Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Was Jesus a Buddhist monk?


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#136    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:58 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 17 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

How you describe the onset of Hinduism is basically the same description for nearly all ancient religions. Practically all of them were organic in development. Religions don't automatically pop up to be forced on others—with the exception of more modern examples. But as with all of these ancient religions, Hinduism included, they were also used as tools by the developing state and authority to help bolster and maintain the power of central authority. That also can be thought of as organic, in so far as how civilizations came to be in the ancient world.

We've been through a lot of this before, but your nationalistic fervor does not stand equal to real historical research. We cannot look at truly ancient Indic city-states like Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and identify them as "Vedic." There is simply no evidence to support such a claim. You're basically turning to your evident nationalist fervor to try to make India the root of everything, and it simply is not. It is the root of India, certainly, but we need to keep this in perspective. The earliest origins of the Vedic period are not clear but philological studies point to an origin of about 1700 BCE—when the Rigveda was perhaps composed. This is the oldest of the Vedic corpus, is it not?

If we look at just the Rigveda as the beginning of Vedic culture, we then place it around the eighteenth century BCE. Egypt had already been a functioning kingdom for some 1,400 years by this point, the evidence for which is unequivocal. There is no real evidence for interaction between Egypt and India till the Ptolemaic Period, beginning 332 BCE, so trying to suggest that Horus as an Egyptian deity might have Vedic influences is nonsensical. As it is, although the kingdom of Egypt was established in the late fourth millennium BCE, iconography for Horus is recognizable for some centuries prior to that.

Understand, Harsh, I do not wish to sound like I'm trying to demean Hinduism or Vedic culture in any way. That's not my intent. I am only drawing from strictly secular, peer-reviewd research about the origins of ancient civilizations in that part of the world. My motivations for this extend nowhere beyond that. I am interested in history as it is known and understood from real-world, extant evidence. Nationalistic fervor doesn't interest me. Hell, I'm a pasty white American whose chief research interest is ancient Egypt, so that much should be obvious.
Nationalistic fervor would better apply to people like Zahi Hawass but surprisingly he is a darling of the mainstream nevermind.
I am only highlighting the false baseless stupid assumptions regariding Hinduism and Vedas that have been built by the imperialistic west at one point of time,sadly many of the stupidities have still continued to the modern times and still reiterated as facts for eg-the Vedas cannot be dated beyond 1700 B.C. which is absolutely bull****.I thought that the discovery of Saraswati being an actual river had the same impact on the antiquity of the Vedas as finding Troy had on the veracity of the Illiad.
The 1700 B.C date for the Vedas is an old British stupidity that has continued till date.All i am saying is that unless we discard stupid and erraneous assumptions we can never take a fresh look at the extant evidence.
If you have a real interest in history then you have to base it more on actual facts rather then on the opinion of the mainstream alone.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users