@sankrant I think you (and "Balu") should thoroughly read up the literature and history of Pre Modern India to understand the "sectarian" dynamics. You will see that your entire argument is ignorant and pointless. You take exception to word "religion"(which you yourself have brought in)(1)
@sankrant You take exception to the word "religion" but are happy using the word "tradition" in Indian contexts. "Tradition" also has strong Christian implications. Irrespective of whether you call it religion or tradition, fact is there have been many conflicts, at times violent (2)
@sankrant My point: There was a clear distinction between Vaidika and Bauddha sampradaya. You brought in religion and yourself are refuting it. Whatever word you use to call it, conflicts between communities were reality of the day
Here is Buddhist Virapurishadatta trampling a linga (3)
Here is Buddhist Virapurishadatta trampling a linga (3)
@sankrant 4) Hindu "tradition" and Bauddha "tradition" ( as you choose to call it) were at times in violent conflict with each other. When Buddhist king Duttagamini invaded Tamilnadu, he spared Buddhist civilians and killed non-Buddhist Tamil civilians. (4)
@sankrant Duttagamini was glorified in the Mahavamsa. According to Buddhist texts, his acts only accrued merit because killing a non Bauddha is equivalent to killing a mosquito. Choice is yours to use whichever word you like. Undenible truth is conflicts between communities. Ending it here
Loading suggestions...