time.
Aryabhata lived during 5th Century CE and is credited to be the discover of Zero (shunya).
For that one person:
https://www.history.com/news/who-invented-the-zero
These early counting systems only saw the zero as a placeholder—not a number with its own unique value or properties. A full grasp of zero’s importance would not arrive until the seventh century A.D. in India.
Fact remains that one dude did not discover or “invent” the zero. Other people did before him. I can tell I stroke a nerve there and you guys are proud of this dude…and you should be since he did find out how useful the concept is, unlike his Babylonian and Mayan predecessors.
Why do people not understand that society cannot survive as clusters of monocultures? People move around, trade goods and ideas, listen to each other's music, adapt their religions into their own, accept new ideas. We would not have evolved otherwise. This whole "cultural appropriation" bullshit has been going on since the beginning of time. Jesus Fuck, the Roman's just took the Greeks gods and stories, changed the names (sometimes not even by much) and moved on. This is the way humanity fucking works people. Jesus Christ, someone hand me a Jack and Coke and some Advil.
Actually, yes, I was, and if you must know I was also taking a shit after my morning wake and bake. I was responding to the "stolen" part of it. I get the point of the post. I am just tired of seeing it regarding modern shit, but to see a post of someone bitching about ancient cultural appropriation was just too much for me at the moment and I had to let it out to the internet. Thank you for your unwanted criticism. I am glad you took the time to acknowledge it when you could have just ignored it.
I'm glad you acknowledged how moronic the motivation for the original post was. People see that something is stupid on the surface, and then just ignore how deep the idiocy really goes-- to the point of equating skipping the obvious with lack of comprehension! Ridiculous. I, for one, salute you.
And Greeks also took some of their gods, religious beliefs, and stories from Indians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_religions#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20the%20worship,also%20with%20Hinduism%20and%20Zoroastrianism.
But if you asked the Romans, their gods lived on Olympus, which was in Greek territory.
However, I have read this hypothesis, that the Roman gods were Etruscan or something, hence the names, and they just became syncretised with the Greek ones of the same attributes. Syncretism happened a lot in antiquity, with Greek gods mixing with Egyptian gods etc. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was the case here as well.
Which again reinforces my point. We could not exist as we do without "cultural appropriation" existing throughout history. I just don't understand why all of a sudden people are so up their own ass about it.
Idk that second reference but I want an entire subreddit of *sick burns I just barely get as an average American*. I can't tell if they're good, I just can tell that they make me nod and go "ooooOOOOOooooo!"
This, finally, is a true highbrow murder. It’s been many years since I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita in a college literature course. I am always surprised when it pops up in any situation. A college education used to be worth the money.
I don’t know much about the first sentence, but second sentence is right, a lot of hindu sects consider Buddha an Avatar of Vishnu. Don’t know why you are being downvoted.
I’m a middle aged white American IT Network Administrator, and even I know that the Bhagavad Gita was largely meant to incorporate the rising popularity of Buddhism among the people with the Hinduism of the elites.
Traditionally Hindu beliefs mostly benefitted the elites as it says in the dharma that all people have their own place and way of life they must live, and conveniently it says the rich and powerful must live differently from everyone else.
Buddhism can be seen as a natural reaction to the hierarchical caste/classist nature of ancient Hinduism and said people can ignore social classes and castes because all of that is just Earthly nonsense, and anyone can achieve nirvana regardless of their place in society.
Well I dont think Hinduism beliefs were meant to "benefit the elites" instead, castism came out as a by-product. Before downvoting me to oblivion, hear me out.
The system was **probably** that people should inherit the work their ancestors did. Ie if a person is a priest, his son should grow up to be a priest etc. Now if you look at it from the eyes of an ancient person, this system would seem pretty good but this division of labour later turned into castism.
And I don't think I've seen any hindu texts say "the rich and powerful must live differently from everyone else" so I might need some source for that one.
And the "budhhism was a natural reaction to castist nature of Hinduism" just doesn't make sense to me. Now, yes budhhism was against castism but saying "it was a natural reaction to castist nature of Hinduism" is just too far stretched. Buddhism didn't start out to eliminate castism.
Also the "anyone can achieve Nirvana regardless of their place in society". Hindu scriptures do not say that you need to be rich, power full or "upper caste" to achieve Mukti/Moksha/Nirvana whatever you want to call it. Mukti/Moksha/Nirvana had nothing to do with caste.
Also wtf did the original commenter even say "Bhagvat Gita was written to incorporate with Budhhism"
I don't understand why some people want to argue over Hinduism vs Budhhism when both the religions co-existed for centuries without any issues.
Just checked your profile history and damn you are so misleading comparing the ideology of Nazis with what Modi is doing rn
Don't get me wrong, i don't support any party that is running for elections nowadays but comparing nazis to Modi is too far stretched.
Oh dear god, I'm so lucky that the reply that is the burn is circled with bright neon yellow because I would not have found it otherwise
Wait where is it?
It took me hours to find it so i marked it for convenience ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://preview.redd.it/vhvr9frses3d1.jpeg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=591da706bad9c79806f69bc25f2601fe5f2f9eae ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Happy pride month to you too
The burn was 8:12 Am 30 Oct 20 Twitter for iPhone?
I don’t get it. I still can’t find it.
Thank you
Yeah they really should have added neon red arrows pointing you in the right direction shouldn't they? It's a bit hard to find still like this.
After Ku
They had to the concept of zero is gone from my iq
What if your IQ was at least 111?
You both wouldn’t have found it either way, if MurderedByWords hadn’t stolen this from indiadiscussion.
? Stolen? It got shared from indiadiscussion? I think, for eioioe 's sake we need to neon the shit out of the r/indiadiscussion thread link...
I thought the /s of seriously would not be needed here, u/AreYouFcknKiddingMe?
Yeah... so did I in WhitePeopleTwitter. I got banned as a result of *not* including it.
What are you, an ultranationalist? Sit down
Well I thought you were funny
Nobody highlighted any of your post, so I didn't know which part to read. So I didn't read any of it and just started typing this.
Has r/uselessredcircle vibes for sure.
Huh? I don't see it.
I swear there was a subreddit for this
I feel like I’m lacking at least three layers of information necessary to appreciate this exchange.
Buddhisam was founded a long time after Gita(a religious book in Hinduism) was written. Aryabhatta was an Indian mathematician who was alive in 400-500 AD.
Aryabhatta, an Indian scholar/sage/inventor, came up with the base 10 number system (writing numbers with 0s like 10, 20, 30, etc., rather than having specific symbols like X, V, C, M, etc.), which is also referred to as the Arabic numerals as the west was introduced to it by the arabs who themselves learned it from India. In other words, Aryabhatta invented '0', which is the key to the base 10 system. The commenter in the burn is referring to this fact sarcastically. Hinduism and Bhagavadgita precede Buddism by millenia and Buddism borrows heavily from Hinduism.
TIL the Arabic numeral system is actually the Indian numeral system
Republicans will still hate it
A brown person made it, so yeah.
Yet they're all Christians
Well yeah because Jesus was an American with blonde hair and blue eyes. Duh.
Nah. He's from the middle east so he's tanned skinned and a brunette. He also has a star shaped birthmark on the back of his shoulders.
And star shaped sideburns, which are super cool 👍
That person didn’t identify as brown.
They’ll push for a return to using Roman numerals.
That would require literacy skills.
Lack of skills on their part never seems to be an obstacle for any issue they’ve pushed in the past. In fact, they’ve always been proud of their ignorance.
Ann Coulter confirmed it
Making everything about politics is kind of sad.
Totally ruins my 9/11 joke. >If it weren't for Arabs, 9/11 would have never happened. > It would be IX/XI.
To be fair that's a pretty good joke still...
Thank you! I still try to use it every year, even though the Indian numbers will get explained every year too. I try to look at it as creating a learning opportunity.
You can still say if it weren’t for the brown people.
While they didn't invent it, they were still a big part of its proliferation. So your joke still works.
It's called the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Hindu here refers to the region which also gives the religion its name, not the other way around.
I still find it wild that we had negative numbers before we had zero
Aryabhatta did not “invent” zero. Mayans had a concept of zero without having ever heard of him.
There is always that one person in the comments.....
The one who tells you you’re full of it? The one who [does research?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-origin-of-zer/)
Then do the full research. Just reading an article doesn’t count as research, does it? Zero, for the first time, was used as a mathematical symbol and in arithmetic computations by Indians. The zero you are referring to is a primitive symbol for not having what was there. Philosophically and mathematically, Indians were the first.
so they co invented it.
No. They didn’t get together to come up with it. Zero was a concept developed by different cultures that had nothing to do with each other at different times. First Mesopotamia, then Mayans, followed by India and then China. [This article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-origin-of-zer/) gives you the timeline. Mayans were independent from everyone else.
Cool, cool. And how did the Mayans having a concept for zero affect the development of mathematics for the rest of the world?
You didn’t read the article I linked, did you?
No, I did. Just pointing out that for the topic of the development of mathematics your Mayan comment is irrelevant.
It was not about the “development of mathematics” but about the claim that Aryabattha “invented zero”. He did not.
No they weren't. Maya is Aramaic. It is the root derivative of Water. Mayans arrived by water. They found what was already there.
What???
Well yeah. They just appeared. And then disappeared. It's the same thing as North American Indians. Their genetics are Asiatic. They aren't from this continent. Well. The ones that the government sanction anyway.
None of that is true. Mayans didn’t appear and then “disappear”. There are Mayan people nowadays, just not Mayan empire. Which fell for a number of reasons. And our North and South American indigenous genetics are not “Asiatic” although our ancestors did come through the Bering Strait from the Eurasian continent about 30,000 years ago.
This mathematician also invented one of my favorite pasta sauce.
Buddhism is older than Gita fyi
A long time? Buddhism: [The Buddha ("the Awakened One") was a Śramaṇa who lived in South Asia c. **6th or 5th century BCE**.[33][34] Followers of Buddhism, called Buddhists in English, referred to themselves as Sakyan-s or Sakyabhiksu in ancient India.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) Bhagavad Gita [Theories on the date of the composition of the Gita vary considerably. The text is generally dated to the second half of the first millennium BCE.[10] Some scholars accept dates from the **5th century BCE to the 2nd century BCE** as the probable range, **the latter likely**. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita) More like slightly younger to a lot younger.
Bhagavad-Gita is part codification of a religion which had been around for at least 1500 years before the book. There were 4 Vedas written before the Gita.
That's like saying Christianity is 2 thousand years older because it builds on the Jewish scripture. The Bhagavad-Gita is 5th to 2nd century BCE. Period.
No it's not. Just because the movie Thor was made in 2011 doesn't mean the old Norse gods and religions didn't exist before that. You are confusing when a religion starts with when a major book was written about it. Christianity also began before the Bible (new testament) was written.
> No it's not. Just because the movie Thor was made in 2011 doesn't mean the old Norse gods and religions didn't exist before that. The idea of Thor is still older. That story about that fat guy hanging out with a billionaire in a robot armor - *that*'s 2011. And no, Christianity begins as earliest definition with the action of that fella calle Christ. That doesn't make any of the testaments older - they still be 200 years younger than Christianity. Bhagavad Gita might base on something older - *but it is aged at 5th to 2nd BCE*. And that's it.
I don't remember me saying the age of the testaments changes and become older. How the hell did you make that interpretation? I don't understand, you admit that it's based on something older. Which means, that the concepts like Nirvana do have their origin in Hinduism, and not in Buddhism and that there is a big gap between when these concepts were introduced in Hinduism vs when they were introduced in Buddhism. So what is the point of your argument? Is it just the pedantic point that the book was written much more recently? Because that pretty weird. Ideas are valid even if they aren't written down somewhere, especially if they are formed before writing was invented.
So: > Buddhisam was founded a long time after Gita(a religious book in Hinduism) was written. this is the fucking comment I replied to. When was the fucking Gita written? **After Buddhism** came into existence. You fucking do know what the word **written** does mean, right? Now the Gita might write about the Big Bang and the creation of universe 13 billion years in the past - still doesn't make the Gita fucking older than Buddhism.
A lot of "fuck" s in your comment. Clearly I am wrong.
If your sources are correct, Buddhism would be older. 6th BCE is further back than 5th BCE
If you have any knowledge of Indian history you would immediately see the discrepancies in above claim. Composition of Gita cannot be dated separately from the events of Mahabharat. It was narrated by Krishna during the war. There is a similar case with Rigveda - the oldest written text by humans. It is dated as 3000 BC, but it was in existence way before that in the form of oral knowledge. So, don't go by Wikipedia. They are mostly quoting western researchers.
I would trust independent researchers more than hindu researchers in this.
But the western researchers have been known to be wrong about many things like the Aryan invasion. They don't understand the context of Indian culture. Even in modern times western analyzers twist the narrative to suit their agenda. I say we should trust any researchers that provide solid evidence and whose theories fit the logical timeline. And whatever is mentioned on Wikipedia is contradictory to evidence.
Aryan invasion theory is not wrong. Quit your bullshit. Vedic Hinduism did not originate in India and it's a known fact. Stop Hindutva-washing it. There's genetic proof, linguistic proof, and archaeological proof for the Aryan Migration Theory. All you people are doing is claiming that genetic and linguistic mapping itself is not a correct approach. Yeah, right. You all are basically denying science.
Aryan invasion theory is wrong. It has been proven wrong using archeological and genetical evidence. Just one of the articles after casual googling - https://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid\_evidence\_debunking\_aryan\_invasion.htm. I can provide so many other articles and videos, but as I said, a casual google search provides you with everything you need to know. So, do not spread your falsehoods. You know nothing about Indian history.
Shut your Chaddi RSS washing of Hinduism. Proto Hinduism originated in Central Asia.
Imagine being this retarded. Hinduism completely originated in India. That's why all epics, stories, poems, tales of Hinudism take place in India, and not central Asia.
Yeah. That's why I talk to my dentist about my car problems, those mechanics are just gonna lie to me.
Bad analogy. The person was saying that they would trust someone who is an unbiased outsider versus someone who has an agenda. Learn to think better.
"learn to think better" Wow. I was being sarcastic, you are an idiot. it's completely insane to suggest Buddhism and Hindu are relatively close in age. If you can even start to question that Hinduism isn't far far far older, you might as well get all your advice from people who know absolutely nothing.
We’re talking about the Bhagavad Gita, not “Hinduism.” The vedas and the upanishads are much older than Buddhism, obviously. You should add a /s to your sarcastic posts so people know, since you’re not good at conveying it. Still not seeing the “thinking” in this response though.
> Rigveda Not dated 3000 BCE and not the oldest written text. Estimates put it anywhere from 1900 to 1200 BCE. It is the oldest known Sanskrit text, but Cuneiform writing existed for 1000 years before Sanskrit.
I don't want to get into semantics and I am not an expert at this, so I will take your statement at face value. My point still stands, though. Composition of Gita cannot be separated from the events of Mahabharat irrespective of when it was put down in written form.
> the events of Mahabharat [The bulk of the Mahābhārata was probably compiled between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, with the oldest preserved parts not much older than around 400 BCE.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata) > the oldest written text by humans. That would be the [Kish tablet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_documents). The Rigveda is some oral tradition that got later written down. Like the Tora for instance. And many other myths and stories.
Again, compiled does not mean that's when it happened.
You do understand what "written" means? Words have meanings.
And your point being? I know what written means. Do you understand what I am saying? That Mahabharat being compiled at a certain point in time does not mean it happened at that time. Especially since India's tradition of oral knowledge transfer is very strong. In fact, I don't even agree to the timeframe you mentioned about when Mahabharat was compiled. But, it doesn't matter to the point I am making so I did not harp on about it.
“Events”
Hinduism was a precursor to Buddhism. Sort of like Judaism was a precursor to christianity. The dumb quote above is like saying "the Jews stole the idea of yahweh from the christians."
I thought of it more like “the Torah got the ten commandments from the King James Bible”
That might work. I was trying to keep it real simple though for someone younger who might not know the timing of the KJV.
Yeah but now I'm confused about what a Yahweh is.
Yahweh is just the name for their god. I don't like to just say 'god' all the time b/c I frequently debate theists of all kinds: monotheists and polythesists, so I prefer names to be less confusing.
Buddhism is originally a sect of Hinduism. There are paintings of early Buddhism where the Hindu gods (Indra and... Brahma, IIRC) went to meet the Buddha (Gautama), so he was originally.part of that pantheon. But it didn't grow big in India (arguably it got wiped out during the rise of Islam) and instead became huge in China, where the Hindu elements got phased out.
Christianity is cobbled together from several local religions. Jesus is a conglomerate of myths, including some about Osiris, so arguably Christianity is much older than Judaism.
Judaism is also cobbled together from several other religions. Genesis borrows heavily from Mesopotamian mythology. So no, Christianity isn't older for having borrowed from multiple sources.
By how many years do the relevant Mesopotamian religions predate Egyptian ones?
I'm not well enough acquainted to make a definitive answer. Both societies seem to originate around the same time in the past. They doubtless influenced each other. But Christianity would've been borrowing from Egyptian mythology around 2000 years ago. Judaism was borrowing from several hundred to several thousand years earlier. Also, Egypt and Mesopotamia doubtless influenced each other. Also, Judaism also likely borrowed from Egyptian religions. Looking at it another way, if I quarry rocks and build a house, that doesn't make my house the age of the rocks. If I reuse bricks from an ancient structure to build my house, it still doesn't make my house as old as the bricks. If I find an ancient ruin and build my house using whatever elements were left of that ruin, it still doesn't make my house as old as the ruin, even if parts of it are.
Luckily, we do not measure religions in geological time. You have not provided any particular examples of Judaism borrowing from any society in particular, just Mesopotamia as a place. Osiris depictions are traced back to at least 2300 BCE, so "Christianity" is at least 4300 years old.
Mesopotamia is a specific society. Just as specific, if not more so, than Egypt. But if you want more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative And again, borrowing from others doesn't make you as old as what you borrowed from.
The Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, and Babylonian civilizations are not the same society. Mesopotamia is where they existed. If you're going to 'but actually' show us more than your butt.
First of all the whole Osiris == Jesus thing, to my knowledge, is some shit that the movie Zeitgeist basically just made up Second of all, there are traces of various Messopotamian cultures all over Torah, from Baal to Cyrus II There are many parallels between HaShem and Ba'al Haddad for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)#Hebrew_Bible
I literally gave you a source, you gave me nothing.
Jesus was a real person. Almost no one credible believes otherwise.
That's bullshit. There's a whole industry of bullshitters and you fell for them. There's been centuries of people finding sticks and pretending it's Noah's ark, or a scrap of clothing and saying it's his shroud. Archaeologists were never the target of these lies, just stupid people looking to get their religion confirmed back to them.
No, seriously, virtually every historian of antiquity, even those that aren't religious, agrees that Jesus was a historical person. That Jesus wasn't an actual person has been a fringe theory since the early 1900s. Now, in a historical sense, what we can say for sure is pretty limited. Historians agree that: * There was a Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth who existed in the Judea area in the early 1st century and was born circa 4 BC. * He was baptized by John the Baptist. * He was crucified by the Romans when he was about 30 years old. That's pretty much it. Any water into wine stuff or feeding 5000 with five loaves of bread and two fish, no historical evidence. *A* man named Jesus existed, but he wasn't the Jesus we now see in the Bible.
The shroud of turin alone was an entire scam industry. Whole empires have risen and fallen while churches have collected money with fake artifacts. The Vatican would have been bankrupt without people spending their life savings on pilgrimages to fake 'evidence'. Scammers will promote whatever historians will promote the scam, but archaeologists are not stupid people. There is no evidence of anyone with that name being crucified. No evidence they were 30 years old or got wet or that there was a John the Baptist to get them wet. Prophets were a dime a dozen, just like today. The Romans did not crucify people on crosses, they tortured people on poles, and such public displays of cruelty were rare. Rare enough that a lack of documentation is damning. Nobody wrote about a fictional character like that until hundreds of years later, and J sounds weren't used for first names.
The Shroud of Turin doesn't even enter into it. I don't think it's proof either - it's used as evidence of *divinity,* which is where historians and theologians will disagree. Wasn't it carbon dated to the 1300s? Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews and Tacitus mentions Jesus in the Annals. These were written no more than a century after Jesus's death, and by non-Christian writers to boot. There need not be archaeological evidence. You'll find there is in fact very little archaeological evidence for *any* person who lived at the time.
The shroud of Turin is fake. My point is people have been faking forever. A compromised version without supernatural elements isn't real just because the compromised versions are removed. Who's to say if the sources you see are as trustworthy are any more real than the shroud? Did the writer hear a story and repeat it or did somebody else insert their religion? Voltare says the Annals are untrustworthy, and half of what's left have ... gone missing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus) 600 years from now people will tell doubters that wealthy Nigerian internet princes were real, but that there was no evidence they ever successfully transferred their money.
I don't care what Voltaire, a historian who died over 200 years ago, thought. Historians today differ. Jesus is mentioned once in the Annals and historians today consider it genuine. The rest of the Annals is Roman history and doesn't concern Jesus at all. It's not at all strange for ancient writings to be incomplete or lost entirely - such is the case for many ancient Greek philosophers. Case in point: there is a second mention of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews that is indeed considered fabricated. But the other is considered genuine. If the vast majority of historians think "yeah, seems legit," then... yeah, seems legit. Jesus was a real person, as real as Muhammad or the Buddha. It's not that the spiritual one came first and was toned down for a historical version; it's that the historical version came first and the spiritual one was based off the actual person.
The origins of the Bhagavadgita are older than the origins of Buddhism.
You need only know three data points. Buddha was a Hindu, the Gita is Hindu scripture, and Aryabhata is an ancient Indian mathematician. Knowing the first two, the third can be inferred. Aryabhata's claim to inventing zero is more tenuous than others', but that doesn't really matter. Any ancient number notable would do. I suppose, in a Western context, you could offer: "The Torah stole the idea of Original Sin from Christianity." "Ptolemy stole the concept of Zero from your IQ." You needn't really know much about Ptolemy, you'd still get the idea.
Bhagawad Geeta is vastly older than Buddha and Buddha was (gasp) Hindu.
Indiadiscussion is a Hindu right wing sub. Hence the upvotes on the post. Hinduism as you know it today , like India (as you know it today) probably didn't exist in the time the post is referencing . It is an amalgamation of the many belief systems that existed in the subcontinent just like how modern India is an amalgamation of the many princely states that existed in the subcontinent.
Only someone educated in India would consider this to be a murder. It's a gratuitous mindless insult and also incorrect, so it's a suicide at best. I don't know enough about the history of buddhism and hinduism (western scholars place the Gida a few hundreds of years after Buddha, but indian scholars disagree), but there is evidence of usage of zero in Babylon/Sumeria hundreds of years before the birth of Aryabhatta. But I expect Indian schools to teach that he invented the concept of zero.
Nirvana wrote "Inna Bhaga Vad Gita" as a tribute to Iron Butterfly.
Take my poor man's gold, sir🥇
Inna Bhaga Vad Gita baby, don't you know it's all for Vishnu
Possibly one of the best comments ever. I still listen to the long version of that song often, and this made me laugh like a maniac. Well done.
Thanks. Also, classic use of it in Manhunter.
don't know how badly this shows my age, but I'm wiping away tears my dude 🥇
Which was a nonsense (but awesome) song. So this murder was over nonsense.
Now I am become megadeath, rocker of worlds
And this guy I knew at school stole Nirvana from HMV.
As an explanatory for someone who doesn't know it: The concept of Nirvana/Moksha has been around since longer than the birth of Buddhism as we call it these days. When the teachings of Gautama Buddha spread far and wide starting from his later years in 5th Century BCE, the concept of primal importance is Nirvana, which is the freedom from the cycle of birth and death. This concept has been there from long back even in the Vedas, but it was preached to the common people along with other teachings only around the time Buddhism had started through the means of sramanic movements (as in Jainism and Buddhism, which were brought about by important figures who spread teachings), meaning that the emphasis was increased at that time. Aryabhata lived during 5th Century CE and is credited to be the discover of Zero (shunya).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-origin-of-zer/
For that one person: https://www.history.com/news/who-invented-the-zero These early counting systems only saw the zero as a placeholder—not a number with its own unique value or properties. A full grasp of zero’s importance would not arrive until the seventh century A.D. in India.
Fact remains that one dude did not discover or “invent” the zero. Other people did before him. I can tell I stroke a nerve there and you guys are proud of this dude…and you should be since he did find out how useful the concept is, unlike his Babylonian and Mayan predecessors.
Off topic: your username... Coahuila? La Laguna, Monclova, Saltillo, etc? Or just a funny coincidence?
Do you have any quotations from the Vedas that support this?
An actual murder by words. A witty & pithy comeback. What this subreddit is meant to for.
*lame as fuck
Cosmic and mystical level burn
Why do people not understand that society cannot survive as clusters of monocultures? People move around, trade goods and ideas, listen to each other's music, adapt their religions into their own, accept new ideas. We would not have evolved otherwise. This whole "cultural appropriation" bullshit has been going on since the beginning of time. Jesus Fuck, the Roman's just took the Greeks gods and stories, changed the names (sometimes not even by much) and moved on. This is the way humanity fucking works people. Jesus Christ, someone hand me a Jack and Coke and some Advil.
Were you high while typing?you didn't seem to understand the post
Actually, yes, I was, and if you must know I was also taking a shit after my morning wake and bake. I was responding to the "stolen" part of it. I get the point of the post. I am just tired of seeing it regarding modern shit, but to see a post of someone bitching about ancient cultural appropriation was just too much for me at the moment and I had to let it out to the internet. Thank you for your unwanted criticism. I am glad you took the time to acknowledge it when you could have just ignored it.
I'm glad you acknowledged how moronic the motivation for the original post was. People see that something is stupid on the surface, and then just ignore how deep the idiocy really goes-- to the point of equating skipping the obvious with lack of comprehension! Ridiculous. I, for one, salute you.
And Greeks also took some of their gods, religious beliefs, and stories from Indians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_religions#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20the%20worship,also%20with%20Hinduism%20and%20Zoroastrianism.
That’s centuries after the Gods referenced here. That is in fact during the time when Rome was the dominant European power.
Actually, I've read that the Roman pantheon is not a "greek reskin". It has its own roots.
But if you asked the Romans, their gods lived on Olympus, which was in Greek territory. However, I have read this hypothesis, that the Roman gods were Etruscan or something, hence the names, and they just became syncretised with the Greek ones of the same attributes. Syncretism happened a lot in antiquity, with Greek gods mixing with Egyptian gods etc. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was the case here as well.
Which again reinforces my point. We could not exist as we do without "cultural appropriation" existing throughout history. I just don't understand why all of a sudden people are so up their own ass about it.
Well both of them stole from Kurt Cobain.
Idk that second reference but I want an entire subreddit of *sick burns I just barely get as an average American*. I can't tell if they're good, I just can tell that they make me nod and go "ooooOOOOOooooo!"
🎶"In the Bhagavad Gita, baby."🎶
Buddhism stole it from kurt cobain
I would have words left to say if someone did that to me
First person above 9 IQ. Impressive!
This is like LoTR fans arguing with ASOIAF fans
imnotworthy.gif
I needed the yellow box to figure out what the post is about, thanks a lot.
u/repostsleuthbot
Sad bit is it would take her ages to understand the burn
This, finally, is a true highbrow murder. It’s been many years since I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita in a college literature course. I am always surprised when it pops up in any situation. A college education used to be worth the money.
kort coban
[удалено]
I don’t know much about the first sentence, but second sentence is right, a lot of hindu sects consider Buddha an Avatar of Vishnu. Don’t know why you are being downvoted.
Which was after the Avatar of Krishna - who composed the Gita. So, you are contradicting yourself.
I’m a middle aged white American IT Network Administrator, and even I know that the Bhagavad Gita was largely meant to incorporate the rising popularity of Buddhism among the people with the Hinduism of the elites.
What the fuck did i just read
Traditionally Hindu beliefs mostly benefitted the elites as it says in the dharma that all people have their own place and way of life they must live, and conveniently it says the rich and powerful must live differently from everyone else. Buddhism can be seen as a natural reaction to the hierarchical caste/classist nature of ancient Hinduism and said people can ignore social classes and castes because all of that is just Earthly nonsense, and anyone can achieve nirvana regardless of their place in society.
Well I dont think Hinduism beliefs were meant to "benefit the elites" instead, castism came out as a by-product. Before downvoting me to oblivion, hear me out. The system was **probably** that people should inherit the work their ancestors did. Ie if a person is a priest, his son should grow up to be a priest etc. Now if you look at it from the eyes of an ancient person, this system would seem pretty good but this division of labour later turned into castism. And I don't think I've seen any hindu texts say "the rich and powerful must live differently from everyone else" so I might need some source for that one. And the "budhhism was a natural reaction to castist nature of Hinduism" just doesn't make sense to me. Now, yes budhhism was against castism but saying "it was a natural reaction to castist nature of Hinduism" is just too far stretched. Buddhism didn't start out to eliminate castism. Also the "anyone can achieve Nirvana regardless of their place in society". Hindu scriptures do not say that you need to be rich, power full or "upper caste" to achieve Mukti/Moksha/Nirvana whatever you want to call it. Mukti/Moksha/Nirvana had nothing to do with caste. Also wtf did the original commenter even say "Bhagvat Gita was written to incorporate with Budhhism" I don't understand why some people want to argue over Hinduism vs Budhhism when both the religions co-existed for centuries without any issues.
Just checked your profile history and damn you are so misleading comparing the ideology of Nazis with what Modi is doing rn Don't get me wrong, i don't support any party that is running for elections nowadays but comparing nazis to Modi is too far stretched.
How does a type of pasta sauce steal the concept of zero?
Not the perfect reply. Her iq could be OVER 9000
Aaryabhatta did not invent 0, brahamgupta did
I love how the bot that reposted this to this sub doesn't get the irony of stealing things in this situation
Wtf Bro
Time runs backwards in India, apparently