He was talking about people MC Rajah and veer savarkar
I love how you can’t argue against anything I said. First those hindu nationalist assertions about Buddhism were proven a lie, then your assertions about Ashoka were not true (as he became sincere after), and the video about caste is complete revisionism.
If you are really a Jain then you should know you are being brainwashed. But I think you are probably just a larping Hindu nationalist anyways.
I am still correct about Ashoka. He never apologized in to people in Kalinga
Watch this
View: https://youtu.be/ukq_8FeQTaA?t=1657
How many videos will you send nigga? How is he going to apologize lol? All we know about him is from his stone edicts, and he said he felt remorse for what he had done.
No it isn't. Not all Sudras were untouchables like marxists claims. Some communities of Sudras were discriminated does mean all of them were.
I am not denying the horrors of the past. Just please don't over blow it.
He apologized to people in Pakistan for Crimes done in South India? He in the next paragraph warns the tribes to behave themselves or that fate will happen to them
Just because I am a Jain I need to believe in pommy marxist nonsense. Then what about Meenakshi Jain is she also a Hindu larping as a Jain
Jains and Hindus always lived side by side through out history especially in places like Rajastan and Gujarat. The Jains in Gujarat even visit Hindu temples. Jains and Hindus aren't enemies as taught in your academic textbooks.
Afaik shudras were not untouchable, it is for people who are even below them that are considered outside the caste system (like dalits).
And like all things in life, there is one way to not follow the rules set on your people. Take over and become the ruler yourself, hence the shudra kings.
The edict is talking about kalinga.
The next paragraph actually says this:
“Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this — that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees — that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.”
Being a non-hindu nationalist doesn’t make you a marxist jfl. Most people in the world outside curryland are neither hindutva nor marxistsJust because I am a Jain I need to believe in pommy marxist nonsense. Then what about Meenakshi Jain is she also a Hindu larping as a Jain
They are not enemies, but they are different religions. The fact you say Jains visit hindu temples tells me you are a hindu jfl. Thanks for confirming, but your larp was easily detected.
Here are Jains discusses it. Fuck off you don't know anything about us. Fuck off kike thinking you know every thing about us
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jainism/comments/18w6qr3/gujarati_jains_arent_like_jains_at_all/
Last edited:
Prime Mister Modi is a Hindu yet is talks about the greatness of Jainsim and visits Jain temples. In Gujarat it's like Shinto and Buddhism I think would be best example, there is a lot of over lap between belifs
22 nd tirtankar Neminatha and Krishna are considered cousins by both the communities. There is some overlap between both the faiths
Yes they also may have pommy christian missionary mind set to "civilize" the "savage" masses by converting them to their "modern" and "real" faith Cuckstrianity
Thanks for sharing. All I got from this is that those Jains are false Jains who incorporated Hindu practices jfl. That’s why there are people complaining and saying they aren’t all like this.
Hindu nationalist think they are all just Hindu sects. Mahavira was a Hindu, Buddha was a Hindu (avatar of vishnu), etc. They just don’t have the complete truth of the Vedas and are therefore misguided deviant sects.
Krishna goes to hell for sexual perversion according to the Jain tradition. Why do I know more about Jainism than you? It’s pretty obvious why. You are probably a larper.
So first it’s the evil marxists and now the evil christians. Have you never thought maybe what everyone says about Hindus, like the Greeks talking about widow burning or me proving they are obsessed with cow shit, is actually all true? I’ve proven everything you’ve said wrong time and time again.
@Copexodius Maximus jfl how the fuck do you know all this shit about Hinduism?
I’ve learned a lot of subjects over the years from arguing online. Religion is one that people argue a lot about, and you get very sharp and precise in making your points and knowing the information on how to debunk their bullshit.
I did not claim Jains worship Krishna. I fucking hate Pranami especially ISKCON mainly
. I just claim they recognized each other and had different versions of stories. Like we Jains have our own version of Ramayana
Then name a scripture in which Sati is mentioned as a obligation. Then I will be convinced. Ashoka is still a shitty guy. Imagine Hitler apologizing to you Jews after losing WW 2. Will you accept it?
She's actually good-looking. This is the sort of girl JBW would call mid, but I find her much more attractive than OP image. She might be Balkan or Slavic, I like their faces better than westoids.
I claimed in MY scriptures (that is Jainism NOT hindusim) it was never mentioned it
Last edited:
Show me your AIDS cut jewish dick or you aren't Jewish. Like what the fuck not all groups are a monolith okay. People CAN have different opinions in a group.
“Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are
living, enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium ( to their eyes). Let
these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well
adorned.”
-Rig Veda X.18.7
“A sati who dies on the funeral pyre of her husband enjoys an eternal bliss
in heaven”
-Daksa Smrti IV.18-19
“It is the highest duty of the woman to immolate herself after her husband “
- Brahma Purana, 80.75
you mean after winning, cause Ashoka won. But yeah, he was a butcher before just like most kings in India really.
No one said Jains do sati. They just starve themselves to death (brutal).
Jfl this is so nostalgic. I remember watching turd flinging monkey like 5 years ago back when I first got into the redpikl
That Rig Veda part is false. It's a pommy translation corruption.
It's not step into "pyre". It is step into "earlier". The original word is agre (earlier) vs agneh (fire).
इमा नारीरविधवाः सुपत्नीराञ्जनेन सर्पिषा संविशन्तु |अनश्रवो.अनमीवाः सुरत्ना आ रोहन्तु जनयोयोनिमग्रे ||
vs
इमा नारीरविधवाः सुपत्नीराञ्जनेन सर्पिषा संविशन्तु |अनश्रवो.अनमीवाः सुरत्ना आ रोहन्तु जनयोयोनिमग्ने ||
It was changed by British. Look at how much meaning can be changed just with a single letter change.
Rest may be true let me check later
Last edited:
CURRYS CANT BE INCEL OK FUCKING CURRYCELS JUST GO OUT THERE PAJEET MAXXING AND GRAPE RAMPAGE ON THESE WHITE WHORES FUCKING VILE CUNTS
No Ashoka lost after he died. His kingdom collapsed because he killed almost all of his family.
We Jain won the war later after Ashoka died
. Kharvela later defeated Mauryan Empire went to Patliputra and brought back Jain idols back to the temples.
Fuck off. Not his grand father Chandra Gupta Maurya. He was a Jain king. He must have killed people in wars. That may be excused.
But you can't kill people for your fucking ego about your religion. Jains never did that. Fuck Ashoka. I don't understand why Marxist keep pumping him.
You mean Sallekhana. What's wrong in that? Once all your ambitions in life are finished and you feel like you have done everything, you can voluntarily choose death.
It's mostly done by monks but many of Kings and Queens also died like it. I don't remember any text saying widows are obligated to commit it.
Was it changed or wrong translation?
Right, but he was remorseful after winning and slaughtering people. That’s the difference.
It’s controversial why his kingdom collapsed. According to Buddhist sources he donated all his wealth to monasteries, and his son had to lock him away from the treasury and take over cause his dad was going to destroy his empire by giving everything up.
I guess he didn’t have a federal reserve to generate infinite money.
Chandragupta Maurya’s legacy is the arthashastra, which is the treatise of how kingdoms exist to conquer other kingdoms and take their wealth. It is pretty much a guide to warfare.
And it’s not Marxist pumping him up, as he became remorseful AFTER butchering people. He is the one who famously banned animal sacrifice in India and promoted vegetarianism. And the empire was at its height under him.
Never said anything wrong with it. They aren’t killing other people just roping themselves.
Changed in the wrong translation
He didn't ban death sentence. Fuck him.
Good, that’s retarded jfl (even if it isn’t buddhist). Btw, stop spamming these threads. Address all these points at once cause you’re bumping the thread for no reason every time.
But there is a difference. Arthashastra clearly tells the King must not rub his religion and culture on to the locals after conquering a Kingdom. In fact the King must engage in their local traditions and customs.
He didn't ban it 'cause he wanted to kill more Jains.
Where are you getting that from? Read the Ashoka edicts, they talk about respecting ascetics and followers of all religions.
Then why did he kill all the Jains and Ajivikas? Look at not what they say but what they do
I will send the source wait
From Arthasastra
A conquering king should reassure a defeated people that not much, excepttheir rulers, will change. The king who has triumphed "should adopt asimilar character, dress, language and behavior (as the subjects). Andhe should show the same devotion in festivals in honour of deities ofthe country, festive gatherings and sportive amusements."154 He should keep his promises, especially to those who helped him win, he should honor the local "deities," and he should make grants of land and money to men distinguished in wisdom and piety.155 And the conquering king should show his goodwill toward the defeated by instituting "a righteous custom, not initiated before."156 While the victorious king is reassuring the general population with generous policies, he must continue to kill anyone who is dangerous and those who are disgruntled: "He should put down by silent punishment those capable of injuring [him] or those brooding on the master's destruction."157 In what might be a surprising observation about those whom the king has killed, Kautilya commented that if one must kill a dangerous person, the king must leave his[End Page 32]property untouched and "shall not covet the land, property, sons orwives of the slain one."158 Kautilya had the same insight into human emotions that Machiavelli had nearly eighteen hundred years later. Said Machiavelli, "And when [the prince] is obliged to take the life of any one, . . . he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony."
154.Kautilya, Arthasastra, 13.5.7-8: 491.
155.Kautilya, Arthasastra, 13.5.11, 6: 491-92.
156.Kautilya, Arthasastra, 13.5.24: 493.
157.Kautilya, Arthasastra, 13.5.17: 492.
158.Kautilya, Arthasastra, 7.16.26: 374.
Sent it
Last edited:
Yeah yeah man. So did many Nazis and Japanese after killing people in brutal way. Their crimes can not be paid with any amount of "remorse" they felt.
I meant a source of him killing Jains and Ajivikas. Cause that contradicts the edicts, and the only source I can find of that is Buddhist chronology called the Ashokavadana. This was written almost a millennia after Ashoka was around in Sri Lanka and is not mentioned in any earlier texts. There is no mention of it in Jain or any texts from India.
This is after his conquest north west India, which is what kings do . He had remorse of doing that according to the edicts.
This seems to be true. But even here it is not an obligation but a recommendation maybe.
This practice must have not been present in Vedic era. It was a practice that originated later. Not all sects of Hindus consider these books as sacred also. This practice was not universally present across India. Widows used to only shave their head and wear white clothes in the South EVEN before the British abolish it. It's not like all widows committed Sati all across India all the time like people claim.
I never claimed it never existed. I am denying the British missionary accounts of 10000s of them commiting them. The Governor of Madras and Bombay presidency said they didn't see observe any such practice there.
fellow jihadcel plzz i can tell those niggas from the left 3 look anything but white, one on the right sure
and no plzz stop copping nigga in current dating market mog all deathnics
His Kingdom collapsed in 2 generations and Kharvela gained independence in Kalinga and brought back the Jain idols from Patliputra as said in his inscriptions. So the Kalinga Jains' idols were stolen by Ashoka.
Big difference. Kings can only kill in war that too only warriors. They should not interfere in the lives of civilians. Violence as duty is different than killing as a passion or for ego purposes.
Whatever you say Chandra Gupta Maurya >>>>> Ashoka
Chandra Gupta Maurya strengthened the empire while Ashoka destroyed it
curries are not known to do well in uk
i got few cousins there, curries only do decent against pajeetas. ofc outliers exist
you're gonna find more example of curries with other race toilets in us/canada than uk
tfm is still based, he's pretty black pilled. i mean he fks dolls over foids
way better than that fraud retard sandman aka serb dipshit from toronto
Last edited:
You a Sikh?
yes but we also do hindu stuff and go to mandirs
Explain that to niggers like @Copexodius Maximus who want to divide all of us claiming all of our religions are separate entities and have no overlap in our religions.
Also what do you think about Khalistan? It's just a Jhat Sikh Supremacy moment from what I heard....
I am not a expert in this. But I will never believe this FUCKING nonsense. The FUCKING VEDAS themselves were written by a Sudhra. It doesn't make any sense to do that. I won't be countering this. Maybe @mlcurrycel can do it.
Like I showed you before changing a single letter can change the entire meaning
But it means Bhramins were marrying non-Bhramins. So they were okay inter caste marriages
What fuck are you blabbering??? This what I mean when I say don't read pommy non sense.
Jati in all Indian Languages means family or species. Where the fuck are you talking? Janm means birth not Jati.
You know more about Indian languages than me who speaks it everyday? Verna doesn't mean color and you can't find someones race with their color. Are you not aware Recessive genes? I am fair but my brother is darker does that mean he is of different race?
Source for Verna meaning color
What the fuck are you talking? Bhramins are forbidden from Combat or owning property from the same sources you provided. Who will kill them?
Chanakya was not a Bhramin then? Nigger kike. Don't spout pommy marxist nonsense.
Yeah, Hindus in India converted because of the Evil and Cunning Bhramin as you claim. Then why did people in South America convert to Christianity? Why did the Blacks convert to Christianity and Islam? Then why did people in various parts of Asia convert to Islam invations?
The muslims were against voting rights of dalits. Liaquat Ali Khan stopped Dalits moving to India. He said "Who will clean our toilets?"
Keep crying
Last edited:
whats HBB ?
Users who are viewing this thread
