• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Removing The Sheen From Buddhism
Had referred to the following older news in another thread. Forgot to add link.


Quote:Dec 30, 2014


In 2007, around one lakh people were converted to Buddhism in Mumbai. The majority of the people who converted to Buddhism were tribals, nomadic tribes and other communities apart from the followers of dalit writer and Sahitya Akademin winner Laxman Mane. Mane himself converted to Buddhism in October 2006.

JV Pawar, renowned Dalit writer, said that the social awareness among the OBC community, who have been practicing Hinduism, seems to have increased in the past few years. “While the OBCs got reservation, they now realise that they need to rid themselves of the caste system in Hinduism. Due to the caste system, Dr BR Ambedkar, the Dalit icon, also converted to Buddhism,” Pawar said.

Pawar, much to the dismay of Hindutva activists, claimed that Hinduism did not exist in history. “India was actually a Buddhist country. It is evident from the cave art and ancient scriptures," he said.

Seems to be SOP for Buddhism:

- Buddhism is also investing heavily in its sudden pretence that there was no such thing as Bon before Buddhism.

- It also tried making Taoism into a late spinoff of Buddhism, despite Taoism dating at least to the Yellow Emperor. In contrast, Buddhism could only ever backproject itself and inculturate on others. Sort of like christianism

- Buddhism pretends that Shintoism is inseparable from Buddhism, having tried to forcibly create a Buddhism I mean syncretism/composite culture out of it. Except that Shintos always resisted and so many still keep Shinto religion pristine, untainted by Buddhism.

Nobody but the missionary religions=replacement ideologies believe all this "Buddhism/Jainism are ur-religions or ancestral religions" nonsense.

Well, the Bauddhified and christianised etc may believe it too, but may as well file them under converts.

Some comments:

Quote:Guttur Gujju

"India was a Buddhist country" - Satyashodhak OBC Parishad

No it wasnt really. Please refer to the ancient text for your knowledge. Buddhism dint even exist in India when people were following idol workshipping which is modern day Hinduism. Thats how old hinduism is in India.

I dont have anything to do with this article because following a faith is all an individual choice. Force conversion is not a right way.



Share ›


supernationalist > Guttur Gujju

No point correcting anybody. They are indoctrined idiots who will never wake up to reality.



Share ›


i am OBC.. these criminals do not represent me....i live as hindu will die as hindu...



Share ›

(That's one more who's loyal to his ancestral heathenism/the Gods, and who refuses to roll over to missionising religions despite the mass dawaganda these have done against Hindoo heathenism. Note: Buddhism/Jainism/etc started inculturation and dawaganda against Hindoo heathenism and denying its laity - all to convert Hindoos better - long before christianism got into the same game. Most missionising techniques employed by christianism were pioneered by the nouveau Indic religions, and some adherents of the latter still use them.)


"“Before we began the movement of ‘ghar wapsi’ among OBCs, we tried to find out their origin. We found that OBCs were actually Buddhist. So, this movement is an attempt to bring them back into their original religion. This is not conversion but ‘ghar wapsi’,” said President Hanumant Upre of Satyashodhak OBC Parishad."

...says Hanumant, probably having long-forgotten that his own name is a variation of Hanuman, the monkey God, the greatest bhakt of Shri Ram.

As if foreign invaders' ideologies are not enough for the Breaking India project, we have brainwashed Hindus like these to aid them.




"Before we began the movement of ‘ghar wapsi’ among OBCs, we tried to find out their origin. We found that OBCs were actually Buddhist". What research did you do to come to this conclusion Mr.Upre?!


India was a Buddhist country? I mean seriously who teach history to these people. HInduism existed in India long before the birth of Lord Buddha.

These people who are converting to Buddhism, will they stop using their caste based benefits? The fact is that during census they continue to claim to be lower caste Hindu to get all the government benefits. Those who abandon the benefits decide to return to Hinduism after some time. I have seen so many such cases.



Share ›

Buddhism is good for the bauddhifiable, just like christianism is good for the similarly convertible, etc.

But for those who are conscious heathens and hence loyal - like Thunder above - there can never be a replacement for their own ancestral heathenism. Most subvertibles and subversionists are not from the laity however.

This is an allegation I've never heard of:

Quote: ReferencePointGold > sudhee26

If it was not for the pacifism of Buddhism, we would never have let Islam into India. Bappa Rawal stopped the Muslim hordes. But the Buddhist viharas at Takshashila welcomed muslims hoping they will kill hindus making it easy fOr baudhamaatvaadis to regain control of India. They were stupid because muslims destroyed everything about baudhamaatvaadis from NW India.

(First of all: "baudhamaatvaadis to regain control of India". Buddhism never had control of India. Maybe political control in kingdoms here and there, now and then, but greater India - all the way to Afghanistan inclusive - had never actually been Buddhist or even Buddhist majority*. (And the laity was the most unreached.) Only parts/some kingdoms of once-Hindu SE Asia got drowned, others remained Hindu and further others were returned to Hindu rule and the population was therefore never converted.

*Not counting the ever-fertile imagination of the Bauddhified.

But the rest is a really serious allegation. Shouldn't make accusations - especially ones that are this serious - without proof.

While christianism is quite so insane that it will invite the inquisition and teams up even with jihadi islam to better facilitate the conversion of heathen India to a monotheism, I can't see that Buddhism was quite that far gone.

Then again, many post-Ambedkar neo-Buddhists and the Jain Minority Forums are always going on about their how fellow "minorities" islamics and christos are "oppressed by Hindus too". And that's their chosen position despite the power of hindsight.

Nevertheless, big claims require big evidence.)

If obc people think baudhamaat is better let there be a debate like one between Kumarila Bhat and Shankara. Unfortunately, the Dalit term is exploited by all and sundry. When will these half educated people learn?

"OBC" people do *not* uniformly prefer Buddhism. Thunder may have vocalised his loyalty to his Hindoo religion, but there are many others who are equally disinterested in converting to any of the missionary religions, being prodigiously happy in their own ancestral Hindoo heathenism. Christianism and adherents of several Indic religions have invested heavily in anti-Hindu dawaganda and its extent reachers all quarters of Hindus.

There are many non-OBC types who convert to Buddhism or Bauddhify themselves or otherwise peddle Buddhism. In the last case at least, it's usually the result of an almost institutionalised ignorance in India of the actual history of Buddhism in Asia, which requires a lot of reading of primary sources - of both the missionary end and the receiving end - to cure. I'm sure if more Indians did some actual researching of the subject for themselves, they'd also stop advertising for Buddhism etc. Hard lesson to learn.

Quote:VivekJune 05, 2015 7:52 AM

The idea of India was One nation, one people under one law. But muslims rejected that idea. Chacha 420 gave Muslims their own shariah laws and made them a privileged 'minority' soon after independence. Other communities have also rejected the idea of India, recently Jains rejected the idea by demanding and securing privileged 'minority' status, thanks to their financial clout.

- Good for them. At best they're trying to save themselves (opportunism), unwilling to perish with the persecuted heathens. Unless they too have become like JMF (Jain Minority Forum) and wish to conspire, as the latter's arguments have factually been heard even in more 'mainstream' Jain circles for some decades and are not restricted to the looney fringe.

- But good for Hindoos too: always useful to know who the fair-weather friends are.

Does this mean Hindoos won't be expected to always include Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs under the 'Hindu' label? I mean, their vocalists and many of their leaders specifically don't want to be included. And although Hindu nationalists don't care, Hindoos don't want to constantly get lumped with every other Indic religion, which exercise is only used to erase the very real and distinct (and the subcontinennt's ancestral) heathenism, that of Hindoos.

Jains, having acquired independence, should know that christoislamania will not spare them, when it is their turn - though Jain Minority Forum types are already seriously in league with christoislamania (whitewashing christoislamic history just like neo-Buddhists do, while inventing backprojected faux-history - some examples documented earlier in this thread - to blame Hindus for "persecution").

But saving oneself works both ways, right? Hindos lose -what?- all of 2% more of half-hearted self-interested and subconsciously missionary 'support'? It's Jains that are now on their own. At 2%. Hopefully they won't try to crawl back - as so many do - when christoislamania is next breathing down their necks, as it inevitably will in time.

But no backpeddling allowed. No trying to sneak back if the tide turns in Hindoos' favour, trying to play "we were actually Hindus all along" then. And no Hindu nationalist is allowed to let them in by the back door then either. They made their choice and they may live with it.

Clearly every minority can see what "Hindu nationalists" cannot: that there is a very distinct religion - Hindoo heathenism - that none of the other Indic religions want to be mistaken for/be associated or lumped with.

Oh for goodness' sake.


Quote:non-carborundum said...

It is hard to accept that Sikhs can any longer be considered an ally of Hindus. The anti-Hindu rhetoric and actions are all too pervasive to hold on to any such notion. Further, years of propaganda has finally succeeded in turning Sikhism into a monotheistic religion much like Islam and Christianity. This is a sad truth that Hindus must nonetheless accept and move on.

6/07/2015 1:07 PM

Hindus - well, it's the nationalists that are still hung up on it - need to deal.

Sikhs have moved on. Why are only Hindus forever still running after them?

Sure the Brits had pulled here too what they did in TN with the Justice Party etc. Creating divisions and perception of fundamental distinctiveness. But the fruits have ripened with time, and there's no reversal possible anymore.

It's like IF member BV said since the beginning - that Hindus should stop chasing after Sikhs already.

Yes Sikhs were a Vaishnava sect originally, but now they deny that they ever were. How can there even be a conversation when modern Sikhs are disconnected with the views of the original Sikhs (starting with the Sikh Gurus)? Modern Sikhs will simply deny that Vishnu was ever the original central kuladevam of Sikhism and there's an end on it. Can point to their own literature admitting to Vishnu as their God, but they'll just think Hindus are force-reading this to missionise on them (the way christoislamics factually misinterpret Hindoo and other heathenisms by force-reading their mono-gawd into our heathenisms, which is for missionary purposes).

At the linked indiafacts article there is a statement of some Hindu (nationalist probably) who desperately declared that 'Sikhism is a superior form of Hinduism' or something. (Which Hindoo even believes this? And if they do, they should convert to Sikhism already and stop wasting everyone's time.) It's rather like that other self-goal documented by Elst, where some Hindu had declared - presumably thinking that sucking up shamelessly would score brownie points with other Indics - that Jains were the best Hindus. (So which one is the best again? Sikhism or Jainism? Hindu nationalists can't even agree.) Another "Indic" of Hindu origin who hadn't converted to Buddhism praised Buddhism as being the best version of Hinduism as it was free from the superstitions of Gods. But he disapproved of the emergence of the inculturating Mahayana, which Buddhism he regretted, since it merely repeated the "error" of the Hindus.

^ But there you have modern "Hindu" nationalists in a nutshell: either they will refuse to recognise that Hindoo heathenism exists, or if they do recognise it at last, it is specifically not as a favour to Hindoos, but only so they can declare that Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are the superiors in every way.

Hindutva and Hindutva peddlers are merely a noose around Hindoos' neck.

Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists have moved on. Hindus need to move on too, like "non-carborundum" said.

Sikhs Jains and Buddhists probably took one look at how Hindu nationalists have denied Hindoo heathenism and turned it into a nothingness by forcibly lumping it with its opposites ("Hinduism is an atheism, agnosticism, it is Lokayata" etc etc) and then ran off for their dear lives to save their own religions. They have distinct religions and while they don't identify with Hindoo heathenism, they certainly wouldn't want Hindu nationalism/Hindutva to repeat the "favours" it bestowed on Hindoo heathenism: that of the denial of its existence, that of clubbing it with utter antagonisms, that of subverting it and perverting it (recently some new-agey modern Hindu declared that Adi Shankaracharya and Lokayata "agreed" in that they allegedly both - and not just the latter - lambasted the Vedas. More of the modern nonsense universalism). Can you see Jains and Buddhists accept being lumped with their arch-enemies the Charvakans, even if they were to ever get over the fact of being forcibly lumped with Hindoos? Geez, did their acharyas spend all their efforts lambasting Lokayata only to have Hindutva types conflating Buddhism and Jainism with Lokayata?

And then, why in the world would definite theists - monotheists too, like modern Sikhs are and will hereafter ever be - want to be stuck with Charvakans and other atheist schools? Hindutva types may have no self-respect and see no distinctions - being new-agey "anything goes" types - and may take it for granted to treat Hindoo heathenism as a cleaning rag, but Sikhs and Jains and Buddhists are not that deluded.

They all did well in escaping before the train wreck of Hindutva pulls the same thing on their religions as it did on Hindoos and Hindoo heathenism (formerly Hinduism until Hindutva turned that word into a nonsense): turn them into utter travesties too by Hindutva's tendency to create a new age hodge-podge by lumping them with unrelated stuff. Hindutva types were even declaring Yezidis were "Dharmic" (and one comment at indiafacts declared the bahai were Hindus too. And from there is but a small step to including christoislam. But will save that for tomorrow's Hindutva, else there's no room for it to evolve.)

Anyway, Sikhism as it is today has only a few lingering, outward connections with Hindoo heathenism: e.g. the "Ek OMkaar" which is too late for Sikhs to rewrite or deny now, but then, they have somehow managed to excuse their way out of references to Hindoo Gods in their religion. Whatever. OMkaaram (is it OMkaar in Hindi/Punjabi/etc?) refers only to the Hindoo Gods of course, and everything else is a bad copy. (I don't get paid to share.) The OMkaara doesn't refer to jeebus, Buddhisms, Jainisms or the invisible monogod of Sikhism either whom Sikhs insist is not anything Hindu=Vedic anymore. Not my problem. But this is very much their problem as it actually points to a severe hollowness in their argument for uniqueness and distinctiveness.

The split is inevitable. So Hindu nationalists need to let go too. It's like if one person in a married couple wants a divorce. Nothing much to do about it then. Pursuing them is like stalker behaviour after that, and makes the nationalist come across as having an inferiority complex (which Hindutva types have: they regularly deny Hindoo heathenism or declare it is far less than every other Indic religion; please convert already ueber-dhimmis).

If Sikhs say for decades on end now that they're not Hindu, Hindu nationalists should respect that, since the religions are clearly different now: Sikhs don't *want* to be lumped in Hindoo religion, since they see what the differences are (even though originally they had been a Vaishnava subcommunity and hence clearly Hindoos onlee back then. Specifically not so now). Also, Hindu nationalists fool and please nobody by using "Hindu" as an equivalent for Indic or even Indian. It is a gross injustice to HindOOs whose sole self-designation in English this is. Buddhists, Sikhs, and even Jains don't *want* to be lumped with Hindus except as ethnic Indians - if that - so Hindu nationalists can stop using "Hindu" as a synonym for Indian/Indic, since it is clearly superfluous. (No matter what word may have existed for Hindoos in English, I am sure Hindutva types would have pounced on it, seized it and gifted it to all and sundry Indics, as the whole purpose of Hindutva is self-negation of Hindoos to pretend a universal Indic religion, and let them all have any slice of Hindoo heathenism they want in return for their acquiescence. Count the number of times Hindu nationalists tell Hindoos to not notice that yoga already pre-existed Buddhism and Jainism, and that Buddhism and Jainism weren't original but repeated bits and pieces of the Upanishads before spinning off at a tangent. Hindu nationalists want nothing better than that Hindoos must not make such observations - no matter how truthful - as they may hurt the sensitivities of the other Indics. No mentioning that the late cloned Ramayanas etc of the other Indics are mere clones. Hindus are expected to roll over and pretend these are all "equally valid" blabla. No wonder islam treats Hindu nationalists as dhimmis.)

The split with Sikhs is unavoidable. It's already done from their end and Hindus will abide by it. Have to.

BUT if Sikhs try to use the perceptual split they have already achieved to hereafter claim Punjab as independent and for their own religion, can tell them that HindOO India has already given away all the land it will EVER part with (and that is not a permanent deal either) to the monotheistic disease. So Sikhs who want a Punjab homeland have to look at getting the part of Punjab in TSP-W. No more of sacred ancestral HindOO land will be donated to any monotheism. Either live amicably with Hindus in the Indian Punjab or move out to TSP. Punjab is sacred Hindoo land well known as Hindoo=Vedic since the Vedic era. Hindoos are willing to share the space with Sikhs, but there will be no gifting it to Sikhism (directly, or indirectly via an alleged independence first).

Any Sikhs who don't understand ^that^ point are Khalistanis and belong in TSP not India.

And can Hindu nationalists please stop rolling over and declaring every other religion superior to Hindoo heathenism? (And can nationalists stop always lamely excusing Hinduism with "but atheism/lokayata is Hinduism too". They're obviously ashamed of Vedic religion being an undeniable heathenism.) Since all that is valuable in Sikhism and Buddhism and Jainism already exists in Hindoos' heathenism - being in fact derived from said Hindoo heathenism. And anything distinctive about any of these later religions is not really worth having, but if "Hindus" feel it is, they are always free to convert out, since clearly they feel short-changed by Vedic religion (but no poaching on Vedic religion thereafter, no two-timing).

Divorces being final and mutual besides, any Sikhs who want to (continue) worshipping Hindoo Gods or wish to have a claim to Vedic civilisation/ancientry and ancestry are free to revert properly and fully, as they cannot (and may not) do both Sikhism and Vedic religion at the same time. No poaching and dabbling. See, Hindoos lose nothing by the spin-offs pretending they are original (as the ur-Shramanism theory does) and distinct (as Shramanisms and Sikhism etc do). Hindoos' history in the homeland goes back well before any of them came to be, late and opportunistic backprojections notwithstanding. Vedic religion IS Da ancestral religion of the homeland. Everything else didn't just came after but is oh-so-obviously derived.

And every respectable person in the west wants to regain their polytheistic idolatry - that's what all the "reconstruction" movements in the west are about. More importantly, heathens in the East - "polytheistic idolators" - respect only Hindoo heathenism (Vedic religion) in India, not the other Indic religions, though they do know of these. No one except Abrahamics (and I suppose Parsees, per their insistence on this point) worship invisible monogawds. So if Sikhs feel superior vis-a-vis "polytheistic idolatrous Hindoos" on account of being monotheists worshipping some invisible monodeity (all monotheists including Yezidis have this superiority complex, it is a feature of monotheism and why "paganism" is used as an insult by all of them), well HindOOs are in the company of *Shintos* and Taoists and Hellenes etc etc, nah? Every civilisation in the world was heathen onlee.

All later Indian religions have only been missionary: seen from how they have only alienated once-Hindoos from their ancestral Hindoo heathenism=Vedic religion=Sanatana Dharma ("polytheistic idolatry") into the novel nouveau replacement theologies. They have the audacity to then pretend/argue that they have a right to keep their converts and prevent them from returning to Hindoo heathenism, as if their "finders keepers" law works only one way.*

Au contraire. There is nothing wrong in Hindoos welcoming the alienated of their own ethnic kind back, since why should Hindoos always keep losing its own people to competing religions and accepting that such things must be uni-directional, that we may not encourage reversions here? So: other Indics are always welcome to revert to their ancestral heathenism, which is Vedic religion onlee. (And NOT a mix of Vedic religion + <insert any of the later Indic replacement theologies>, which mixing only dilutes and mocks both.)

* E.g. can look at Sri Lanka, where the Buddhist Sangha freak out when their badly-converted laity prefer to worship Hindoo Gods in Hindoo temples and start thronging there. The Sangha has to then desperately go and take over Hindoo temples and turn these into Buddhisms (via the usual Bauddhifying mythologising), after which the Buddhist laity crowding to the once-Hindoo sacred site slowly dwindle, exactly because it was the pristine Hindoo nature of the temples - the Hindoo Gods, uneclipsed by Buddhism - that attracted the laity, while the Bauddhification no longer gives the laity what they found there. <- Summarises how contrary to bombastic Buddhist claims, Buddhism was never fulfilling for even Buddhist/Bauddhified laity. BTW: It's the exact same reason why "Buddhist"/Bauddhified laity in E and SE Asia prefers to worship the Gods of their ancestral heathen religions there (many "Buddhist" laity in SE and E Asia are less Buddhist than of the local heathen religions, something Buddhism has been repeatedly trying to remedy by "properly" converting them).

"Hindutva" has totally negated Hindoo heathenism. The first thing Hindutva types always do is to deny Hindoo heathenism - to woo unHindoos - or else to sell Hindoo heathenism to all others, cheapening it. Prostituting it against its will. (A crime.)

There's not a time that Hindoos aren't expected to roll over and "share" the origination of yoga, OM/mantras, and a thousand other originally (to say the least) heathen Hindoo things with other Indic religions. Hindoos are always expected to share these as "equally belonging" to every other Indic religion, though all of these have only ever been replacement religions.

Then Hindutva peddlers declare that others - unHindus and their unHinduisms - are the better Hindus and Hinduism. And that if all other Indic religions are not allowed an equal claim on the word Hindu, then there is no such thing as Hinduism or a Hindu at all. (The last is what causes these blind people to dangerously deny the existence of HindOO laity and which makes these very vulnerable and exposes these to all missionary predators, including the Indic types.) Fortunately for HindOOs, there is very much a Hindoo heathenism. Which is the religion of the Hindoo Gods [aka Vedic religion/SD etc] and - being a heathenism - is specifically not to be confused with Sikhs, Ajeevikas, Jains, Buddhists, Lokayata, other atheisms and agnosticisms ancient or modern.

Hindutva is merely a recently invented political movement that is a replacement ideology acting to replace Hindoo heathenism: to convert existing allegiance to Hindoo heathenism into allegiance to Hindutva instead. It seeks to eradicate Hindoo heathenism and replace it with an "anything goes" universalism in its attempts to woo all Indians to be followers of the nouveau religion.

Hindoos should resist the Hindutva fraud and its peddlers. If they had merely called it nationalism and came up with some new-agey national spirituality, instead of encroaching on the word Hindu, it would have been unoffensive and could have co-existed. But Hindutva peddlers from the beginning encroached on the sole self-designatory term available to HindOOs in the English language, and hence Hindutva was always invented and peddled as a replacement for Hindoo heathenism. And so it has proved over and over. Every "Hindu nationalist" keeps expecting Hindoos to sacrifice yet more of their heathenism (and self-respect) in order to appeal to and win over Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs etc and get these to finally agree to be "Hindus" (of Hindutva) too. The last three are not so foolish fortunately and know to act in their own self-interest.

I don't know why Hindoos are expected to keep rolling over. What hold do Hindutva peddlers have on HindOOs anyway that they expect HindOOs to negate themselves over and over? Even alien demons are less successful in denying HindOOs than Hindutva and its peddlers have been.

Thanks to Hindutva, Hindoos have become "Hindu miscellany" next to "Hindu Sikhs", "Hindu Jains", "Hindu Buddhists", "Hindu atheists" etc.

As if Hindoos were but as randomly and loosely joined together as they are with Buddhists and the like.

Anyway, so happy that several christians refer to themselves (possibly by alien instruction?) as Hindus qua 'culture' and christian by religion (in arguing that Hindoos must tolerate their inculturating canker). They're still as seccessionist and as anti-Hindoo as every other christoislamic, of course. But now, thanks to Hindutva for cheapening the word "Hindu", Hindu nationalists will be forced to include such christians as "Hindus" well. They do claim that India is their land etc after all. It will be considered the holy land of christoislamics in India hereafter (the way the ME became, the way S Korea is called the Jerusalem of the east upon some 23% of the population converting to christianism). So India will be both punya bhumi for christoislamics and pitru bhumi too (since christoislamic converts try seccessionism in India by claiming the land belongs to their native ethnicity, converted though they be). Thus satisfying all principles of Hindutva for what is a Hindu. Surely?
1. indiafacts.co.in/introspecting-operation-bluestar/

Quote:m p • 15 hours ago

This one-sided description of sikh plight indirectly helps khalistani cause. Same is true of exaggerated description of 1984 riots. In the short run it would embarrass congress but in the long run it helps Khalistanis.

At min. a balanced analysis should cover following:-

1) Arya Samaj was more harsh towards Shakti worshipers then Sikhs.

(This AS criticism of Shaktas - I know no details - was it another effect of colonialism? The way Arya Samaj [then] being monotheistic and against idolatry and the puranas - sounding more 'Sikh' than Hindoo when expressed that way - was due to the influences of the time and region.)

2) Hindu Mahasabha supported formation of SGPC and forced take over of Gurudwaras and hindu/sikh temples.

3) In 1920s, Many Gurudwaras were like hindu temples with multiple deities. All Hindu traces,like painting & sculpture in Golden temple, were removed. It didn't matter that some of those painting were placed there by Maharaja Ranjeet Singh himself. All the hindu priest were attacked and fired.

4) From 1978 to 1984, 100s of Hindus were killed with impunity in Punjab. At least in delhi leaders like Tytler faced court case and media criticism. In sharp contrast, No action has been taken against punjab akali/cong leaders who added fuel to the fire.

5) RSS was #1 target of Khalistani terrorist. In Mogia, 20+ RSS members were massacred by terrorist. Yet, in 1984 it was RSS/BJP which saved 100s of sikh lives.

(GRRR. Feeling anger well up. This is never a good sign.)

But if Hindus know all the above already - well, I didn't know the last item in detail and didn't know 4 at all, but I'm pretty ignorant in general - why are Hindu nationalists still running after Sikhs for their good favour? Even in general, why should Hindus care so much for other people's positive opinion? Hindus should take care of their own. Everyone else is looking after their own interests already.

If good individuals who are not ingrates need Hindoo help, then that's fine. But Hindus can stop involving "Sikhism" in general as something Hindoos must rally around.

Maharaja Ranjeet Singh and other Sikhs of that era were Hindoos. Sikhism back then was still but a local subsect of Hindoo heathenism.

Also, in online Sikh fora, Sikhs denounced I think it was this very same Maharaja Ranjeet Singh as a Hindu (IIRC Sati and other "Hindoo" stuffs were held against him as the incriminating evidence of his Hindoo heathenism a.o.t. anything today's Sikhs vocalising there could recognise as Sikhism). Works for me: he was obviously a Hindoo, and I certainly claim him for Hindoo heathenism onlee. No sharing.

2. I tracked down a comment in a review at amazon.co.uk for Shinobi, a Japanese movie about Shinobi i.e. Ninjas.

One of the Shinobi in the movie - an immortal who had been alive for around 2 centuries at least - used two chakras as his distinctive choice of weaponry. The movie's weapons design documentary mentioned that they (or probably the Basilisk manga=JP comic the movie was based on) developed his character's background as having been to India one or two centuries prior to the events of the movie and there learnt to use the chakra from the Sikhs in British India at that time. (It is known that Sikh warriors even in 18th and possibly 19th centuries wore and used Chakras. Note they were specifically still Hindoos then, and their Chakra use was a Hindoo one.)

What was surprising about the review comment was that the commenter imagines that Sikhs "invented" the chakra as a weapon - oh the hysteria:

Quote:Needs a sequel!

By Mr. R. S. Sahota on 25 April 2009


BIG THUMBS UP to the director.. you can tell he loves his work and researches well. For instance, the most interesting weapon in the film (the chakra) was rightly attributed to it's founders; the Sikhs of India.

Well done!

First, IIRC (I have the disc but it is some years since I watched the special features) the movie documentary on the weapons never said Sikhs invented it, only that the immortal Shinobi learnt of the chakra from the Sikhs in India in that late century.

Also, Japanese are *quite* knowledgeable about India and it is unlikely they'd claim that Sikhs invented the Chakra. (Lots of Japanese popular media make detailed and well backed up references to ancient Asian histories, not just China and India but even Zoroastrian Persia. Japanese are one of the last heathen populations even remotely interested in other heathens' heathenisms and histories.)

Secondly, the chakra predates not only Sikhs and their use of it, but Sikhism itself - by millennia. Indra and Vishnu are famous for the chakra as weapon (other Gods use it too, incl Shiva and Uma and Vishnu's own Lakshmi, but Vishnu himself and Indra are *very* famous for it, even by their shared name: Chakri. Indra is supposed to be known as Chakri in IIRC Rig Vedam and Ramayanam too). The use of the Chakra as a weapon in Hindoo hathenism is well documented ever since *ancient* sacred Hindoo literature, all the way since the Vedam. So no one else in India - not even the late but pre-Sikh religions of Buddhism and Jainism can pretend they came up with the chakra weapon. It's but yet another feature that's exclusively Hindoo heathen, and all else merely got it from Hindoo heathenism.)

So what is this nonsense about the "founders" of the chakra weapon being Sikhs? How can there even exist people who delude themselves in this way, when Sikhism never appeared until a very recent time indeed in India's history?

(And Sikhs weren't the first human Indians to use the chakra either - nor the only community in India to use it so late, albeit they were more popular/visible for it - though when Sikhs were still known for its use, they were still famously Hindoo onlee.)

I looked up the reviewer's name of 'Sahota'. An early search result shows it as apparently being a prakritising of "Sahotra" or something. Sounds a Vedic name. Either way, another search result indicated that it's supposed to be a common name in the Punjab and occurs among Jats. Since I don't see "Singh" as the surname, I assume that it is a Hindoo not a Sikh who wrote that comment.

So, Q: why would a Hindoo - even one living in the UK - be so ignorant about chakra weapons, that they would express it as having been "founded" by "Sikhs"? (Never mind that when the Sikhs used it they were still Hindoo type Sikhs, and not the modern "Sikhism is not a Hinduism" type Sikhs.)

I respect the fact that there are features to Sikhism - well, the modern version certainly - that are not Hindoo in origin or derivation. But the chakra weapon - like the OMkaaram - are obviously from long pre-existing Hindoo-ism. Even if Sikhism is declared a standalone religion now, this fact is not going to change.

Hindus should stop "sharing" pointlessly. More imperatively, the likes of Sahotra should stop gifting original Hindoo stuffs to everyone else. (What else would one call the absurd claim that Sikhs had "founded" the use of the chakra weapon?) The movie background merely has the Shinobi character learning it from Sikhs. Still doesn't mean they "invented" it, which is clearly a falsehood.

The reason that Hindus get successfully converted by all the many evangelical religions is because Hindus think that self-respect and asserting the greatness of Hindoo heathenism or even stating bare facts about which religion first demonstrated distinctive features suddenly dubbed "all-Indian" - or at least (all-)"Dharmic" - now might be an "affront" to the sensitivities of the missionary religions. Honestly, who cares? The last thing any missionary religion wants is for heathens to feel pleased in/with their own heathenism, else no one will want to convert out to the replacement religions, surely.

And the missionary religions regularly launch exclusivist claims, including to originating stuff that is so very obviously derived from Hindu heathenism. So it's not wrong to counter such falsehood with facts and people should counter it.
1. Some links in the comments to:


Quote:Abyss 18 hours ago

Here is another piece on the topic - http:// www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/the-khalistani-terrorism/ (although, this author has been extremely kind to Indira Gandhi).

Saturnsson Abyss 6 hours ago

Gotta read Veena Talwar Oldenburg's Dowry Murder: The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime

it will tell you how Sikhs were slowly but gradually dehinduised and how our society became a Patriarchal Society.

https:// books.google.co.in/books?id=d5Fm1XdS-6EC&pg=PA19&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Always did wonder whether Veena got her surname from a foreign dad or from a foreign husband. If I'd known that she was a "Talwar-Oldenburg" and not just Oldenburg by surname, may have managed to work it out. She refers to one Philip Oldenburg's work in her book, on one of the very details she discusses. So I therefore presume he is her husband, without checking whether I'm right.

Feels like the Indian American community - despite being 2 or 3 decades behind the trend - is nevertheless turning into the (E) Asian American community. Sigh.)

2. The link above:


says a lot about US and TSP duplicity/sponsorship of terrorism in general, and shows how US indulgence of ISI's terrorism is deliberate. And Indian intelligence/govt's firm naivete regarding this last is surely the 8th wonder of the world, if not the 1st.

The article also does nothing to negate the suspicion, or rather personal conclusion, that spin-offs are invariably - sooner or later - a liability to the host/the kind they spun off from. The fact remains that all rebellion, be these either inherent in spin-off movements or fostered by vested interests (christowest, islam), becomes directed against the host. Curiously never directed against christoislam for long and not at the end, until they stand all by themselves. And so spin-offs end up taking more after christoislam than their host.

On this:

Quote:Among these consequences was the assassination of Indira Gandhi by two of her Sikh bodyguards belonging to the Delhi Police on October 31, 1984.

Personally, if I were a Sikh and had been Indira's bodyguard and similarly didn't have foreknowledge of her govt's violent reprisals against Sikhs upon her assassination, I'd have done the same.

Only Hindus - of the age of modern nationalism* - in the forces would never act for their religion over their govt's treachery to their religion. Secularism being heathenism's Achilles Heel.

* C.f. Hindu Nationalists vs the christo Brit tyrants.

If it had been a mosque/church that terrorists had holed themselves up in, blowing it sky high with all inside is fine by me (and bring on the consequences) - though the Indian govt would have been unlikely to do that, being dhimmis w.r.t. christoislam.

Indira underestimated the allegiance some have to their religion, imagining everyone follows her 'secularism'. Not dissimilar to Hindutva/nationalism blindsiding beliebers, and one day its miscalculation will come back to bite, though not in the same way as with the Khalistani movement, since Hindoos - like all ancestral heathens - are by nature reliable nationalists (being the native heathens hence the default nation). In their case, underestimation is more likely to result in the death of heathenism and the eventual playacting of mourning its loss - by the blind and deaf and dumb facilitators=modern 'nationalists' - afterward.

But good for Sikhs that some didn't roll over to the enforced secularism of the Indian forces. Sure, their allegiance is no longer to Hindoo heathenism and gradually won't be toward the Indian nation either, and is actually still misplaced, but at least they didn't cave for the oh-so-obvious secularism (that only once-were-Hindoos fall for, via Hindu nationalism as stopover). When I think about how many Gorkhas are now officially mercenaries hiring out their services to European royal houses, other Brits, and western pop/cine stars - contrasted with how Gorkhas originally used to be warriors for the express purpose of Hindoo heathenism - you can see why Hindu heathenism is eroding while at least Sikhs, despite the misplaced self-perceptions now, are not yet caving to total secularisation/dhimmitude to irrelevant dogma.

Good for Sikhs. But doesn't help heathenism. Doesn't help the Indian nation or "Hindu nationalism" (what's left of it/what's replaced it), but the contrast with the secularism expected from heathens (especially in Indian forces) is stark.

3. This line was disturbing:

Quote:B.Raman: "My view was not accepted because till then the Sikh extremists—-apart from carrying out a massacre of some members of a sect known as the Nirankaris— had not indulged in any act of terrorism."

Sounds like a previous record to me.

But turns out there are more dimensions to that too (personally know nothing of this history, so it all sounds equally plausible: wouldn't know who to give credence to short of actually verifying for myself, except the subject is unattractive) -

Quote:Harpal Singh on January 22, 2 ..


“apart from carrying out a massacre of some members of a sect known as the Nirankaris -had not indulged in any act of terrorism”

Yes you did said that Sikhs killed nirankaris but you didn’t pointed out the details what led to this incident?

Nirankaris killed 13 Sikhs in Delhi who were peacefully protesting. Wasn’t this a act of Terrorism from their side? Sir I think your insight on the issue may help me understand if whether and why the 64 arrested nirankaris were set free by the court and all charges dropped off them? Not one single of them even went to serve punishment? Maybe the nirankaris links with Gandhi family may explain and bad of Sikhs as they didn’t had any of it.

So basically it was infighting: Nirankaris are to be a Sikh sect who apparently thought other Sikhs were too much into polytheistic idolatry and thus turning into Hindoos (:gawd forbitSmile, and wanted a purer Sikhism, aka absolute worship of an invisible monodeity.

Spin-offs of spin-offs... Also turning against their host body/what they spun off from. With Nirankaris considering other Sikhs as heretics and defining themselves in distinction from what they split off from; defining themselves as original/the true version, and looking down on the other (pre-existing) Sikhs as inferior regarding their views on religion. Wonder what the other Sikhs think of it. Never fun to be on the receiving end, is it. Welcome to Bad End of the deal.
A while back, I think I googled for: world map

Among the 4 main image icons that then appeared (and may still) was the following, where special attention is to be drawn to the boundaries of India (what India?). Cute little wishful thinking alternative history, though maybe the sadly heathen-ish Ranjit Singh wouldn't have sufficiently obliged the monogawdist Khalistanis (what's a Khalistan?).



So Khalistanis would claim not only AfPak, but most of India as Khalistan.

But Indian "Hindu nationalists" still can't help wooing everyone to come and share the Hindu label.

Then again, as per Hindutva, to Khalistanis, much of Akhanda Bharatam is both Punya Bhumi AND Pitru Bhumi. So they're all very Hindu (nationalist) with very Hindu (nationalist) objectives, no?

^ Accidentally great example for a glaring failure in the Hindutva definition. ^

Every missionary religion in India has some kind of conversion or conquest project going against the Hindu heathen nation. And Hindus are expected to just bear with it, and to keep sharing out their sole English-language identifier (Hindu) with all of the competition too.

Well, I suppose I southern Hindus should be grateful that "Dravida" and some part of Maharashtra are left alone. And so too Assam and W Bengal.

Sounds like it's slightly better than Mughalstan.

But wonder what islamaniacs will say?


Quote:OTL History and demise of the Sikh KingdomEdit

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Sikh Empire was the powerhouse of South Asia, that arose under the leadership of Maharajah Ranjit Singh who established the empire basing it around the Punjab. His administration included people of all religions, the empire was a secular state. At least 80% of population of the territory he ruled over was Muslim, 10% were Hindu and the majority remaining percent were Sikhs. Unlike, other South Asian empires, who appointed Brahmins as their minsters, the Sikh Ranjit Singh appointed Muslim Fakir Azizuddin as Wazir/Pradhan/Prime Minster.


Quote:Sikh Kingdom of Khalistan (Raj Karega Khalsa)

Khalistan, (Punjabi: ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ), officially the Sikh Kingdom of Khalistan (Punjabi: ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ ਦੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਬਾਦਸ਼ਾਹੀ) is a sovereign country in South Asia. It borders Maharashtra and Dravida to the south-west and south, Tibet and Nepal to the north-east, Bengal to the east, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to the north, Turkmenistan to the north-west, and Iran and Persia to the west

The territory that now constitutes Khalistan was previously home to several ncient cultures, including the Mehrgarh of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilisation, and was later home to kingdoms ruled by people of different faiths and cultures, including Hindus, Indo-Greeks, Muslims, Turco-Mongols, Afghans, before coming under rule of the Sikhs.
The bit on the left hand at the link is also worth perusing.

And then as usual, the renegades claim Harappa (the way christians claim GrecoRoman civilisation) and further dare to refer to - if you please - MBh and Vedic dynasties etc.


Pre-Sikh PeriodEdit

In prehistoric times, one of the earliest known cultures of South Asia, the Harappa civili(z/s)ation, was located in Punjab.

The epic battles described in the Mahabharata were fought in modern-day Haryana of Punjab. The Gandharas, Kambojas, Trigartas, Andhra, Pauravas, Bahlikas (Bactrian settlers of Punjab), Yaudheyas and others sided with the Kauravas in the great battle fought at Kurukshetra. According to Dr Fauja Singh and Dr L. M. Joshi: "There is no doubt that the Kambojas, Daradas, Kaikayas, Andhra, Pauravas, Yaudheyas, Malavas, Saindhavas and Kurus had jointly contributed to the heroic tradition and composite culture of ancient Punjab".

But Vedic dynasties have NOTHING to do with those of their distant descendants who converted out to other religions, be these Indic or christoislamic religions.

But no wonder christianised fishermen off the coast of Kerala and Tamizh Nadu feel that despite their conversion too they yet have a right to dare to make claims on the Mahabharatam.

This is the problem of allowing replacement theologies to claim religio-ethnic geneologies after denouncing the religio part. They aggrandise themselves with Hindu religio, even as they replace it with their own. And Hindus - with their universalism - will let them.

And this bit:


In Punjab there is a freedom of religion while making Sikhism the state religion. The first religions of Punjab were Buddhism and Hinduism, (apparently Buddhism is equal to Hinduism=Vedic religion including in ancientry in the Punjab, must be another joke) in the 8th century Islam arrived and replaced Hinduism as the majority religion. Sikhism was founded in the 14th century by Guru Nanank Dev Ji. In the beginnings of the Sikh Kingdom, Islam was the majority religion, but over time Sikhism become the majority.

Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple)

Darbar/Harmandir Sahib, known as the Golden Temple by non-Punjabi influenced countries

The current religious demographics are, Sikhism 98%, Islam 0.7%, Hinduism 0.5%, Christianity 0.3%, Buddhism 0.3%, the 0.2% either don't follow a religion or follow another religion.

But interesting wishful demographic projections for their -hopefully only alternative- history. (Sounds like Buddhist history rewriting of greater India having been once 'mostly Buddhist')

And how magnanimous the upstarts are to the native HindOOs: allowed to be 0.5% in Punjab (from the sad 37% at present).

So how would they like it if HindOOs were to likewise plan to reciprocate that percentage (in inverse, in our favour) while the HindOOs are still a force in Punjab? Only fair after all?

More proof that it's *only* ever Hindus that waste time concerning themselves with the welfare of the other Indic religions and trying to make everyone tag along in Hindu successes. Meanwhile, everyone else is plotting or dreaming of replacement.

Should nip this in the bud.

Why in the world and how was Sikhism allowed to become a majority in the historical and sacred Hindoo region of the Punjab. Were Hindoos sleeping? Yet again? No wonder people feel free to plot to turn Hindus from an already paltry 37% to 0.5% in the Punjab of their dreams, along with an increase from now 60% Sikhism to 98%.

From now on, should just assume that every new movement within Hinduism is going to become a competing spin-off (replacement ideology). Has once-heathen India ever bred any other kind of religions?

This page is memorable too:


In the history section, one subsection is on ancient history, and all the many other subsections (each at least equally long) are all post-Sikhism in the state. As if there was no huge mass of time when the entire state was Hindoo. Sikhism is after all a very, very, very recent religion. Even later than islam.

The wacky page's Sikh Empire subsection has an image showing the actual extent of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire#/media/File:Sikh_Empire.JPG

Shows nowhere near the landgrab for sikhism/khalistanis that was seen in the althistory world map of wannabe-Khalistan.
Own fault that I went and read something at swarajyamag. But every time I think: "surely it won't be bad this time, what else can go wrong? Every stupid claim must have been launched by now already?"

This time, however, a featured article actually dragged in Taoism and Shinto and pretended their relationship with Buddhism was swell (essentially pretending 'syncretism'). :GRRRRRRR: So provoking.

And this is the fairytale that the article was peddling to the audience (apparently for the purpose of equating Jainism, Buddhism whatever with Hindoos' heathenism in parallel).

I saw so red I couldn't even see much past those claims.

And of course no one complained.

What next? Tomorrow they may start pretending that Buddhism was swell to Shamanism too.

Indians should stick to mangling their own heathenism (such as by conflating it with Buddhism, Jainism etc). But need to just leave Taoism and Shinto and other ancestral heathenisms alone.
Another thing I'd forgotten to complain about earlier.

Other Indian atheists ("Hindu" atheists in fact) sound the same as the Buddhists/Jain missionaries nowadays. Same lies.

A comment found at indiafacts.


actually most of the religious practices of modern hinduism - including gods, pujas etc - are derived from buddhism. the vedic religion - the darshanas, the smirithis - are ascetic and almost verging on atheism. it is from mahayana buddhism that modern hinduism got its deities and ways of worship. avalokateshvara, maitreya, mara etc are the forerunners of vishnu, shiva, shakti etc. it is in the rise of advaita vedanta which subsequently spawned the various schools of bhakti vedanta, that the root of modern hinduism can be traced to. but even advaita vedanta is not called prachanna bauddham or buddism in disguise without reason. so modern hinduism has more in common with mahayana buddhism than the ancient vedic religion.
(All of these assertions are already disproven somewhere in this and/or the SD thread.)

Strange how enemies all sound the same. All of them are poaching on the heathenism that is Vedic religio for their own interests.

Ultimately they're all the same: Inimical.

And this vpnc dude was serious:

He spouted more nonsense, lecturing about how he had defended "Hindu traditions" for years (by which he clearly means Buddhism, Jainism, Indic atheist movements; probably not the "miscellany" under which Vedic religio i.e. Hindoos' heathenism falls, since he's conveniently ignorant of that). He was also lecturing others about how they needed to be more literate about their own 'Hindu traditions'.

Apparently the above entity is a colleague of Kalavai Venkat and has been writing articles with him irgendwo for who knows how many years. (Great. Wikipedia isn't the only source of pollution on the internet, apparently.)

Speaking of Kalavai Venkat. In the comments area of an indiafacts article, he recently had a back-and-forth with several others about nireeshwara thought, foreshadowing how he would in future be publishing something on the same subject. (One of his correspondents had mentioned he was dabbling in I mean had learnt the Krishna Yajur Vedam and was interested in nireeshwara schools himself. Great.) Those comments seemed to all evaporate fast enough within a day or two of my noticing them, or else I simply can't find them again. Anyway, at some earlier point in time Kalavai Venkat had stated something that sounded to me much like Elst's absurd nonsense about how Samkhya, (Yoga,) etc were originally atheist and how Hindoos had hijacked these for their heathenism.

And the same wishful thinking, I mean opinion, was expressed by the 'vpnc' entity quoted above (another "Hindu" atheist, but isn't that the case with all those making such claims). The latter traces samkhya to - I kid you not - the Samkhya Karika. (And to think he was lecturing others about how literate he was and how illiterate any naysayers must be.)

And these people pretend to 1. be literate; and 2. have the right to lecture others. [url="http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/975-sanatana-dharma-aka-hinduism-3rd-bin/page__view__findpost__p__117621"]Reminiscent of Atanu Dey's infamous encroachment[/url] - he's that other "Hindu" atheist who was poaching on Hindu heathenism to enlarge his own atheism - when he was seen pretending that his atheist self would know more than Hindoos about Shiva (Nataraja moorti), conveniently forgetting he has less than nothing to do with any Hindu Gods aka any part of Hindu heathenism and that he has even less knowledge on the subject.

Hindu atheists have as much to do with Hindu heathenism as christoislamics or aliens have, one need not pretend otherwise: all unheathens are unheathens - a straightforward equivalence - and have no rights to heathen stuffs. Any of it. (And that's a lot.) "Hindu" atheists' recent or distant Hindoo ancestry has no bearing on the subject. No heathen ever stopped anyone from converting out. But you can't take anything with you. The same old rule applies here too: Can't have the cake and eat it too. Like christians and other non-heathens of Indian ancestry, "I am a Hindu" atheists have to stop referring to heathen stuffs like the itihAsas and pretending they have an "equal" let alone any claim on this. From the Vedas to the itihAsas are heathen texts - so is a lot written by heathens thereafter - despite repeated attempts by covetous unheathens (a product of the modern era) to try to secularise these. Unheathens should stick to their own stuff or create their own and stop poaching. They should be creative like western atheists, not be 3rd world atheists and converts to monotheism: uncreative and poaching.

(Anyway, after reading repeated nonsense emanating from the mouths of various self-professed "Hindu" atheists penning away anti-heathen subversive lies on the internet - in order to divorce key features of heathenism to hijack these for their atheism - I've now come to the conclusion that there are no "Hindu" atheists learned in any aspects of "Hindu traditions" or whatever vpnc calls it. Hypothetically: perhaps this is a side-effect of the fact that at most these people are reconstructionists of Indic atheisms, rather than following any tradition therein: they tend to have recent Hindoo i.e. heathen i.e. theist ancestors, so they de-converted but have no tradition.)

If Kalavai Venkat in his future publication - or anyone else, really - attempts to lecture to a Hindoo audience that Samkhya was originally atheist*, then will be a good time to spam with materials on the subject of how Samkhya was originally (and therefore actually, truly) Seshwara - making any later versions of Samkhya mere subversions, a la Buddhism. Best to expose the fraud of people pompously pretending know-it-allness after their blunder. This is to immunise the Hindoo audience from ever after lending blind credence to any de-heathenising nonsense emanating from them.

* Elst already tried this in his blog, but his audience consists of de-heathenised entities - who are beyond correction, plus who cares about them anyway: debile people deserve to imbibe further stupidity and be debilitated further, so their instant capitulation to subversive nonsense is not only unsurprising, but actually gratifying (as it further confirms their subvertibility, not to mention their lack of commonsense).

The point of this post was the stupidity expressed by one "vpnc", reproduced in this post's sole quoteblock.

(In fact, he stated many other stupid things, but lies on the internet have a tendency to shorten one's lifespan. Why should heathens waste their time in rebutting one lie after another emanating from unheathens. The latter are a factory of falsehoods.)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)