Rhytha, do you accept the above as fact? (Else why post it?)
And where is their data for their claims? (Note that it is *all* only claims in the above.)
And repeat:
[quote name='Husky' date='25 September 2011 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1316935239' post='113008']Hence christianism finds neo-buddhisms to be of great use in laying the groundwork for their latest attempts to claim TN by claiming its history. The two groups (or are they actually one group, the way maoists and christians are one in Orissa, with one just being a cover for the other) are working together to launch their claims - soon to be turned into "history" like other things have been - that:
- "Shramanas" (which reference neo-buddhists appear to use exclusively for Buddhists and Jains) were the original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam, starting with TN - TN being the focal point of current neo-buddhist activities. (In fact, neo-buddhists claim that christians too qualify as original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam. "Surprise!" <- and that reveals the puppeteer behind neo-buddhism, even if not all neo-buddhists are aware of being puppeted.) And the claim that Hindu religion is specifically not an original religion of the southern parts of the subcontinent, let alone the earlier religion.
- that the 2 "Shramana" groups were unified / got along swell and were persecuted by brahmanas (no recognition of the existence of Hindu religion and Hindu laity, of course: that would be admission that it was very much native religion).
Ironically, this is a particularly bad move by neo-Buddhists and their christian puppeteers. Their silly arguments have been dismissed since decades by *actual* Buddhists.
[color="#0000FF"]It really is too bad for neo-'buddhists' that *actual* Buddhists of SL (titled Buddhist monks, no less), briefly covering the history of Buddhism in the south including esp. TN, refer to documented evidence:[/color]
- that Buddhism came *last* to the south: Buddhism arrived at a point when Hindus (of whom only Brahmanas are identified, but Hindu works of the region show that the laity was Hindu), Ajeevikas (earlier class of Shramanas*) and Jains were already there.
- that the other religions had it in for Buddhism, but that Buddhists in southern regions ran off to SL after being badly defeated in debate by *Jainism*, and that thereafter, the other Indic religions in TN had only the weak and already-disappearing remnants of Buddhism to compete with. To get to the point: the SL Buddhist claim is that Jainism dealt Buddhism in TN the fatal blow. (Not that Buddhism hadn't been trying the same in reverse: Buddhists had been constantly trying to "refute" Jainism too.)
* The term Shramanas is here used in specific (non-generic) sense.
[/quote]
And where is their data for their claims? (Note that it is *all* only claims in the above.)
And repeat:
[quote name='Husky' date='25 September 2011 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1316935239' post='113008']Hence christianism finds neo-buddhisms to be of great use in laying the groundwork for their latest attempts to claim TN by claiming its history. The two groups (or are they actually one group, the way maoists and christians are one in Orissa, with one just being a cover for the other) are working together to launch their claims - soon to be turned into "history" like other things have been - that:
- "Shramanas" (which reference neo-buddhists appear to use exclusively for Buddhists and Jains) were the original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam, starting with TN - TN being the focal point of current neo-buddhist activities. (In fact, neo-buddhists claim that christians too qualify as original inhabitants of the south of Bharatam. "Surprise!" <- and that reveals the puppeteer behind neo-buddhism, even if not all neo-buddhists are aware of being puppeted.) And the claim that Hindu religion is specifically not an original religion of the southern parts of the subcontinent, let alone the earlier religion.
- that the 2 "Shramana" groups were unified / got along swell and were persecuted by brahmanas (no recognition of the existence of Hindu religion and Hindu laity, of course: that would be admission that it was very much native religion).
Ironically, this is a particularly bad move by neo-Buddhists and their christian puppeteers. Their silly arguments have been dismissed since decades by *actual* Buddhists.
[color="#0000FF"]It really is too bad for neo-'buddhists' that *actual* Buddhists of SL (titled Buddhist monks, no less), briefly covering the history of Buddhism in the south including esp. TN, refer to documented evidence:[/color]
- that Buddhism came *last* to the south: Buddhism arrived at a point when Hindus (of whom only Brahmanas are identified, but Hindu works of the region show that the laity was Hindu), Ajeevikas (earlier class of Shramanas*) and Jains were already there.
- that the other religions had it in for Buddhism, but that Buddhists in southern regions ran off to SL after being badly defeated in debate by *Jainism*, and that thereafter, the other Indic religions in TN had only the weak and already-disappearing remnants of Buddhism to compete with. To get to the point: the SL Buddhist claim is that Jainism dealt Buddhism in TN the fatal blow. (Not that Buddhism hadn't been trying the same in reverse: Buddhists had been constantly trying to "refute" Jainism too.)
* The term Shramanas is here used in specific (non-generic) sense.
[/quote]