#DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE OP LINKED THREAD/SCREENSHOT.
Brigading is against Reddit TOS. We do not encourage such behaviour nor we are responsible if your account is being actioned upon.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The terms have been used interchangbly, I've seen many sects of my faith (Buddhism) like Nichiren or Vajrayana has used the word Moksha
Overall speaking, this proves twitter or x is full of dumb and dumber
I've lived in Bodhgaya for decades. It isn't supposed to be that different from Hinduism . Centuries of break of communication between east Asia and India led to some differences between original Indian Buddhism and Asian Buddhism
There is an old saying in the Tendai school. India is the root, China is the trunk, Korea was the branches and Japan is the fruit of the Dharma and Buddhism
I know tonnes of people who think Buddhism is ancient. Probably because they’re all into the new spirituality crap and that’s a common misconception of theirs.
In Jainism too it is Moksha only. Kaivalya is not even a full word. What you are talking about is Kaivalya Gyan meaning divine knowledge. Someone who could see the past/present/future and throughout the 14 Raj lokas.
Because there isn't anything like hinduism, jainism & buddhism. These are the different philosophies upheld by one varna, under various names. They run the schools and philosophy. There was a process of Shastrartha, making the looser following the philosophy of the winner. These brahmins alone became sraman, mahavira, sadhu, sanyasi etc etc.
Mainly you see this is the philosophical progression of india, here dharma is unique concept to everyone, it's your personal thing. It cannot be as same as anyother person. But the philosophy around dharma is what we see today as hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism. Mostly fools focus on minor dialectical differentiation like Dharma - Dhamma, Moksha - Mukti, Shraman - Sraman, Bhikshu - Bhikkhu etc.
Could be hard to decide between Jainism and Hinduism but Buddhism definitely came much much later, the first Tirthankar in Jainism is common with Hinduism, Rishabhanath/Rishabhdev so you could even consider the two to be in the same fold.
Buddhist philosophy was the deepper form of Sanatan branches, only second to Advaita vedanta.
Previous all philosophical understandings are stemming from Karma Kanda, then it migrated to Agnosticism which Jains promoted, then to Shunyavada by Buddha and then to Advaitavada.
Even buddha is part of hinduism only, his philosophy is what we call buddhism and not the lifestyle, which is typically given by culture known as hinduism.
Yes. Jain as a philosophy is a derivative of Agnosticism. What you see common jains worshipping mahavira is theism although. Just like Buddhist was an ascetic philosophy that denies everything including God, but buddhist here have idols of buddha, so they would also appear theistic.
I don't think Buddhism denies God. They just don't believe that God is supreme. They believe in the existence of Devas and Asura. Indra, Shiva, Vishnu etc. The same is true for Jains, their scriptures talk about Krishna, Rama, Heaven, Hell etc. They just don't believe in the supremacy of Gods, that's all.
Considering that there's about 22 generations of Jain tirthankar before Mahavir who was a contemporary of Gautam Buddha, yes Buddhism did come much much later. No drugs needed, a simple Google search will tell you
Are you trying to say Sanātana Dharma came before Buddhism ? Because the word hindu religion didn’t existed in BC
The term Hinduism was first used by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17. By the 1840s, the term "Hinduism" was used by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians. So you are wrong there was no Hinduism before Buddhism.
The word Hindu or Indu was used by Greeks to denote the country and people living beyond the Indus river. Megasthenes' 'Indica' epitomizes the name for India and Indians around the 4th Century B.C.E.
Plz learn if your knowledge is weak you shouldn’t argue
I am Hindu Buddhist or Hindu Christian or Hindu Muslim or Hindu Sikh means Indian Buddhist Indian Christian Indian Muslim or Indian Sikh
Bro, you're just fighting on semantics. It's pretty obvious what people refer to when they use the word Hindu. If you want to be pedantic, feel free. You still can't prove that Buddhism did not come much much later than Jainism and the several other ancient Vedic belief systems. And that was the only point of yours that I called out 🤷🏻♂️
And if you're going to be so pedantic why use the term Buddhism? Pretty sure that's gotta be a British term. If you search for it, the name was first used in 1801, so what kind of shitty argument is that? The names are irrelevant. Maybe stop making childish arguments before you talk about knowledge.
It doesn't matter. Names are irrelevant, go and tell an average muslim that they are supposed to be called Hindu and see their reaction. Maybe try that with a Sikh person. We all know which belief systems are considered Hindu and Jain and it's pretty obvious they're much older that Lord Buddha's birth. Don't take me the wrong way, I think Dharmic religions all deserve to be called Hindu, perhaps even other Indian relgions but that's for them to decide and not for us to enforce. If every Indian called themselves Hindu then 90% of the religious politics would end and that would be great, but that's not gonna happen any time soon.
let it be any religious/philosophical text in indian region, the end goal is attain liberation. Bas naam aur kuch tarike alag hai (koi bhagwan ko mante hai aur kuch nhi but baaki sab same hai)
Oyaya Brother, you seem to be taking a confusing turn In the second half. They were all speaking the same language so the same words would have been used. Nirvana is kind of what you would feel in a Buddhist Heaven, Moksha is the state of breaking the birth cycle and kaivalya is omniscience it seems ( I'm not very familiar with Jainism but I know the other two refer to different things). All refer to different desirable attainable states but the nuance is there. They aren't the same.
Why does it matter who did first? Plus i am sure there were cultures even before Hinduism who must've delved on these concepts during the prehistoric times.
Historically, no. We have archaeological proof that Hinduism did not exist in the indus valley civilization. And we also have proof that Buddha existed at that time.
So Buddha came first...
Gautam Buddha was a Hindu himself. Hinduism and Bhagvad Gita came into existence long before Buddhism did, so yeah people here in the comment section are just salty losers who would do anything to deny reality.
Religion is ever evolving.
Not all of what we call Hindu existed back then.
In fact the practices of ancient times were remarkably different from what goes on today.
In the Rig Veda, the trimurty are not mentioned. Vishnu was a minor god of light and Siva is not named. People used to worship Indra and the other gods. There were many temples for the elementals.
Today we can't find a single temple for Indra.
I always felt bhagawat gita was an answer to buddhism.
Many Kshatriyas refused to fight even in the face of death due to the Buddha's teachings.
Buddha asks people to lay down their arms, but bhagawat gita gives you a reason to pick it back up for what is just and honourable. (Just my interpretation)
It is quite likely it was a poem composed to lead the Kshatriyas back into the battle fields.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists
Outside Madhya Pradesh, there are many sites where the destruction and appropriation of Buddhist sites and monuments seems to have taken place in the post-Mauryan centuries. For example, at Mathura, a flourishing town in western Uttar Pradesh during the Kushana period, some present-day Brahminical temples, such as those of Bhuteshwar and Gokarneshwar, were Buddhist sites in the ancient period. Here, the Katra Mound, a Buddhist centre during Kushana times, became a Hindu religious site in the early medieval period. More than 500 kilometres to the south-east, at Kaushambi, near Allahabad, the destruction and burning of the great Ghositaram monastery has been attributed to the Shungas—more specifically to Pushyamitra. Less than 150 kilometres to the east, Sarnath, near Varanasi, where the Buddha delivered his first sermon, became the target of Brahminical assault. This was followed by the construction of Brahminical buildings, such as Court 36 and Structure 136, probably in the Gupta period, by reusing Mauryan materials in front of the so-called Main Shrine. This shrine itself was built above the ruins of a large Ashokan stupa. Towards the end of the Gupta period the site was occupied by the Buddhists, and then reoccupied by non-Buddhists again.
Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha
https://www.counterview.net/2018/06/buddhist-shrines-massively-destroyed-by.html?m=1
Yeah but even the Buddhist rulers were very brutal they ruled India and I occupied many lands for example Afghanistan was one of them and that’s how afghans turned in to Buddhist.
Most people dont know this because of false information in a particular movie.
Zero wasnt given by aryabhatta
It was given by brahmagupta (another mathematician and astronomer)
Aryabhatta used it extensively in maths and developed the concept around zero.
Bro Vedas and puranas are the two wings of Hinduism , so it's in both of them
And btw All Bhartiya religions
Ie
Sanatan Dharma, Bhudha drama , Jain Dharma ( I don't like to call them with ism , it states that they are some kind of ideology) have the concept of divine afterlife which is moksha to Hindus , Nirvana to buddhas and kailava to Jain's
Sanatan has the oldest consepts as it is the oldest religion, then Jain's came and then budhha
Kaivalya paad is a whole chapter in yogsutra. Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism are different sampradayas of sanatan dharma. It's because of Christian monotheistic interpretation that we were made to believe they are different "religions".
Upanishads. They are a part of Vedas. The final section of it.
That was the first time the faith started moving away from rituals and towards karma n moksha. They questioned the vedas. Basically questioned the rituals in the Samhitas section of Vedas.
Jainism n Buddhism were inspired by upanishads and they rejected Vedas.
Yes, he was. After which he left royal lifestyle and went on to attain knowledge 'nirvana'. His teachings became the foundation stone of what we call 'Buddhism'. Teachings were his, we simply gave a name to it.
Your so-called Brahminical religion developed gradually alongside Jainism and Buddhism, with Jainism being even older. Most temples today, which you claim as Hindu, are actually Jain and Buddhist. The Brahmins cherry-picked ideas, twisted them to serve their agenda, and then made up their own cult. Whenever something new came along, they just declared it as Vishnu's avatar to fit it into their framework. They hijacked tribal religions and local philosophies to suit their needs. So, how on earth can you even ask if Buddha was Hindu when Hinduism itself didn't exist back then
Delution beyond that seen in the sickest among us.
Please everyone, focus on education.
I believe in just about all religions. They're all stories to the same damn thing. But I'm not gonna sit here and change history to suit my own agenda. And then complain others from a time I don't know shit about did the same thing.
Why compare an age old greater than 2500bce religion with a 5th bce religion which root started from India and travelled east .. Gautham Buddha has decendants in India more than east.. and most people alive can trace back their ancestors before Christ or 🙇♂️ulla .
I agree with your comment but Santana Dharma is from about ~4500 bc because Egyptians and Sumerians were trading with a city called Meluhha on the western coast of India. They themselves described our Trimurti in their text.
Yes true but to my knowledge (I could be wrong) before 3000bce there was a different civilisation prior to mohanjadaro far to the north west which clashed with the former(Egyptian, Sumerian and Achaemenid empire) and migrated to the east establishing themselves and they lead to the trade from the vastly wealthy local tribes ( could say empire but they weren’t huge) and realised they have the same concept of life and beliefs thus establishing the mohanjadaro and Indus as a common trade capital . I could be wrong or just made things complicated, correct me if you could .
Civilisation could be different but way of life was the same. Part of my reasoning for this is because the Rig Veda is nonsensical gibberish in modern Sanskrit, however at one point in time it must have made sense to the civilisation that composed it. Every language has significant drift, eg English gets weird if you went about 500 years back in the past. You could understand most of it, but a significant portion of it would be unintelligible without having commentaries on it. It is like Shakespeare is hard to understand if you just read his script without commentary explaining the meaning of certain sentences.
Wha? Brother. We have indus valley civilization's archaeological proof that Hinduism didn't exist in there.
Hinduism is older but not that old. Facts please.
Also the Buddhists didn't magically expand east. Chandragupta Maurya and his son's conquest was against the Buddhists.
According to written evidence it was the first example of ethnic cleansing
Bruh in that case Buddhism is a cheap copy of Jainism. It is older than Buddhism and most of its fundamentals that follow non-violence are mentioned in Jain texts.
I would say that too but from my experience on the social media where I have met people so stupid that I was just so proud of myself despite me hating myself.....
They are so stupid that if knowledge were to fed to them they would die of food poisoning.
Barely any of the guys commenting here have read either the Vedas, Upanishads, or Buddhist/Jain texts. Yet the keyboard warriors don't need anything pesky like research before taking out the pitchforks, just saying.
I mean, hinduism pre-Jainism and Buddhism was a very different religion compared to Hinduism at the time of Gita, which is again very different from modern Hinduism.
What I do know is that even the og Hinduism had the concept of sanyasa, leaving all attachments and going to the forests to meditate in your old age. The concept of moksha is also there, most probably.
Dear user, your comment has been removed.
You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/.
While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dear user, your comment has been removed.
You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/.
While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dear user, your comment has been removed.
You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/.
While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dear user, your comment has been removed.
You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/.
While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
nirvana is the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away.
Nobody copied this from anyone. This concept already existed in all religions. Even in tribal reasons this concept existed
Dear user, your comment has been removed.
You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/.
While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
indian din raat social media ma boolta rahata ha ki western scientist na sab kuch india sa churaya hai aur aab same chij foreigner na ki toh galli galloch.
Buddha got enlightenment using just the 1st meditation method out of 114 written in vigyan bhairav tantra.
He perfected it for years and then founded Buddhism.
Let that sink in.
Dear user, your comment has been removed.
You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/.
While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She could be right.
Hinduism is older than Buddhism.
But religion is ever evolving.
Some Hindu scriptures were composed 5000 years ago,
Some were composed 1000 years ago.
Nope, Hinduism bhi develop hua hai, pehle Indra etc ko jyada pooja jaata tha after Buddhism and Jainism - Hinduism as a religion evolve hua and Vishnu ko jyada pooja jaane laga. And yes ye stories b time ke saath evolve hui h.
Who cares? Both are total nonsense designed to steal money from the ignorant.
Follow the rabbit hole for the real thing, from people who never want your money, and who don't belong to any group. Real magic, right now, is all we care about.
Ours happens to be proto-siberian and from South America, and FAR older than either of those newcomers.
Besides, the Chinese made up the Buddha. He never existed in that form.
The real one was a mediocre Yogi with a gimmick, saying whoever joined him was free of the caste system.
And who lived in northern India and never left there. And who's followers never wrote anything down for hundreds of years, so anything the Chinese came up with was a fabrication.
So what, concept toh same hai na, also nirvana moksha vagera vagera it all taks about how to be free which this sub definitely is not. Who cares who stole it or who created it first follow kon karta hai?, ofcourse koi nahi
As a Buddhist. I'm against this. Buddhism is about peace, self reflection and logical reasoning. Something that you guys can't steal from us because it goes against your 'community guidelines'
#DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE OP LINKED THREAD/SCREENSHOT. Brigading is against Reddit TOS. We do not encourage such behaviour nor we are responsible if your account is being actioned upon. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sharing this in cursed comments and rare insults..🤣🤣
Not on cursed comments but definitely belongs to rare insults and murdered by words
Well the post did blew up.. 1700 likes and counting.. thanks OP
Sneha :🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿
Telugu guy ha
*Telugu girl
[удалено]
Her
Buddha calls it nirvana, Hindus call it moksha, Jains call it kaivalya . Hindus did it first, then jains then buddha.
Looking at the comments arguing with you. A lot of people missed history lessons for sure.
Most probably troll hai , wants to create division between dharmic religions
The terms have been used interchangbly, I've seen many sects of my faith (Buddhism) like Nichiren or Vajrayana has used the word Moksha Overall speaking, this proves twitter or x is full of dumb and dumber
I've lived in Bodhgaya for decades. It isn't supposed to be that different from Hinduism . Centuries of break of communication between east Asia and India led to some differences between original Indian Buddhism and Asian Buddhism
There is an old saying in the Tendai school. India is the root, China is the trunk, Korea was the branches and Japan is the fruit of the Dharma and Buddhism
Not about the current topic, but is Sikhism also considered a dharmic religion?
Yes.
Got it.
I know tonnes of people who think Buddhism is ancient. Probably because they’re all into the new spirituality crap and that’s a common misconception of theirs.
In Jainism too it is Moksha only. Kaivalya is not even a full word. What you are talking about is Kaivalya Gyan meaning divine knowledge. Someone who could see the past/present/future and throughout the 14 Raj lokas.
I'm surprised that many don’t know that Jainism came long before Buddhism
Most people don't know a lot of things
Because there isn't anything like hinduism, jainism & buddhism. These are the different philosophies upheld by one varna, under various names. They run the schools and philosophy. There was a process of Shastrartha, making the looser following the philosophy of the winner. These brahmins alone became sraman, mahavira, sadhu, sanyasi etc etc. Mainly you see this is the philosophical progression of india, here dharma is unique concept to everyone, it's your personal thing. It cannot be as same as anyother person. But the philosophy around dharma is what we see today as hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism. Mostly fools focus on minor dialectical differentiation like Dharma - Dhamma, Moksha - Mukti, Shraman - Sraman, Bhikshu - Bhikkhu etc.
Could be hard to decide between Jainism and Hinduism but Buddhism definitely came much much later, the first Tirthankar in Jainism is common with Hinduism, Rishabhanath/Rishabhdev so you could even consider the two to be in the same fold.
Bro Mahavir ji (the god of jains) was himself born in a hindu family....so obviously its not hard to decide between hinduism and jainism
I guess Mahavir was one of the later Tirthankara. There were a lot of Jain leaders before him.
i dont think that is the case if that is didnt knew that but my main point was hinduism is quite older so.....
I just checked, he was the 24th Tirthankara. And yea, I guess it's established that Jainism and Buddhism branched out from Hinduism.
yeah
I haven't heard of Bro Mahavir ji before, it's a cool name though.
Buddhist philosophy was the deepper form of Sanatan branches, only second to Advaita vedanta. Previous all philosophical understandings are stemming from Karma Kanda, then it migrated to Agnosticism which Jains promoted, then to Shunyavada by Buddha and then to Advaitavada. Even buddha is part of hinduism only, his philosophy is what we call buddhism and not the lifestyle, which is typically given by culture known as hinduism.
Are you sure Jainism promotes agnosticism? Seems pretty theistic to me.
Yes. Jain as a philosophy is a derivative of Agnosticism. What you see common jains worshipping mahavira is theism although. Just like Buddhist was an ascetic philosophy that denies everything including God, but buddhist here have idols of buddha, so they would also appear theistic.
I don't think Buddhism denies God. They just don't believe that God is supreme. They believe in the existence of Devas and Asura. Indra, Shiva, Vishnu etc. The same is true for Jains, their scriptures talk about Krishna, Rama, Heaven, Hell etc. They just don't believe in the supremacy of Gods, that's all.
Man made religion turn people in to ignorance
Are you referring to the version of Buddhism that Ambedkar started?
[удалено]
Considering that there's about 22 generations of Jain tirthankar before Mahavir who was a contemporary of Gautam Buddha, yes Buddhism did come much much later. No drugs needed, a simple Google search will tell you
Are you trying to say Sanātana Dharma came before Buddhism ? Because the word hindu religion didn’t existed in BC The term Hinduism was first used by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1816–17. By the 1840s, the term "Hinduism" was used by those Indians who opposed British colonialism, and who wanted to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians. So you are wrong there was no Hinduism before Buddhism. The word Hindu or Indu was used by Greeks to denote the country and people living beyond the Indus river. Megasthenes' 'Indica' epitomizes the name for India and Indians around the 4th Century B.C.E. Plz learn if your knowledge is weak you shouldn’t argue I am Hindu Buddhist or Hindu Christian or Hindu Muslim or Hindu Sikh means Indian Buddhist Indian Christian Indian Muslim or Indian Sikh
Bro, you're just fighting on semantics. It's pretty obvious what people refer to when they use the word Hindu. If you want to be pedantic, feel free. You still can't prove that Buddhism did not come much much later than Jainism and the several other ancient Vedic belief systems. And that was the only point of yours that I called out 🤷🏻♂️ And if you're going to be so pedantic why use the term Buddhism? Pretty sure that's gotta be a British term. If you search for it, the name was first used in 1801, so what kind of shitty argument is that? The names are irrelevant. Maybe stop making childish arguments before you talk about knowledge.
But that is wrong because the word Hindu was invented to describe the people of India
It doesn't matter. Names are irrelevant, go and tell an average muslim that they are supposed to be called Hindu and see their reaction. Maybe try that with a Sikh person. We all know which belief systems are considered Hindu and Jain and it's pretty obvious they're much older that Lord Buddha's birth. Don't take me the wrong way, I think Dharmic religions all deserve to be called Hindu, perhaps even other Indian relgions but that's for them to decide and not for us to enforce. If every Indian called themselves Hindu then 90% of the religious politics would end and that would be great, but that's not gonna happen any time soon.
let it be any religious/philosophical text in indian region, the end goal is attain liberation. Bas naam aur kuch tarike alag hai (koi bhagwan ko mante hai aur kuch nhi but baaki sab same hai)
I think following the truth matter who did it first and who did it last doesn’t matter
Pretty sure Nirvana is introduced by Buddha
Oyaya Brother, you seem to be taking a confusing turn In the second half. They were all speaking the same language so the same words would have been used. Nirvana is kind of what you would feel in a Buddhist Heaven, Moksha is the state of breaking the birth cycle and kaivalya is omniscience it seems ( I'm not very familiar with Jainism but I know the other two refer to different things). All refer to different desirable attainable states but the nuance is there. They aren't the same.
Why does it matter who did first? Plus i am sure there were cultures even before Hinduism who must've delved on these concepts during the prehistoric times.
Historically, no. We have archaeological proof that Hinduism did not exist in the indus valley civilization. And we also have proof that Buddha existed at that time. So Buddha came first...
People literally had pashupati nath seals, and we have found a vishnu statue in nepal i guess which is older than 5000 year by carbon dating
Your guess is facts. Cool bro
^your brain on copium
You on drugs? Go learn about buddha bro:)
I need a source
Lmao, Buddhism itself Derived from Hinduism somewhat
Gautam Buddha was a Hindu himself. Hinduism and Bhagvad Gita came into existence long before Buddhism did, so yeah people here in the comment section are just salty losers who would do anything to deny reality.
Religion is ever evolving. Not all of what we call Hindu existed back then. In fact the practices of ancient times were remarkably different from what goes on today. In the Rig Veda, the trimurty are not mentioned. Vishnu was a minor god of light and Siva is not named. People used to worship Indra and the other gods. There were many temples for the elementals. Today we can't find a single temple for Indra. I always felt bhagawat gita was an answer to buddhism. Many Kshatriyas refused to fight even in the face of death due to the Buddha's teachings. Buddha asks people to lay down their arms, but bhagawat gita gives you a reason to pick it back up for what is just and honourable. (Just my interpretation) It is quite likely it was a poem composed to lead the Kshatriyas back into the battle fields.
Actually no. Historically speaking, Buddhism came into existence before Bhagvad gita was written
Not to forget India was Buddhist majority but when Hindus came in power they destroyed Buddhist temple and forced them in to Hinduism
Proof?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists Outside Madhya Pradesh, there are many sites where the destruction and appropriation of Buddhist sites and monuments seems to have taken place in the post-Mauryan centuries. For example, at Mathura, a flourishing town in western Uttar Pradesh during the Kushana period, some present-day Brahminical temples, such as those of Bhuteshwar and Gokarneshwar, were Buddhist sites in the ancient period. Here, the Katra Mound, a Buddhist centre during Kushana times, became a Hindu religious site in the early medieval period. More than 500 kilometres to the south-east, at Kaushambi, near Allahabad, the destruction and burning of the great Ghositaram monastery has been attributed to the Shungas—more specifically to Pushyamitra. Less than 150 kilometres to the east, Sarnath, near Varanasi, where the Buddha delivered his first sermon, became the target of Brahminical assault. This was followed by the construction of Brahminical buildings, such as Court 36 and Structure 136, probably in the Gupta period, by reusing Mauryan materials in front of the so-called Main Shrine. This shrine itself was built above the ruins of a large Ashokan stupa. Towards the end of the Gupta period the site was occupied by the Buddhists, and then reoccupied by non-Buddhists again. Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha https://www.counterview.net/2018/06/buddhist-shrines-massively-destroyed-by.html?m=1 Yeah but even the Buddhist rulers were very brutal they ruled India and I occupied many lands for example Afghanistan was one of them and that’s how afghans turned in to Buddhist.
Shouldn't have hurt him like that
Bewakoof hona buri baat nahi hai! Lekin itni bewakoof?
bewakoof hona buri baat hai.... bewakoofi ke saath confidence pranghaatak hai !
Most people dont know this because of false information in a particular movie. Zero wasnt given by aryabhatta It was given by brahmagupta (another mathematician and astronomer) Aryabhatta used it extensively in maths and developed the concept around zero.
He was the first to use the symbol of 0, before that it was just a small ° like thing or so I've heard
Buddha stole the concept of Nirvana from Kurt Cobain in the 90s
😭😭😭😭😭
The best comment so far, all hail kurt cobain
Aap chronology ko samjhiye
Is moksha a concept in Vedas? Or is it from any other place like the puranas?
Bro Vedas and puranas are the two wings of Hinduism , so it's in both of them And btw All Bhartiya religions Ie Sanatan Dharma, Bhudha drama , Jain Dharma ( I don't like to call them with ism , it states that they are some kind of ideology) have the concept of divine afterlife which is moksha to Hindus , Nirvana to buddhas and kailava to Jain's Sanatan has the oldest consepts as it is the oldest religion, then Jain's came and then budhha
Kaivalya paad is a whole chapter in yogsutra. Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism are different sampradayas of sanatan dharma. It's because of Christian monotheistic interpretation that we were made to believe they are different "religions".
Well Brits divided us and the politicians of today keep us divided
As educated people we have to study our history ourselves to educate ourselves NOW. Use the Internet for what it can be used for.
Also prevent manipulated sources of history by both the left and right wings
Upanishads. They are a part of Vedas. The final section of it. That was the first time the faith started moving away from rituals and towards karma n moksha. They questioned the vedas. Basically questioned the rituals in the Samhitas section of Vedas. Jainism n Buddhism were inspired by upanishads and they rejected Vedas.
Babe Gautam Buddha was a Hindu
Historically no....
Historically Yes
Historically yes he was.
Wasn't Buddha hindu then he to become a monk and Buddhism started ?
Yes, he was. After which he left royal lifestyle and went on to attain knowledge 'nirvana'. His teachings became the foundation stone of what we call 'Buddhism'. Teachings were his, we simply gave a name to it.
Your so-called Brahminical religion developed gradually alongside Jainism and Buddhism, with Jainism being even older. Most temples today, which you claim as Hindu, are actually Jain and Buddhist. The Brahmins cherry-picked ideas, twisted them to serve their agenda, and then made up their own cult. Whenever something new came along, they just declared it as Vishnu's avatar to fit it into their framework. They hijacked tribal religions and local philosophies to suit their needs. So, how on earth can you even ask if Buddha was Hindu when Hinduism itself didn't exist back then
Name major temples of hindus which you claim are buddhist and time of building it and under which king
I see you have no knowledge of Hinduism and just yapping trying to sound convincing
Delution beyond that seen in the sickest among us. Please everyone, focus on education. I believe in just about all religions. They're all stories to the same damn thing. But I'm not gonna sit here and change history to suit my own agenda. And then complain others from a time I don't know shit about did the same thing.
Wow. People really need some good history lessons. In this age of unlimited information at your fingertips, this type of ignorance should be illegal.
Buddhism didn’t exist when Bhagavad Gita was written
Alpha woman spotted
Why compare an age old greater than 2500bce religion with a 5th bce religion which root started from India and travelled east .. Gautham Buddha has decendants in India more than east.. and most people alive can trace back their ancestors before Christ or 🙇♂️ulla .
I agree with your comment but Santana Dharma is from about ~4500 bc because Egyptians and Sumerians were trading with a city called Meluhha on the western coast of India. They themselves described our Trimurti in their text.
Yes true but to my knowledge (I could be wrong) before 3000bce there was a different civilisation prior to mohanjadaro far to the north west which clashed with the former(Egyptian, Sumerian and Achaemenid empire) and migrated to the east establishing themselves and they lead to the trade from the vastly wealthy local tribes ( could say empire but they weren’t huge) and realised they have the same concept of life and beliefs thus establishing the mohanjadaro and Indus as a common trade capital . I could be wrong or just made things complicated, correct me if you could .
Civilisation could be different but way of life was the same. Part of my reasoning for this is because the Rig Veda is nonsensical gibberish in modern Sanskrit, however at one point in time it must have made sense to the civilisation that composed it. Every language has significant drift, eg English gets weird if you went about 500 years back in the past. You could understand most of it, but a significant portion of it would be unintelligible without having commentaries on it. It is like Shakespeare is hard to understand if you just read his script without commentary explaining the meaning of certain sentences.
Wha? Brother. We have indus valley civilization's archaeological proof that Hinduism didn't exist in there. Hinduism is older but not that old. Facts please. Also the Buddhists didn't magically expand east. Chandragupta Maurya and his son's conquest was against the Buddhists. According to written evidence it was the first example of ethnic cleansing
[Jainism and Buddhism ](https://youtu.be/sT9YcGCShRw) For those who are interested regarding how and why Jainism and Buddhism were formed
Bruh in that case Buddhism is a cheap copy of Jainism. It is older than Buddhism and most of its fundamentals that follow non-violence are mentioned in Jain texts.
I'm sure that was meant as satire
I would say that too but from my experience on the social media where I have met people so stupid that I was just so proud of myself despite me hating myself..... They are so stupid that if knowledge were to fed to them they would die of food poisoning.
Barely any of the guys commenting here have read either the Vedas, Upanishads, or Buddhist/Jain texts. Yet the keyboard warriors don't need anything pesky like research before taking out the pitchforks, just saying. I mean, hinduism pre-Jainism and Buddhism was a very different religion compared to Hinduism at the time of Gita, which is again very different from modern Hinduism. What I do know is that even the og Hinduism had the concept of sanyasa, leaving all attachments and going to the forests to meditate in your old age. The concept of moksha is also there, most probably.
[удалено]
Dear user, your comment has been removed. You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/. While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Dear user, your comment has been removed. You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/. While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Dear user, your comment has been removed. You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/. While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Dear user, your comment has been removed. You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/. While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do people argue over who found the concept first? Why does it even matter just follow the concept, its not like it's age matters
nirvana is the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away. Nobody copied this from anyone. This concept already existed in all religions. Even in tribal reasons this concept existed
Amd america sowed first seed of neem tree in texas before aryavrata existed 🤔
savage fr man
😂😂😂
I call it "pagaar ka din".
Lmao
moh maya sai mukti
Chronology samajhiye
who cares! as long as people run towards principles rather than Godmen/actors/influencers, I am fine
[удалено]
Dear user, your comment has been removed. You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/. While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm damn sure it was literally satire lol
Nah bro that shi need more than just Colgate 💀
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂this line has ended her whole career......
😂😂 Who is this rama_gane?? Someone take him/her/it to kindergarten plz 😂😂
indian din raat social media ma boolta rahata ha ki western scientist na sab kuch india sa churaya hai aur aab same chij foreigner na ki toh galli galloch.
Sometimes I wonder if they're actually trolling or just THAT DUMB
Much deserved Standing ovation for the commentor😂
Someone just experienced Samsara again!
Nirvana was the Question but the Answer Zero how dumb
Lol, Buddhism and Jainism were sects of aastik school of philosophy in Hinduism My fav is charvaka tho
Buddha got enlightenment using just the 1st meditation method out of 114 written in vigyan bhairav tantra. He perfected it for years and then founded Buddhism. Let that sink in.
king Śuddhodanal religion bus itna search kar lo sukun milga
Buddhism is not a religion
[удалено]
Dear user, your comment has been removed. You can not mention a user or a subreddit with r/ or u/. While Reddit allows the use of both r/ and u/, but told us to block user and subreddit mention. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/indiadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unneeded pissing around the reply! It wasn't yours, you can't claim it by pissing around it. /s
She could be right. Hinduism is older than Buddhism. But religion is ever evolving. Some Hindu scriptures were composed 5000 years ago, Some were composed 1000 years ago.
And i stole the concept of love and humanity from your Bible. And I am proud of being a thief
This is Wendy’s level roasting lol.
Call the police, there has been a murder
Who is this beauty with brains
Maybe from her own IQ. Hindus have the history appropriating everything that has gone and goes against them.
Nope, Hinduism bhi develop hua hai, pehle Indra etc ko jyada pooja jaata tha after Buddhism and Jainism - Hinduism as a religion evolve hua and Vishnu ko jyada pooja jaane laga. And yes ye stories b time ke saath evolve hui h.
People forget that Buddha was a Hindu.
I can't..
Who cares? Both are total nonsense designed to steal money from the ignorant. Follow the rabbit hole for the real thing, from people who never want your money, and who don't belong to any group. Real magic, right now, is all we care about. Ours happens to be proto-siberian and from South America, and FAR older than either of those newcomers. Besides, the Chinese made up the Buddha. He never existed in that form. The real one was a mediocre Yogi with a gimmick, saying whoever joined him was free of the caste system. And who lived in northern India and never left there. And who's followers never wrote anything down for hundreds of years, so anything the Chinese came up with was a fabrication.
But advaita was borrowed from buddhism
Philosophy fork h sb, faltu ka argument h
Is this"india discussion" an Official RELIGION SUB??
True. Lol . Nirvana was way after Bhagwad Geeta
Hinduism predates Buddhism by centuries lol Also, read Adi Shankaracharya's refutations of Buddhism. Om Namah Shivaya 🕉️🙏
Bruh hindu dharam and bodhi dharam are literally related how stupid can she be?
Is there the concept of Nirvana on Vedas?
Moksha is the same concept
Lol With all due respect, Buddhism came like 2000 years ago, and Bhagavad-Gita was spoken by Krishna 4500 years ago. Calculate. Now feel dumb.
Like it matters
So what, concept toh same hai na, also nirvana moksha vagera vagera it all taks about how to be free which this sub definitely is not. Who cares who stole it or who created it first follow kon karta hai?, ofcourse koi nahi
That makes no sense. Hinduism obviously came wayyyy before Buddhism
non-meta post
As a Buddhist. I'm against this. Buddhism is about peace, self reflection and logical reasoning. Something that you guys can't steal from us because it goes against your 'community guidelines'
lmao couldn't be any better
haha debates on spirituality is done on the bases ego and which religion came first, noice
Stupid religious people arguing. and OP clapping and thinking fairies are unicorns are real
Enlightened anti-theist enters the chat with the ultimate weapon of… strawman
Do you have any actual references from Vedas? Where the concept of moksha being talked about?
Advait vedant
_Picks Any Random Upanishad_
Hindu are the people who lived by Sindhu river .....as in their transcript....s is not there .....so Sindhu become hindu ..