Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#10/DT Nt Pg#41 - Page 116

Ek aur memory loss drama 🤪🤣

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQf-mE7nHJJ/?utm_medium=copy_link

Originally posted by: Life_Is_Dutiful

Ek aur memory loss drama 🤪🤣

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQf-mE7nHJJ/?utm_medium=copy_link

i came to post the same thing. Radha ka phir se memory loss kab hua? 🤣

Originally posted by: diksha710

i came to post the same thing. Radha ka phir se memory loss kab hua? 🤣

Suna hai 2 minutes mein memory wapas bhi aa gaya. 🤪

Looks like after Alakshmi track, the next track in the show is Tulabharam track. This show's timeline is so weird. 🤣

Originally posted by: Life_Is_Dutiful

Looks like after Alakshmi track, the next track in the show is Tulabharam track. This show's timeline is so weird. 🤣

and Radha will take the place of Rukmini 🤣🤣

Originally posted by: diksha710

and Radha will take the place of Rukmini 🤣🤣

Either Radha will tell Rukmini to put Tulsi leaf on the Satyabhama's gold and other stuff or she herself will put the Tulsi leaf. 🤪

I feel since last few tracks they are completely trying to justify Radha's presence in Dwarka. Now through this track they will try to prove why only Radha deserves Krishna's love by showing her better than all his wives. 😆

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Article is factual mostly but one sided. It is Buddhist sympathetic.

So there is no single mention of the same x similar deeds of rulers who patronized Buddhism.

It was a standard court politics where proponents of 4 religions were trying to gain patronage of rulers and proselytize the state and citizens

Converting one citizen at a time was a very slow process and hence favored method of all 4 religions was to try and convert the ruler and instigate him spread the religion across his state using whatever means he can at the same time weaken and destroy establishment / conclaves/ temples etc of the other.

The four sister religions were Sanatana (Vedic/Pauranic Hinduism). Ajivika (atheism). Jainism and Buddhism.

.

Asoka did not become peaceful after Kalinga. He already was under Buddhist influence through his mother and wife and it had acquired state patronage as soon as he became the ruler. Bindusara was under Ajivika influence. Chadragupta Maurya started Hindu and became. Jain by the time he died. Most ruthless Buddhist ruler who did similar destruction of Hindu believers, their religious saints and temples was Asoka. Chanakya was waning influence by the time Asoka came to power and once he died Buddhism became the state religion. Asoka had already patronized Buddhism as commander of Takshila.

Orissa still has scars of the destruction by Buddhist Asoka

While there had been a steady stream of proselytisers to SriLanka and eastern countries of Jain and Buddhist religion. It was Asoka through his son Mahindra and daughter Sanghamitra neutralised Hindu patronage of Lanka Royalty and converted them to Buddhism.

Now Mahendra and Sanghamitra did not oppress or kill Hindus. They may not even have asked their patron Kings to do it. Within his own kingdom the said King would be a peaceful ruler but the moment he stepped out and conquered another land he would use force to convert. He would destroy their religious icons and any establishment that had power over the masses to stoke rebellion.

Asoka did this. Hindus and Brahmin conclave favoured Sushim. Buddhist supported Asoka. When Asoka came to power he not only killed his brothers he killed his every Brahmin supporter and destroyed Hindu Mathas that could stoke rebellion against him.

So can we now blame the Buddhist supporters of Asoka for the carnage and genocide he caused.

The most important part however that is cOmoletwly wrong in that article is Sankaracharya being responsible for oppression of Buddhists by Hindu King's.

He believed and practiced Ahinsa and preached it. He believed in conversion through dialogues and debates. As did Matha established by him. None of them were built on desecrated Vihara. Neither did these math ever encourage their patron kings do desecration of other religious centres

I will give two example to explain this. Tipu Sultan destroyed and desecrated Numerous temples oF Malabar and killed 100s of Brahmins there.

Maratha attacked to destroy Hindu Sringeri Mutt and guess who Came to its rescue and refurbished it. Same Tipu Sultan as it fell in his protectorate

Ashokan inscriptions repeatedly mention him granting aids and support to Brahmins, he stated that it was necessary for any ruler to do so. Him destroying Hindu mutts/worship places seem very shocking

Same about pushyamitra Sunga. Buddhist text Ashokvandam makes him a demon who killed many Buddhists and Sramana monks which actually has no real or supporting evidence from any primary or even other secondary sources

Rest of the parts I completely agree to. Shankracharya and his upanishad/vedic philosophy did defeat Buddhist monks in debates too. His contribution to protection of Hinduism in the sub continent can not be ignored

Indic religions could have died in India if not for him. If we see most of the areas with Buddhist majority were the first to shed out the Indic religions and opt for Islam be it Afghanistan or modern day Baluchistan and east Bengal

Originally posted by: Life_Is_Dutiful

Either Radha will tell Rukmini to put Tulsi leaf on the Satyabhama's gold and other stuff or she herself will put the Tulsi leaf. 🤪

I feel since last few tracks they are completely trying to justify Radha's presence in Dwarka. Now through this track they will try to prove why only Radha deserves Krishna's love by showing her better than all his wives. 😆

This reminds me there was a show on NDTV imagine called Dwarikadheesh, it showed mostly the instances of Dwarika

The girl playing Rukmini had quit the show, and they didn't want to get another girl since there were already two heroines.

So instead of Rukmini they made Jamvabti the recipient of the Parijat leaf from Krishna and later she puts Tusli leaf on the balance

So this is how the shows are made and then there are teenagers (and even adults) who fight seeing these shows

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Ashokan inscriptions repeatedly mention him granting aids and support to Brahmins, he stated that it was necessary for any ruler to do so. Him destroying Hindu mutts/worship places seem very shocking

Same about pushyamitra Sunga. Buddhist text Ashokvandam makes him a demon who killed many Buddhists and Sramana monks which actually has no real or supporting evidence from any primary or even other secondary sources

Rest of the parts I completely agree to. Shankracharya and his upanishad/vedic philosophy did defeat Buddhist monks in debates too. His contribution to protection of Hinduism in the sub continent can not be ignored

Indic religions could have died in India if not for him. If we see most of the areas with Buddhist majority were the first to shed out the Indic religions and opt for Islam be it Afghanistan or modern day Baluchistan and east Bengal

That is why I gave the example of Tipu Sultan and Maratha.

The carnage and destruction was always political and not religious. Asoka provided grants to those Brahmins who supported him. Those sangha's who went with his brothers were destroyed.

Just like Hindu Maratha attacked Sringeri Mutt because they corralled public support for Tips Sultan who protected them and gave them money. While he destroyed temples in Malabar as they supported Travancore Kings.

No one is clean in this all kings did that but Islamic invaders were the most ruthless and brutal, simply because they ended up covering an area much larger than any Hindu or Buddhist king could. Starting from Middle East all the way up-to East Asia. So their numbers are much higher than Hindus or Buddhists.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

That is why I gave the example of Tipu Sultan and Maratha.

The carnage and destruction was always political and not religious. Asoka provided grants to those Brahmins who supported him. Those sangha's who went with his brothers were destroyed.

Just like Hindu Maratha attacked Sringeri Mutt because they corralled public support for Tips Sultan who protected them and gave them money. While he destroyed temples in Malabar as they supported Travancore Kings.

No one is clean in this all kings did that but Islamic invaders were the most ruthless and brutal, simply because they ended up covering an area much larger than any Hindu or Buddhist king could. Starting from Middle East all the way up-to East Asia. So their numbers are much higher than Hindus or Buddhists.

Yes that makes sense now. The kings wanting the public to convert was one part of the agenda. The major thing was to gain maximum support from the masses who was highly influenced by the religious leaders

I however don't think that Islamic rulers were more tyrant just because they ruled bigger areas, they had more religious animosity than those in Indian subcontinent

Auranzeb for example ruled much lesser area than Ashok and did much more blood bath