Chola Hindu Identity

[telugu_fan]

43 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

in this case its the other way around. Hinduism didn't exist when Raja Raja was a saivite.

In this case Hinduism did exist with the Shivaite being dominant in Raja Raja Chola time. It might not have been called as Hindu in particular, would have been called vedic culture or parampara or whatever would have been the name, changing the name doesn't make anything different if the practices and essence of the religion is the same.

The brits probably classified all the non islam, non Sikh idolators as hindus. If there were an strong Jain or buddhist kings maybe they also would have gotten a separate recognition. But that wasn't the case.

The point is Kamal Hassan in his infinite wisdom should have known this if he truly studied many books as he claims, but he only wants to rile people and stay relevant, which is sad for i expected a newer political party to be different and more focused on policies and people, but he seems to be focused on appeasement on steroids and easy votes from minorities and appealing to sectarian thoughts of people.

[sarfaroshi]

1 minute ago, Raven_Rayes said:

it was not an organized religion then. just a bunch of brahmins flexing their muscles and trying to influence kings with their own versions of 'dharma'.

it was not 'hinduism'.

Arey intlo baasanlu thomko poo…eppudu ikkade edustaav

[Raven_Rayes]

9 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

, that doesn't change the fact that what was Shaivism during chola times owed it continuance from Vedic culture and is being continued in the present day Hinduism.

not just saivism, even buddhism jainism owed its continuance from vedic philosophy.. doesn't make them hindus.

[Raven_Rayes]

1 minute ago, telugu_fan said:

In this case Hinduism did exist with the Shivaite being dominant in Raja Raja Chola time. It might not have been called as Hindu in particular, would have been called vedic culture or parampara or whatever would have been the name, changing the name doesn't make anything different if the practices and essence of the religion is the same.

The brits probably classified all the non islam, non Sikh idolators as hindus. If there were an strong Jain or buddhist kings maybe they also would have gotten a separate recognition. But that wasn't the case.

The point is Kamal Hassan in his infinite wisdom should have known this if he truly studied many books as he claims, but he only wants to rile people and stay relevant, which is sad for i expected a newer political party to be different and more focused on policies and people, but he seems to be focused on appeasement on steroids and easy votes from minorities and appealing to sectarian thoughts of people.

dude, there was no such thing. stop making things up. and saivaites were not the majority under medeival cholas. It was jains and buddhists.

the large part of elites were saivites under raja raja chola. not regular people. nilakanta sastry has written a book on south indian history where he charts the popularity of hindu religions came only under the vijayanagara empire.

you want focus on people? lmao. go tell that to your friends in bjp first. its perfectly fine to counter BJP's hindu majoritarian trash with assertions like this.. as long as these kind of assertions don't make it to actual intellectual history books about south india.

[Raven_Rayes]

6 minutes ago, sarfaroshi said:

Arey intlo baasanlu thomko poo…eppudu ikkade edustaav

neeku kooda db antey chulakana kadha.. lmao. m lo db ani oorkay analey peddollu.

ee db peddollu kaadhu... ee db lo peddolley leru.. antha lafoot nayaley like you and I.

[Raven_Rayes]

19 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

I don't think Buddhists and Jains are Hindus, but they belong to a sister religion that has many a commonalities but a also a few differences in their appeal and nature.

 

who cares dude. you can call yourself Hindu if you want.

tamils will call themselves whatever they want. what bothers you?

they are not wrong when they say that raja raja chola is saivaite. they are not making assertions about some telugu king somewhere.

you may not be wrong when you say raja raja chola was hindu.. but why should you care if its saivaite or hindu? both of which are the same according to you.

technically though raja raja chola was a saivaite and not hindu. saying it out loud to piss others is a good political ploy.

[Raven_Rayes]

14 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

In this case Hinduism did exist with the Shivaite being dominant in Raja Raja Chola time. It might not have been called as Hindu in particular, would have been called vedic culture or parampara or whatever would have been the name, changing the name doesn't make anything different if the practices and essence of the religion is the same.

The brits probably classified all the non islam, non Sikh idolators as hindus. If there were an strong Jain or buddhist kings maybe they also would have gotten a separate recognition. But that wasn't the case.

The point is Kamal Hassan in his infinite wisdom should have known this if he truly studied many books as he claims, but he only wants to rile people and stay relevant, which is sad for i expected a newer political party to be different and more focused on policies and people, but he seems to be focused on appeasement on steroids and easy votes from minorities and appealing to sectarian thoughts of people.

technically during raja raja chola's time, many thinkers who you'll label 'Hindu' now were fighting dirty religious wars and had no clue that the religion they followed was derived from the same orthodoxy.

such a thought that all these religions were derived from the same source, was only slowly developing and would take many centuries more to completely take shape.

[Raven_Rayes]

25 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

would have been called vedic culture or parampara or whatever would have been the name, changing the name doesn't make anything different

vedic culture was not Hindu.

its a nice attempt to claim everything in the vedic culture for ourselves. but vedic period had buddhism, jainism, and even atheist materialist traditions.

I know modern hindus like to pretend like they are so awesome that they encourage atheism too..

but the atheists of the vedic period are not like the nice atheists you see today. they literally spit on vedic gods, abused the gods in choicest words etc. will Hindus allow that to their current gods? lets not fool ourselves about an unbroken lineage from vedic age to hindu thought.

the coolest parts have been stripped off to form hinduism.

[telugu_fan]

20 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

it was not an organized religion then. just a bunch of brahmins flexing their muscles and trying to influence kings with their own versions of 'dharma'.

it was not 'hinduism'.

regarding the underlined part, i seriously doubt if brahmins would follow their own versions of dharma. Every varna follows a codified set of laws that predates it and those are modified only when there is great churn that occurs either due to great internal or external upheavals. Brahmins have their set of life, the blacksmiths their own set of rules and carpentry and masons theirs own sets of rules and are bound to follow them.

Vilifying the brahmins as a whole serves no one (maybe some polticos), similarly vilifying any sect or group ultimately also will serve no one. but this is not really on the scope of discsussion in this about what KH said.

[Raven_Rayes]

2 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

regarding the underlined part, i seriously doubt if brahmins would follow their own versions of dharma. Every varna follows a codified set of laws that predates it and those are modified only when there is great churn that occurs either due to great internal or external upheavals. Brahmins have their set of life, the blacksmiths their own set of rules and carpentry and masons theirs own sets of rules and are bound to follow them.

Vilifying the brahmins as a whole serves no one (maybe some polticos), similarly vilifying any sect or group ultimately also will serve no one. but this is not really on the scope of discsussion in this about what KH said.

who's vilifying brahmins? me? or KH? neither.

what is buddhism, jainism if not an alternate version of dharma?

[telugu_fan]

21 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

dude, there was no such thing. stop making things up. and saivaites were not the majority under medeival cholas. It was jains and buddhists.

the large part of elites were saivites under raja raja chola. not regular people. nilakanta sastry has written a book on south indian history where he charts the popularity of hindu religions came only under the vijayanagara empire.

you want focus on people? lmao. go tell that to your friends in bjp first. its perfectly fine to counter BJP's hindu majoritarian trash with assertions like this.. as long as these kind of assertions don't make it to actual intellectual history books about south india.

I had not claimed that majority of people were Shivaites anywhere, i just said when a King or Power centre patronizes it it grows. Do you have the name of the book by Nilakanth Shastry that he makes this assertions, would make a good read.

Also if i am not wrong the work of Adi Shankara collapsed buddhism (that was beginning to suffer from the same issues that peopel accuse hinduism of untouchability and caste for any religion that grew too big suffred from) and islamic invasions produced a death knell for buddhism (atleast thats what they said when i studying in schools)

[Raven_Rayes]

11 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

I had not claimed that majority of people were Shivaites anywhere, i just said when a King or Power centre patronizes it it grows. Do you have the name of the book by Nilakanth Shastry that he makes this assertions, would make a good read.

Also if i am not wrong the work of Adi Shankara collapsed buddhism (that was beginning to suffer from the same issues that peopel accuse hinduism of untouchability and caste for any religion that grew too big suffred from) and islamic invasions produced a death knell for buddhism (atleast thats what they said when i studying in schools)

the book's name is A History of south india from prehistoric times to the fall of vijayanagar

adhi shankara didn't 'collapse' buddhism. he merely laid the foundations of what would later be used to unify hinduism. He did attack buddhists, both verbally and with threat of excessive force, but it took more than half a millenium for buddhism to disappear from India.

Whatever people accuse Hinduism of, appears not just in buddhism, but also in Indus valley civilization, and sangam period (which tamils childishly claim had equal society), and in every society that existed in the region that we now call Indian sub continent.

it was never unique to HInduism.. nor did inequality originate from manu. It was already practised in pre vedic periods. IVC excavations archaeogenetic studies are slowly confirming the existence of a hierarchical system that precedes the vedic age.

[telugu_fan]

10 minutes ago, Raven_Rayes said:

vedic culture was not Hindu.

its a nice attempt to claim everything in the vedic culture for ourselves. but vedic period had buddhism, jainism, and even atheist materialist traditions.

I know modern hindus like to pretend like they are so awesome that they encourage atheism too..

but the atheists of the vedic period are not like the nice atheists you see today. they literally spit on vedic gods, abused the gods in choicest words etc. will Hindus allow that to their current gods? lets not fool ourselves about an unbroken lineage from vedic age to hindu thought.

This is an incorrect assertion. Jainism and Buddhism were not offshoots of vedic culture per se. buddhism atleast propagated from the teachings of Buddha and his disciples that mainly dealt with suffering of the people and why they are suffering and ways to mitigate it. the various jataka tales that grew in popularity apparently comes from Buddha himself (or so it is claimed) where he talks about various characters in the story and their conduct and how people should be.

Buddhism doesn't talk about sacrifices or obligations to particular gods like Indra, varuna and dealt more with treatment of people and equality.

Atheists didn't believe in gods or idol worship, and maybe they stayed true to it, but the present day Hindus will not stand for it as the present day atheists will only abuse Hindus and their gods and leave the other religions going so far to say that they must be treated with respect. if they were treating evey god and organised religion with contempt and same behaviour your will find the present day Hindus will not say anything.

[Raven_Rayes]

19 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

This is an incorrect assertion. Jainism and Buddhism were not offshoots of vedic culture per se. buddhism atleast propagated from the teachings of Buddha and his disciples that mainly dealt with suffering of the people and why they are suffering and ways to mitigate it. the various jataka tales that grew in popularity apparently comes from Buddha himself (or so it is claimed) where he talks about various characters in the story and their conduct and how people should be.

Buddhism doesn't talk about sacrifices or obligations to particular gods like Indra, varuna and dealt more with treatment of people and equality.

it doesn't have to. Buddhism and Jainism shares a lot in common with vedic age.. belief in reincarnation, notions of karma etc.

the biggest thing buddhism rejects is the authority of vedas, its rituals, caste and animal sacrifice.

19 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

Atheists didn't believe in gods or idol worship, and maybe they stayed true to it, but the present day Hindus will not stand for it as the present day atheists will only abuse Hindus and their gods and leave the other religions going so far to say that they must be treated with respect. if they were treating evey god and organised religion with contempt and same behaviour your will find the present day Hindus will not say anything.

atheists were hounded in vedic age too. lmao.

present day atheists abuse hindus because they are abusing a specific political reality they have to deal with. the extreme power of the sanghi today.

abusing muslims in this time is pointless exercise in show off.

whether that strategy works or not can be worth pondering about, but HIndus are not the victims here. especially from the atheist abuse they receive. They are using it cleverly to further their own agenda.

expecting a modern atheist to go around abusing all religions is just silly. any atheist that does that is most likely a racist or ethnonationalist or a cultural Hindu bigot.

[Raven_Rayes]

25 minutes ago, telugu_fan said:

present day atheists will only abuse Hindus and their gods and leave the other religions going so far to say that they must be treated with respect.

atheists in any region will only attack the majority religion

talk to atheists in pakistan, iran, indonesia if you want.

a lot of Indian atheists are actually cowards making excuses for sanghis and defending BJP excesses in the name of nationalism. pathetic.