Today, the plaintiff is expected to provide evidence in court. Jurists in ancient India saw the issue as more complex—the burden of proof was determined after both parties had spoken.
Maitreyi chooses the knowledge that leads to immortality over her husband’s offer of money. Her philosophical ambition reveals the roots of women-led institutions in Buddhism and Jainism.
Travelling troupes of actors and singers were prime opportunities to sneak in spies and infiltrate enemy kingdoms. Knowing this, Kautilya imposed several rules on their performance.
Early in the 20th century, Professor Johannes Hertel, a pioneer in Panchatantra research, recorded over 200 versions of the book in more than 50 languages.
The literary creation of the figures of Yudhisthira and Arjuna in the Mahabharata was likely a response to the historical example of Ashoka’s crisis of conscience.
Dharmashastras opposed temple-based religious and ritual activities. Vishnu Smriti says that Vedic recitation shouldn't be conducted 'in a temple, in a cemetery, at a crossroads, or on a road.'
King Janaka, better known to Indians as the father of Sita, once invited learned Brahmins to celebrate a lavish ritual. Videha, the kingdom over which...
Pakistan's SSG team was not adequately provisioned for the inclement weather. If it managed to consolidate its position, the story of Siachen would have been different.
In March 2020, Prashant Kumar took over as CEO & MD overseeing YES Bank reconstruction. He was ably supported by veteran banker Sunil Mehta, CA Atul Bheda & consultant Mahesh Krishnamurti.
This special edition of Cut The Clutter, straight from the Siliguri corridor, details the strategic importance of the narrow strip of land in West Bengal, and how it’s a vital link connecting the Northeast to the rest of India.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
The author has a very simplistic views and unscientific assumptions of these three characters and their stories. His lack of knowledge of Bhagwat Geeta and Ashoka is even baffling. We have more evidence now to prove : I) Asoka was a Buddhist before the Kalinga war.
II) Bhagwat Geeta teaches to fight within your self fist than with an external enemy, that’s why no King or political movement after the Mahabharata used the holy book as the reason to wage a war on someone (like Quran has been used by some in our times) III) the author’s simplistic position on Brahminism (read Sanatana Dharma / Hinduism) is inherently against non -violence and Buddhism is fundamentally non- violent doesn’t hold true even a common question test: was there no war between the Buddhist kings in the entire South East Asia and in the middle east? If Hindu philosophies are the source of violence than how come the Buddhist philosophy that is rooted in Bhartiya Darshan and has so much in common with the Indian worldview, where did the non- violence as a concept to Buddhism came from?
These are just a few questions that one can ask and understand how the author has a quite a narrow understanding of Bhartiya itihasa and Dharshans.
For a long time, Hindus were considered by westerners as wimps due to their peaceful disposition and broad tolerance. The Hindu way of life and philosophy were targeted as reasons for many ills in the country. Today the condition is reversed, India and Hindus are assertive and proud. And we get articles like this, which like to portray that Hindu texts urge violence over non-violence. Seriously, that too after Japan, Cambodia, Kissinger, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine, Gaza
What a load of nonsense! It is well accepted by historians that the period of Mahabharata is before the time of Ashoka. Even works before Ashoka cites Mahabharata.
Moreover, glorification of Ashoka was take up by leftist historians neglecting glaring facts from his own inscriptions. Once the conquest was over, he wanted peace to sustain his kingdom. So he took up this so that people will not revolt.
So odd that that a scholar like Patrick Olivelle actually holds such outdated views about Ashoka and Mahabharata
The author has a very simplistic views and unscientific assumptions of these three characters and their stories. His lack of knowledge of Bhagwat Geeta and Ashoka is even baffling. We have more evidence now to prove : I) Asoka was a Buddhist before the Kalinga war.
II) Bhagwat Geeta teaches to fight within your self fist than with an external enemy, that’s why no King or political movement after the Mahabharata used the holy book as the reason to wage a war on someone (like Quran has been used by some in our times) III) the author’s simplistic position on Brahminism (read Sanatana Dharma / Hinduism) is inherently against non -violence and Buddhism is fundamentally non- violent doesn’t hold true even a common question test: was there no war between the Buddhist kings in the entire South East Asia and in the middle east? If Hindu philosophies are the source of violence than how come the Buddhist philosophy that is rooted in Bhartiya Darshan and has so much in common with the Indian worldview, where did the non- violence as a concept to Buddhism came from?
These are just a few questions that one can ask and understand how the author has a quite a narrow understanding of Bhartiya itihasa and Dharshans.
For a long time, Hindus were considered by westerners as wimps due to their peaceful disposition and broad tolerance. The Hindu way of life and philosophy were targeted as reasons for many ills in the country. Today the condition is reversed, India and Hindus are assertive and proud. And we get articles like this, which like to portray that Hindu texts urge violence over non-violence. Seriously, that too after Japan, Cambodia, Kissinger, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and now Ukraine, Gaza
What a load of nonsense! It is well accepted by historians that the period of Mahabharata is before the time of Ashoka. Even works before Ashoka cites Mahabharata.
Moreover, glorification of Ashoka was take up by leftist historians neglecting glaring facts from his own inscriptions. Once the conquest was over, he wanted peace to sustain his kingdom. So he took up this so that people will not revolt.
Author’s propaganda is very clear here.