Early Mauryan temples discovered in Hardoi

[MAYURA]

Europeans like the Iberians, Gauls, Britons, Italian groups, etc, etc. who were closer to each other are very much different from each other.

Talk of people of same group of languages not different.

you are quite poor in linguistics italians are of italic languages, britons and gauls of celtic and iberians of another different group.

do you consider 8th century spanish and portuguese as different?



BTW, I am talking of gangetic plains not punjab which was culturally not as advanced as rest of north india.

 

[pmaitra]

if you are a bengali, you must be knowing that back in sena period, UP exported lots of brahmans to relatively backward bengal as this region was one so migration was easy.

Well, you are not presenting it in the right way.

• Bengal was part of the Mauryan Empire, and was very close to the Mauryan Capital Pataliputra. Therefore, after Ashoka's coversion to Buddhism, Bengal started to become Buddhist. Brahmins did exist then as well.
• (I am skipping the intervening period.)
• Then came the Pala Dynasty (750 CE –1174 CE), which helped propagate Mahayana Buddhism into Sikkim, Bhutan, and Tibet. Bengal was mostly Buddhist then.
• Then came Sena Dynasty (1070 CE – 1230 CE), which was instrumental in resurrecting Hinduism. Vijaya Sena is the one who imported Brahmins from South India, also called Dakshinatya Brahmin, while his maternal uncle Ä€diśūra invited Brahmins from Kanauj or probably other places in North India, who are called Pashchatya Brahmins, because, they came from the West (i.e. in our context North India). The Senas were naturalized Bengalis of Karnatic ancestry.
• Bengal was not at all backward, it was simply Buddhist, and that is due to Ashoka as well as due to the Pala rule. Any region that lies close to the capital of a massive Empire like the Mauryan Empire cannot be backward.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Brahmins

(Personally, I might disagree with a few things in the Wiki article, but that is trivial.)

 

[Shaitan]

Talk of people of same group of languages not different.

you are quite poor in linguistics italians are of italic languages, britons and gauls of celtic and iberians of another different group.

do you consider 8th century spanish and portuguese as different?



BTW, I am talking of gangetic plains not punjab which was culturally not as advanced as rest of north india.

And you mean North India isnt as advanced as East India.

 

[MAYURA]

Is that all there is to culture??

An Indian Christian goes to church on Sundays and worships Jesus.

An Indian Muslim doesn't eat Pork and prays five times a day.

Means they are similar culturally to Europeans or Arabs?

I am going to stop here as this may cause further tension but let me inform you people or intellectuals like you caused partition of the country.




culture is something which specially distinguishes you and whose elements give a special meaning to your life. so yes, culturally an indian christian is more western than a normal hindu.

look at his marriage ceremony, clothes, food prohibitions, beliefs which govern his life, and his literature.

Just because he looks dark and speaks malyalam does not make him an indian culturally.

 

[Shaitan]

Talk of people of same group of languages not different.

Okay, Sinhalese, Bengalis, Punjabis, Maldivians.

Sudanese, Egyptians, Saudis, Somalis, etc.

Chinese, Tibetans, Burmese

culture is something which specially distinguishes you and whose elements give a special meaning to your life. so yes, culturally an indian christian is more western than a normal hindu.

look at his marriage ceremony, clothes, food prohibitions, beliefs which govern his life, and his literature.

Just because he looks dark and speaks malyalam does not make him an indian culturally.

But is he/she "similar" to Europeans?

Cause my family is Christian. And I can tell you right now none of that makes them similar to Europeans culturally. There are some aspects, but very much different.

Just like some guy in ancient Jalalabad and a guy in Bihar.

 

[pmaitra]

And you mean North India isnt as advanced as East India.

Well, prior to and during the Mauryan Empire, Taxila was perhaps the most educationally advanced of all places; however, later on, Nalanda and Vikramshila were developed, so the Eastern Region was no longer educationally backward, and this happened due to the Royal Pala patronage.

Edit: Ok, there is some confusion at what time Nalanda flourished. Looks like it existed since Gupta Period, but flourished due to Pala patronage.

 

[MAYURA]

And you mean North India isnt as advanced as East India.

Yes I mean culturally north india was better than punjab. Look at buddha, he was son of a king ruling over parts of UP, travelled to my city gave first sermon and died in gorakhpur. ofcourse, he attained his bodhitatva in Gaya.

Can not you see he exactly covers UP and Bihar and is of gamgetic plains.?

 

[MAYURA]

Well, prior to and during the Mauryan Empire, Taxila was perhaps the most educationally advanced of all places; however, later on, Vikramshila and Nalanda were developed, so the Eastern Region was no longer educationally backward, and this happened due to the Imperial Mauryan patronage.

Nalanda was patronized during Gupta dynasty whereas vikramashila came into being in pala dynasty period.

They failed to produce great luminaries like Ujjain did.

 

[pmaitra]

Nalanda was patronized during Gupta dynasty whereas vikramashila came into being in pala dynasty period.

They failed to produce great luminaries like Ujjain did.

It is not clear when Nalanda flourished.

I have edited my post.

Well, prior to and during the Mauryan Empire, Taxila was perhaps the most educationally advanced of all places; however, later on, Nalanda and Vikramshila were developed, so the Eastern Region was no longer educationally backward, and this happened due to the Royal Pala patronage, respectively.

Edit: Ok, there is some confusion at what time Nalanda flourished. Looks like it existed since Gupta Period, but flourished due to Pala patronage.

 

[pmaitra]

@MAYURA,

You are right, Nalanda was on the rise during Gupta Period, but after the Palas established Vikramshila, Nalanda started losing its importance, but was still illustrious and well known.

So, I think we have it sorted out now:
Nalanda was patronized by the Guptas and Vikramshila was patronized by the Palas.

According to Tibetan sources, five great Mahaviharas stood out: Vikramashila, the premier university of the era; Nalanda, past its prime but still illustrious, Somapura, Odantapurā, and Jaggadala.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda#Nalanda_in_the_P.C4.81la_era

 

[MAYURA]

Okay, Sinhalese, Bengalis, Punjabis, Maldivians.

Sudanese, Egyptians, Saudis, Somalis, etc.

Chinese, Tibetans, Burmese

Sudanese are black so they belong to different race and faulty comparison.

In what way are egyptian city dwellers different from saudi arab city dwellers and egyptian rural men from saudi rural men?


chinese , tibet, burmans is not of same languages . it is like calling indo european a far distant thing going back to pre recorded history.


look just as chinese is one language group ( not family) , Iranian is another, Italic yet another, slavic similarly indo aryan is.


No modern day indo aryan langauge has a history of more than 1000 meaning that they developed in last 1000 years.

 

[Shaitan]

In what way are egyptian city dwellers different from saudi arab city dwellers and egyptian rural men from saudi rural men?

I'm sure they have very apparent differences. Just like Sinhalese, Bengalis, Punjabis, Maldivians do.

 

[MAYURA]

@MAYURA,

You are right, Nalanda was on the rise during Gupta Period, but after the Palas established Vikramshila, Nalanda started losing its importance, but was still illustrious and well known.

So, I think we have it sorted out now:
Nalanda was patronized by the Guptas and Vikramshila was patronized by the Palas.


Source: Nalanda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for wiki link .

BTW, most of so called universities were in modern day bihar so people from asia flocked to bihar wheras now biharis go to every nook and corner of country to get education. Time is indeed cruel and that is what i am trying to make shaitan understand that gangetic plains from hooghly to delhi was more united those days than
now.

 

[pmaitra]

Thanks for wiki link .

BTW, most of so called universities were in modern day bihar so people from asia flocked to bihar wheras now biharis go to every nook and corner of country to get education. Time is indeed cruel and that is what i am trying to make shaitan understand that gangetic plains from hooghly to delhi was more united those days than
now.

Three are in Bihar, and two are in Bangladesh. They are all mostly located close to North Bengal, at the foot hills of Tibet. Note, Darjeeling then was part of Sikkim, and both Sikkim and Bhutan were under the Tibetan Empire.

That explains why and how Mahayana Buddhism spread to Tibet, and why there is so much information available about these universities from Tibetan sources.

 

[MAYURA]

I'm sure they have very apparent differences. Just like Sinhalese, Bengalis, Punjabis, Maldivians do.

Look it is true that sinhalese and bengali are indo aryan language but then it is an exception as in ancient times

1. Sri lanka and bengal were not in any political unit

2. Bengal had mahayana buddhism and hinduism plus jainism but sri lanka had theravada buddhism

3. people in bengal and west UP share same gotras ( most of chattterjees are from kannauj area ) but no such thing exists between a bengali and a sinhal.

 

[MAYURA]

Three are in Bihar, and two are in Bangladesh. They are all mostly located close to North Bengal, at the foot hills of Tibet. Note, Darjeeling then was part of Sikkim, and both Sikkim and Bhutan were under the Tibetan Empire.

That explains why and how Mahayana Buddhism spread to Tibet, and why there is so much information available about these universities from Tibetan sources.

If my hindi book is correct ( which it remains most of time ) some 1800 sanskrit works are there been translated into tibetan and only 200 are in sanskrit available as of now.

had tibetans not preserved them, we would have lost such precious treasure.

 

[pmaitra]

If my hindi book is correct ( which it remains most of time ) some 1800 sanskrit works are there been translated into tibetan and only 200 are in sanskrit available as of now.

had tibetans not preserved them, we would have lost such precious treasure.

Yes, actually there are many things about India that we came to learn about from Tibetan sources (not sure about the numbers, but you might as well on the spot).

 

[pmaitra]

Look it is true that sinhalese and bengali are indo aryan language but then it is an exception as in ancient times

1. Sri lanka and bengal were not in any political unit

2. Bengal had mahayana buddhism and hinduism plus jainism but sri lanka had theravada buddhism

3. people in bengal and west UP share same gotras ( most of chattterjees are from kannauj area ) but no such thing exists between a bengali and a sinhal.

If I might add, many Bengali Brahmins are Chakrabartis, which is derived form Chakravartin, and this surname is shared with Tamils and perhaps some Telugus as well. There is a theory that Chakravartin means the person whose chariot wheels never stop - figuratively, they are the rulers of the rulers, and could be Kshatriyas who were well versed in the scriptures, and were also seen as Brahmins, i.e. they were Kshatriya Brahmins; i.e. rulers who were also equipped to perform religious rituals.

 

[Virendra]

figuratively, they are the rulers of the rulers, and could be Kshatriyas who were well versed in the scriptures, and were also seen as Brahmins, i.e. they were Kshatriya Brahmins; i.e. rulers who were also equipped to perform religious rituals.

There are other examples of this duality.
Mewari Rajput rulers were affectionately called 'Deewan Ji' (Minister/Deputy of God) and were sometimes seen as Brahmins.
They regularly performed priestly duties at temples. IIRC that tradition continues even today.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[MAYURA]

If I might add, many Bengali Brahmins are Chakrabartis, which is derived form Chakravartin, and this surname is shared with Tamils and perhaps some Telugus as well. There is a theory that Chakravartin means the person whose chariot wheels never stop - figuratively, they are the rulers of the rulers, and could be Kshatriyas who were well versed in the scriptures, and were also seen as Brahmins, i.e. they were Kshatriya Brahmins; i.e. rulers who were also equipped to perform religious rituals.

before your post, i thought chakrabortys were bengali kshatriyas. I stand corrected in my belief