3/3
Forgot to state the one thing I came for. Related to this long excerpt again:
[quote name='Husky' date='28 October 2013 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1382947519' post='116878']
one of his pages mentioned that the 63 Nazhanmars 'must have' been copied off the 63 Sakala puruShas of Jainism. (Note: the Buddhist peddler is clearly a very modern Buddhist, the kind that imagines dreamily that Shramanas - capital S - get along. They certainly didn't historically, which is why even today, the Jain Minority Forum has nothing but contempt for Buddhism - second only to their hatred for Hindus' religion.)
[color="#0000FF"]But to Repeat where the "63" in the 63 Nazhanmars of Tamizh Shaivam comes from. The following is something all Tamizh Hindus and certainly all Shaivas among them know (but Buddhism peddlers wouldn't know or will certainly pretend not to know, as the implications are not flattering for their argument) -
The Nazhanmars as exemplary devotees of Shiva were limited to 63 + 1 for a specific reason, to do with the importance of that number in Hindus' religion:
* SaMkhya's 25 is reflected in the larger set of 24 Vishnu incarnations and the specific subset of 25 Shiva moorties. Another famous subset of Shiva moorties (forms) is 64 in number, others include sets sized 100, 108, etc.
* the 18/28 Shaiva Agamas - with Rudra-s or Sadaashiva-s presiding over each (the texts' origin is ascribed to a line of Rudras and a line of Sadaashivas either as the Rishis of the texts themselves or as transmitting the texts via earthly Rishis) - are reflected in the 18/27 Siddhars of Shaivam (27 Siddhars is off by one from 28 Shaiva Agamas, just like "63 Nayanmars" is off by one from 64 Shiva Tantras when Manickavachagar isn't mentioned alongside. I think Shiva is posited as the implicit first - before Agastya - to make the lineage of Siddhars 28 anyway).
* the 64 Shiva Tantras - with one Shivamoorty of the subset of 64 Shiva moorties presiding over each of these Tantras - are reflected in the 63 Nayanmars + Manikkavachagar.
(Also 64 kalas of Hindu religion that the Hindu Gods originate and preside over. In Shaivam, Shiva and his wife originate and preside over the 64 kalaas)
* the 8 Yamalas (e.g. Rudra Yamala) which IIRC are to be associated with or presided over by one of the AshtaBhairavas each. Or something
And similar sets of important numbers including 32 Ganapatis, 108 Shiva moorties, shata rudrIyam and the rest. These are all numbers significant to Hindu religion, and they were significant to Hindus long before either Buddhism or Jainism made claims to them. In exhalting a limited set of specifically 63 + 1 devotees in Shaiva tradition, the Hindus of the Tamizh regions were naturally acting on ancient Hindu tradition in doing so.[/color]
So either the Buddhist making allegations about Tamizh Hindus plagiarising the 63 from the Jains is simply ignorant, OR he's feigning ignorance with intent to mislead. Certainly the thing that he's conveniently silent about is where Buddhism got its magic number of multiple Buddhas from, or - more famously/tellingly/obviously - where Jainism got its magic number of Teerthankaras from. The number of teerthankaras is 24 or 25 or 26 (forgot the exact number as this is not my religion): it's owing the influence of the very *Hindu* Sankhyan view. (Even the later classical Sankhya is classed Astika.) It makes sense that Hindus had 24/25 Vishnu and Shiva moorties, relating these back to the original, theistic Sankhya. Now what's the excuse the Buddhist wants to give for the Jain plagiarism here? Probably "ur-shramanism", since that's the only way to claim that Sankhya belongs equally if not more to Jainism/Buddhism than Hindu religion. [As a sidenote, I think even the "Sakala Purushas" - going by the name - is a throwback to Sankhyan views, though the more classical variant.]
[/quote]
Not to forget the 64 koti Yoginis (mentioned in the LU) and whose personal names I hear SBR is supposed to have started rattling off to an initially doubtful audience. (Amman was to have whispered these in his ear, he did not personally know them or their names.) I think the 64 koti Yoginis are again related to the 64 tantras of Hindus' Shaivam-Shaktam.
The way the huge volume of the tridasha koti is summarised in the smaller subset of the tridasha, may be how this last larger set of 64 koti Yoginis was represented by the vigrahas of 64 Yoginis - the ones who were moved from the Elephanta caves (was it) to be housed safely in Chennai "to save them from further damage". I presume this last is an allusion to how the christo Portuguese (in)famously took pot-shots using their guns at the Vigrahas at Elephanta: in any case, the damage seen on the pic of the the Yogini vigrahas was severe.
(Note: they can't be claimed as the 63 Sakala purushas of Jainism because a. they're 64 and b. they're very clearly all-female. Further, one of the images IIRC has the head of an ajA, a la how the Amman vigraha at one of the Shakti PeeThas also has the head of a ajA - ajAmukhi devI. Also, one of the 4 VedapuruShas - the Yajus one I think - has the head of what seems to be a ajA/meSha to me, but then meSha represents/embodies yagnya.)
Previous post (by G Sub):
Are you trying to excuse what you said? "Too Late."
And what "culture" is that? Durga (Lakshmi) Saraswati pooja is not culture. It is Hindu religion.
And by the way: all heathenism - across geography, across time - is a "total failure" against christoislamism. (And all secularism, all atheism, all agnosticism. All freedom. All humanity. All sanity.) Nothing but violence and total war works against the archterrorism that is christoislam. And no sane person is willing to try total war - at least, no one survives the ordeal to look back with hindsight and say "yeah, we should have responded to total war with total war too". But c'est la vie und andere sache.
But succeeding against christoislam is not the goal of heathenism in the first place: the fact that heathenism predates christoislam sort of gave that one away.
Hindus *lost* because we lost our kShatriyas (massacred by islamania).* Then our brahmanas subverted and now we're stuck with a growing number of loser de-heathenised secularised entities of "brahmana ancestry" - which means all of nothing. So Hindus also lost large quantities of those who should have been the repositories of [the intricacies of] heathenism.
Oh, and Hindus are now further stuck with blind nationalists - and other forms of gangrene - which is a shorthand for "christoislam, you don't even need to destroy me anymore, I'm no longer a heathen/polytheistic idolator anyway".
The fundamental problem is for a society like that of Hindus to have lost all its warriors. That was the first and major tragedy. It was really downhill from there. Hindus would never have survived an assault like that of concerted islamania after that. Hindus had just bought time, in return for gallons of our kShatriyas' blood. They did their duty of course: die with no questions asked for Hindus/the Hindu Dharma. And Hindus... well, in return for such loyalty, Hindus eventually evolved into Indian nationalists-only and stabbed the dead in the back: no more Hindu dharma.
Hindus have lost. (But not for the reasons you stated. But because they've ceased to be Hindus.) Deal with it.
That doesn't mean "Indians" (individuals living in the subcontinent) have to lose. Indians can grow some fangs and slap christoislamicommunism back as hard as they slap you. Whoever's still standing at the end wins. Aka total war.
But now apathy - not humanity - is what is preventing the masses of secular Indians from entering into total war.
Survival of the fittest: christoislam wants to win, Indians don't and are content to sleepwalk. Predicted outcome: christoislamania wins.
Dude, I don't even care. Indians deserve to lose (I was never on the side of "Indians", only on heathens' side). Because you couldn't as a nation do the one thing you were all meant to: Remain Heathen. Subvertible=fundamentally flawed.
Nonsense. If you wanted them to win against islamania (instead of wanting them to de-heathenise) you'd have told them to take up arms and defend themselves to the end, not to give up pooja to their Gods.
Is that what you learn at nationalism school? That Hindus giving up yet more of themselves will stop islam? (It never did before.) Oh wait, that's what Rajarant also said: his self-declared "expert" anal-ysis was that Hindus needed to give up the Vedam and all Hindu rituals/all Hindu-ness/heathenism to stop islamania.
Same school of "logic".
Give up nothing. But take up arms. Oh, and offence is the best defence.
Be Israeli, like the brave Jews standing up for their right to exist. There's only so far you can push people until they either start pushing back or extinct. The choice is really easy: it's been narrowed down to two options now (and we can all count to 2), since the enemy that is christoislamicommunism=Total-War gives no other. Bite back.
Forgot to state the one thing I came for. Related to this long excerpt again:
[quote name='Husky' date='28 October 2013 - 01:43 PM' timestamp='1382947519' post='116878']
one of his pages mentioned that the 63 Nazhanmars 'must have' been copied off the 63 Sakala puruShas of Jainism. (Note: the Buddhist peddler is clearly a very modern Buddhist, the kind that imagines dreamily that Shramanas - capital S - get along. They certainly didn't historically, which is why even today, the Jain Minority Forum has nothing but contempt for Buddhism - second only to their hatred for Hindus' religion.)
[color="#0000FF"]But to Repeat where the "63" in the 63 Nazhanmars of Tamizh Shaivam comes from. The following is something all Tamizh Hindus and certainly all Shaivas among them know (but Buddhism peddlers wouldn't know or will certainly pretend not to know, as the implications are not flattering for their argument) -
The Nazhanmars as exemplary devotees of Shiva were limited to 63 + 1 for a specific reason, to do with the importance of that number in Hindus' religion:
* SaMkhya's 25 is reflected in the larger set of 24 Vishnu incarnations and the specific subset of 25 Shiva moorties. Another famous subset of Shiva moorties (forms) is 64 in number, others include sets sized 100, 108, etc.
* the 18/28 Shaiva Agamas - with Rudra-s or Sadaashiva-s presiding over each (the texts' origin is ascribed to a line of Rudras and a line of Sadaashivas either as the Rishis of the texts themselves or as transmitting the texts via earthly Rishis) - are reflected in the 18/27 Siddhars of Shaivam (27 Siddhars is off by one from 28 Shaiva Agamas, just like "63 Nayanmars" is off by one from 64 Shiva Tantras when Manickavachagar isn't mentioned alongside. I think Shiva is posited as the implicit first - before Agastya - to make the lineage of Siddhars 28 anyway).
* the 64 Shiva Tantras - with one Shivamoorty of the subset of 64 Shiva moorties presiding over each of these Tantras - are reflected in the 63 Nayanmars + Manikkavachagar.
(Also 64 kalas of Hindu religion that the Hindu Gods originate and preside over. In Shaivam, Shiva and his wife originate and preside over the 64 kalaas)
* the 8 Yamalas (e.g. Rudra Yamala) which IIRC are to be associated with or presided over by one of the AshtaBhairavas each. Or something
And similar sets of important numbers including 32 Ganapatis, 108 Shiva moorties, shata rudrIyam and the rest. These are all numbers significant to Hindu religion, and they were significant to Hindus long before either Buddhism or Jainism made claims to them. In exhalting a limited set of specifically 63 + 1 devotees in Shaiva tradition, the Hindus of the Tamizh regions were naturally acting on ancient Hindu tradition in doing so.[/color]
So either the Buddhist making allegations about Tamizh Hindus plagiarising the 63 from the Jains is simply ignorant, OR he's feigning ignorance with intent to mislead. Certainly the thing that he's conveniently silent about is where Buddhism got its magic number of multiple Buddhas from, or - more famously/tellingly/obviously - where Jainism got its magic number of Teerthankaras from. The number of teerthankaras is 24 or 25 or 26 (forgot the exact number as this is not my religion): it's owing the influence of the very *Hindu* Sankhyan view. (Even the later classical Sankhya is classed Astika.) It makes sense that Hindus had 24/25 Vishnu and Shiva moorties, relating these back to the original, theistic Sankhya. Now what's the excuse the Buddhist wants to give for the Jain plagiarism here? Probably "ur-shramanism", since that's the only way to claim that Sankhya belongs equally if not more to Jainism/Buddhism than Hindu religion. [As a sidenote, I think even the "Sakala Purushas" - going by the name - is a throwback to Sankhyan views, though the more classical variant.]
[/quote]
Not to forget the 64 koti Yoginis (mentioned in the LU) and whose personal names I hear SBR is supposed to have started rattling off to an initially doubtful audience. (Amman was to have whispered these in his ear, he did not personally know them or their names.) I think the 64 koti Yoginis are again related to the 64 tantras of Hindus' Shaivam-Shaktam.
The way the huge volume of the tridasha koti is summarised in the smaller subset of the tridasha, may be how this last larger set of 64 koti Yoginis was represented by the vigrahas of 64 Yoginis - the ones who were moved from the Elephanta caves (was it) to be housed safely in Chennai "to save them from further damage". I presume this last is an allusion to how the christo Portuguese (in)famously took pot-shots using their guns at the Vigrahas at Elephanta: in any case, the damage seen on the pic of the the Yogini vigrahas was severe.
(Note: they can't be claimed as the 63 Sakala purushas of Jainism because a. they're 64 and b. they're very clearly all-female. Further, one of the images IIRC has the head of an ajA, a la how the Amman vigraha at one of the Shakti PeeThas also has the head of a ajA - ajAmukhi devI. Also, one of the 4 VedapuruShas - the Yajus one I think - has the head of what seems to be a ajA/meSha to me, but then meSha represents/embodies yagnya.)
Previous post (by G Sub):
Are you trying to excuse what you said? "Too Late."
Quote:Hindu bengali culture is a gross failure against islam
And what "culture" is that? Durga (Lakshmi) Saraswati pooja is not culture. It is Hindu religion.
And by the way: all heathenism - across geography, across time - is a "total failure" against christoislamism. (And all secularism, all atheism, all agnosticism. All freedom. All humanity. All sanity.) Nothing but violence and total war works against the archterrorism that is christoislam. And no sane person is willing to try total war - at least, no one survives the ordeal to look back with hindsight and say "yeah, we should have responded to total war with total war too". But c'est la vie und andere sache.
But succeeding against christoislam is not the goal of heathenism in the first place: the fact that heathenism predates christoislam sort of gave that one away.
Hindus *lost* because we lost our kShatriyas (massacred by islamania).* Then our brahmanas subverted and now we're stuck with a growing number of loser de-heathenised secularised entities of "brahmana ancestry" - which means all of nothing. So Hindus also lost large quantities of those who should have been the repositories of [the intricacies of] heathenism.
Oh, and Hindus are now further stuck with blind nationalists - and other forms of gangrene - which is a shorthand for "christoislam, you don't even need to destroy me anymore, I'm no longer a heathen/polytheistic idolator anyway".
The fundamental problem is for a society like that of Hindus to have lost all its warriors. That was the first and major tragedy. It was really downhill from there. Hindus would never have survived an assault like that of concerted islamania after that. Hindus had just bought time, in return for gallons of our kShatriyas' blood. They did their duty of course: die with no questions asked for Hindus/the Hindu Dharma. And Hindus... well, in return for such loyalty, Hindus eventually evolved into Indian nationalists-only and stabbed the dead in the back: no more Hindu dharma.
Hindus have lost. (But not for the reasons you stated. But because they've ceased to be Hindus.) Deal with it.
That doesn't mean "Indians" (individuals living in the subcontinent) have to lose. Indians can grow some fangs and slap christoislamicommunism back as hard as they slap you. Whoever's still standing at the end wins. Aka total war.
But now apathy - not humanity - is what is preventing the masses of secular Indians from entering into total war.
Survival of the fittest: christoislam wants to win, Indians don't and are content to sleepwalk. Predicted outcome: christoislamania wins.
Dude, I don't even care. Indians deserve to lose (I was never on the side of "Indians", only on heathens' side). Because you couldn't as a nation do the one thing you were all meant to: Remain Heathen. Subvertible=fundamentally flawed.
Quote:It would help if the Bengali Hindus took on Oriya culture and dumped the so called superior Hindu bengali cultureAnd this makes even less sense: to lecture Bengalis to give up Durga/Kali ~ Saraswati Pooja and then lecture them to take up Kali Pooja. "Dump A and take up A."
Oriya people also do Kali puja
Nonsense. If you wanted them to win against islamania (instead of wanting them to de-heathenise) you'd have told them to take up arms and defend themselves to the end, not to give up pooja to their Gods.
Is that what you learn at nationalism school? That Hindus giving up yet more of themselves will stop islam? (It never did before.) Oh wait, that's what Rajarant also said: his self-declared "expert" anal-ysis was that Hindus needed to give up the Vedam and all Hindu rituals/all Hindu-ness/heathenism to stop islamania.
Same school of "logic".
Give up nothing. But take up arms. Oh, and offence is the best defence.
Be Israeli, like the brave Jews standing up for their right to exist. There's only so far you can push people until they either start pushing back or extinct. The choice is really easy: it's been narrowed down to two options now (and we can all count to 2), since the enemy that is christoislamicommunism=Total-War gives no other. Bite back.
Death to traitors.