Of course Shiva is no Brahmin, in fact the Saiva cult was hostile to brahminism initially as can be seen in the episode of Sati immolating herself at Prajapati Daksha's yagna.
Kya bhakwaas hai. Goddess Sathi/Parvathi Herself is called Aryaa. There is an Aryaa Shathkam addressed to the Goddess by Muka Kavi.
Rukmini worshiped Aryaa Dhevi, so as to get married to Shri Krushna. And Rukmini eloped with Krushna from the temple of Aryaa Dhevi(i.e. Sathi/Parvathi Dhevi).
So, there were temples even in that age.
Aryaa refers to Goddess Sathi/Parvathi. So, no, Shaivism is not anti-'arya'.
And, Krushna itself means 'black'. There are 3 Krushnas in MB, all of them are dark: Shri Krushna, son of Dhevaki and Vasudheva; Krushna-Dwaipayana(i.e. Vedha Vyasa), son of Sathyavathi and Parashara; and Krushna(i.e. Dhraupadhi), daughter of Dhrupada.
Rukmini means 'Golden one'.
So, Rukmin is Golden hue while Krushna is dark. Their very names indicate that. Just like, Lakshmi and Vishnu.
Vedha Vyasa, the highest 'Brahmin', was very dark. He was born dark, so He was called Krushna. He was born on an island, so He was called Dhwaipayana. He edited the Vedhas, so He was called Vedha Vyasa. It was He who wrote all the Puranas and MB. And that person was dark. That in itself blasts all racist theories based on color of skin.
In MB, Paandu was fair(or rather pale). Being fair is not equated to being beautiful. On the other hand, being fair/pale may indicate some disease/mutation if we go by the indian literature. In telugu, there is a saying 'mokam thela padipoyindi' which means 'face has become pale/fair' which indicates some shock/sorrow/disease.
In indian literature of yore, golden or dark was considered beautiful. 'Fair'(as in the skintone of westerners) was not considered beautiful.
In Valmiki Ramayana, Shri Rama and Ravana both are dark. And, Rama is dark, while his brother Lakshamana is golden hue. It is believed that Bharatha was also dark while Shatrughna was golden hue. In my family also, I am dark, while my brother is fair. My mother is dark, while my father is fair. And the same was the case in my father's generation also. My father is fair, while his brothers are darker. Some are very dark. While others are moderate color.
In most families, womenfolk are fairer perhaps due to the exposure to sun, skin care and also the thicker skin of males. Apart from that in the recent generations, people seem to be, on an average, fair. That may be due to good precautions and healthy food during the pregnancy.
Basic point is that color has nothing to do with modern day caste(i.e. jaathi). And it is doubtful if the modern day caste(i.e. jaathi) has anything to do with Varnas.
BTW, Aryaa Dhevi(i.e. Parvathi/Sathi) was also Kaali(black) and Gauri(wheatish).
Her husband, Shiva is the fair one. Goddess Saraswathi is also fair one.
But, the same Saraswathi also has another form called Aruna(red) Saraswathi. She also takes the avatara of Shyamala Dhevi. Shyamala means black/green.
Skhandha/Subramanya/Karthikeya is also fair.
Among the avataras of Vishnu:
Nrusimha is fair.
Varaha is also fair. The present Kalpa is named after Him as Shwetha(white) Varaha Kalpa.
Don't know about Trivikrama(i.e Vamana/Upendhra).
Shri Rama and Shri Krushna are dark.
Vedha Vyasa is also dark.Link to another related postLink to one more related post
Ever heard about the mantra that goes :
"Shivaya vishnu rupaya, vishnu rupaya shivaye" meaning they are one and the same. There is no distinction among Ishwara to form "groups" one lower than the other. Ishwara has no Varna. Neither Shiva nor Vishnu. And I don't understand the relationship between brahminsim and Sati immolation.
Shivaya vishnu rupaya, Shiva rupaya vishnave
yatha shiva mayo vishnu, evam vishnu mayo shivah.
Shiva in Vishnu's form and Vishnu in Shiva's form. As Vishnu is filled(completely) with Shiva, Shiva is filled(completely) with Vishnu.
Following is a shloka from Shiva-ananda-lahari by Adhi Shankaracharya:
Banasthwam , vrishabhastwam Ardha vapusha baryatwam,
Gonithwam sakkhitha mridhangavahatha chetyadhiroopam dhadhow,
Twat pade nayanarpanam cha kruthavan twad deha bhago hari,
Poojyat poojyatharasya eva hi na chet ko vaa tadanyo adhika. 82
Oh Lord of Arya (11),
The lord Vishnu became your arrow (12) and bull (13),
Occupied half your body,
Became transformed to be your wife,
Occupying half your body
Became a boar to search for you,
Became your lady friend to serve the nectar,
Became the player of drum while you danced,
And offered his eye in worship at your feet,
He also took half the share of your body as Harihara,
And so he becomes eminently suitable for worship,
For who else is there greater than him.
Here, Adhi Shankara is enumerating the various ways in which Shiva and Vishnu are related. One of the relations is Vishnu became the wife of Shiva and Ayyappa(Maha-Shashta) was born. There is another secret here. Vishnu is the male form of Goddess. Both Goddess and Vishu are one and the same.
Yesterday was Janmashtami, the birthday of Shri Krushna. But, it was also the birthday of Goddess. While, Krushna was born in Mathura, Goddess was born in Vraja. Krushna was taken to Vraja and Goddess was taken to Mathura. They are brother and sister. Or more precisely, two forms(one male and another female) but same entity.
Another point is that Vishnu occupies half of Shiva's body. But, Goddess also occupies half of Shiva's body. What does that mean? That means Goddess and Vishnu are same same. Notice that frequently, it is either the Goddess or Vishnu who take out the Adharmics.
Yadha Yadha hi dharmasya glanir bhavathi bharatha,
abhi-utthanam adharmasya thatha athamanam srujami aham
Paritranaya Sadhunaam Vinashaya Cha Dushkrutaam
Dharama-samsthapna-arthaya Sambhavami Yuge-Yuge.
The above promise is generally fulfilled by both Goddess and Vishnu. Generally, any one is making too much disturbance is taken care by Indhra(of Swarga). But, when He is unable to do so, then He goes to higher authorities. And Goddess(Lakshmi, Saraswathi or Parvathi) or Vishnu do the needful.
Brahma or Shiva rarely fight. There are only few instances when Lord Shiva Himself goes to fight. For example, Thripuras. Shiva went to fight with Thripuras. At that time, Vishnu transformed into Shiva's arrow, while Brahma became His charioteer.
The word 'Dhravida' is not found in either Vedhas or Valmiki Ramayana. Dhravida is mentioned in MB as just another clan along with several other clans including Keralas, Andhras, ...etc. Andhras are mentioned in MB and Valmiki Ramayana.
'Dasyu' means robbers or thieves.
TonySoprano wrote:Krishna was Invented to Rival Buddha
Ulta chor kotwal ko daaten?
Everyone has been stealing/borrowing from Hinduism, yet they turn around and call names to Hinduism. Thats funny.
Actually, what has been happening is that Hinduism is the tree with several branches, some of the branches break away and want to become a separate tree by themselves. In trying to do so, they copy Hinduism and then claim that Hinduism copied from them. Just look at churches with dhwajasthambas in south India, and you will understand how this phenomenon starts. Church even has a name for it: inculturation.
Buddha's bio copies motifs heavily from MB, ramayana(bio of Rama) and Bhagavatham(bio of Krushna). All the figures(like Indhra, Kubera, Vyasa, ...etc) are copied by Buddhism from Hindu literature. And deliberately created as spoofs.
So many people seem to fall in the trap of thinking that Hinduism tried to swallow Buddhism by making Buddha part of Hindu pantheon. That is complete BS. I think the more probable thing is that Buddhists took a character from Hindu epics and invested it with a bogus bio by copying the motifs from Hindu literature. The same thing happened with Christ figure. A character from jewish literature is taken and is invested with a bogus bio by copying the motifs from Buddhist literature.
Buddhists had tried to distort many Hindu scriptures by creating imitations. This can be seen in jataka tales. One example is where Rama's relation with Seetha amma is presented as incest in jataka tales. All of this is done to fool the masses. Very similar to EJ missionaries who try to fool the masses by spewing all kinds of nonsense to convert the people.
Following is the past-life story of Vidhura in MB in Adhi Parva:
(Sambhava Parva continued)
"Janamejaya said, 'What did the god of justice do for which he was cursed? And who was the Brahma-rushi from whose curse the god had to be born in the womb of a Shudhra?'
"Vaisampayana said, 'There was a Brahmana known by the name of Mandavya. He was conversant with all duties and was devoted to Dharma, Sathya and Tapas. The great ascetic used to sit at the entrance of his hermitage at the foot of a tree, with his arms upraised in the observance of the vow of silence. And as he sat there for years together, one day there came into his asylum a number of robbers laden with spoil. And, O bull in Bharatha's family (lineage), those robbers were then being pursued by a superior body as guardians of the peace. The thieves, on entering that asylum, hid their booty there, and in fear concealed themselves thereabout before the guards came. But scarcely had they thus concealed themselves when the constables in pursuit came to the spot. The latter, observing the Rushi sitting under the tree, questioned him, O king, saying, 'O best of Dhvijas, which way have the thieves taken? Point it out to us so that we may follow it without loss of time.' Thus questioned by the guardians of peace the ascetic, O king, said not a word, good or otherwise, in reply. The officers of the king, however, on searching that asylum soon discovered the thieves concealed thereabout together with the plunder. Upon this, their suspicion fell upon the Muni, and accordingly they seized him with the thieves and brought him before the king. The king sentenced him to be executed along with his supposed associates. And the officers, acting in ignorance, carried out the sentence by impaling the celebrated Rushi. And having impaled him, they went to the king with the booty they had recovered. But the virtuous Rushi, though impaled and kept without food, remained in that state for a long time without dying. And the Rushi by his ascetic power not only preserved his life but summoned other Rushi to the scene. And they came there in the night in the forms of birds, and beholding him engaged in ascetic meditation though fixed on that stake, became plunged into grief. And telling that best of Dhvijas, who they were, they asked him saying, 'O knowledgable one, we desire to know what has been your sin for which you have thus been made to suffer the tortures of impalement!'"
(Sambhava Parva continued)
"Vaisampayana said, 'Thus asked, the tiger among Munis then answered those Rushis of ascetic wealth, 'Whom shall I blame for this? In fact, none else (than my own self) has offended against me!' After this, O monarch, the officers of justice, seeing him alive, informed the king of it. The latter hearing what they said, consulted with his advisers, and came to the place and began to pacify the Rushi fixed on the stake. And the king said, 'O you best of Rushis, I have offended against you in ignorance. I beseech you to pardon me for the same. It behoves you not to be angry with me.' Thus addressed by the king, the Muni was pacified. And beholding him free from wrath, the king took him up with the stake and endeavoured to extract it from his body. But not succeeding therein, he cut it off at the point just outside the body. The Muni, with a portion of the stake within his body, walked about, and in that state practised the austerest of penances and conquered numberless regions unattainable by others. And for the circumstances of a part of the stake being within his body, he came to be known in the three worlds by the name of Ani-Mandavya (Mandavya with the stake within). And one day that Vipra acquainted with the highest truth of religion went to the abode of the god of justice. And beholding the god there seated on his throne, the Rushi reproached him and said, 'What, pray, is that sinful act committed by me unconsciously, for which I am bearing this punishment? O, tell me soon, and behold the power of my asceticism.'
"The god of justice, thus questioned, replied, 'O you of ascetic wealth, a little insect was once pierced by you on a blade of grass. You bear now the consequence of the act. O Rushi, as a gift, however small, multiplies in respect of its religious merits, so a sinful act multiplies in respect of the woe it brings in its train.' On hearing this, Ani-Mandavya asked, 'O tell me truly when this act was committed by me. Told in reply by the god of justice that he had committed it, when a child, the Rushi said, 'That shall not be a sin which may be done by a child up to the twelfth year of his age from birth. The scriptures shall not recognise it as sinful. The punishment you have inflicted on me for such a venial offence has been disproportionate in severity. The killing of a Brahmana involves a sin that is heavier than the killing of any other living being. You shall, therefore, O god of justice, have to be born among men even in the Shudhra order. And from this day I establish this limit in respect of the consequence of acts that an act shall not be sinful when committed by one below the age of fourteen. But when committed by one above that age, it shall be regarded as sin.'
"Vaisampayana continued, 'Cursed for this fault by that illustrious Rushi, the god of justice had his birth as Vidhura in the Shudhra womb. And Vidhura was well-versed in the doctrines of Dharma and also Nithi and Artha. And he was entirely free from covetousness and wrath. Possessed of great foresight and undisturbed tranquillity of mind, Vidhura was ever devoted to the welfare of the Kurus.'"
Italicized lines are not found in Sanskrit version(which is found online). Also the sanskrith online version says that it is the fourteenth year not twelfth year.
Now, the same story is repeated in the Buddhist version as the past life of Buddha:
(F. 43 3 b ) Maheshvarasena of Varanasi had many descendants, who reigned in Kushinagara and also in Potala; one of these was King Karnika, who had two sons, Gauthama and Bharadvaja (f. 43 5 a ) ; the former was a virtuous man, whereas the latter was wicked. Gauthama, though the elder, begged his father to allow him to become a recluse, for he dreaded the responsibility of a sovereign ruler. Having obtained the necessary consent, he became the disciple of a rushi called Krushnavarna. After a while, King Karnika died, and Bharadvaja became king (f. 436 a ).
Following his master’s advice, Gauthama built a hut within the precincts of Potala, and there he dwelt. It happened once that a courtesan of Potala called Bhadra was killed by her crafty lover near the recluse’s hut 1 (f. 437 a ), into which the murderer threw his bloody sword.
The people of the town finding the murdered woman and the sword in the hermit’s hut, thought him the murderer, and he was condemned to death. He was marched through the city with a wreath of karavira (sic) flowers around his neck and dressed in rags; then they took him outside the southern gate and impaled him (f. 437").
ORIGIN OF THE IKSHVAKU FAMILY.
While yet alive, his master, the rushi Krushnavarna saw him, and questioned him as to his guilt. " If I am innocent," Gauthama replied, " may you from black become golden-coloured ! " and straightway the rushi became golden-coloured, and was from that time known as Kanakavarna. Gauthama also told the rushi that he was greatly worried at the thought that the throne of Potala would become vacant, for his brother had no children (f. 438 b ) ; so the rushi caused a great rain to fall on Gauthama, and a mighty wind to arise which soothed his pains and revived his senses, and two drops of semen mingled with blood fell from him.
After a little while these two drops became eggs, and the heat of the rising sun caused them to open, and from out them came two children, who went into a sugar-cane plantation near by. The heat of the sun went on increasing, so that the rushi Gauthama dried up and died.
Now the rushi Kanakavarna perceived that these children must be Gauthama’s, so he took them home with him and provided for them. Having been born as the sun arose, and having been brought forth by its rays, they were called " of the sun family " or Suryavansa.
They were, moreover, called Gauthama, being the children of Gauthama, and as they were " born from his loins," they were, in the third place, called Angirasas (Yan-lag skyes). Having been found in a " sugar-cane plantation," they were called Ikshvaku (f. 439).
Bharadvaja died without issue, and the ministers consulted the rushi to know if Gauthama had left children (f. 439 b ). He told them the strange story, and they took the children and made the elder one king. He died, however, without issue, and the younger became king under the name of Ikshvaku. One hundred of his descendants reigned in Potala, the last of which was Ikshvaku Virudhaka (f. 440).
He had four sons, Ulkamukha, Ivarakarna, Hastinayaka, and Nupura. He married, however, a second time, on condition that if his wife bore a son, he should be king.
After a while she had a son whose name was Rajyananda 1 (f. 44 i b ).
When this last child had grown up, King Virudhaka, on the representation of his wife’s father, was obliged to declare his youngest son his successor and to exile his four other sons.
The princes set out, accompanied by their sisters and a great many people. They traveled toward the Himalaya mountains, and coming to the hermitage of the rushi Kapila, on the bank of the Bhagirathi, they built huts of leaves, and fed on the produce of their hunting (f. 443).
Following the rushi’s advice, they took as their wives sisters who were not of the same mother as themselves, and in this way they had many children. 1
The rushi showed them where to build a town, and he marked it out with golden sand mixed with water, and they built it according to his directions (f. 444). The rushi Kapila having given the soil (vastii) of the place, they called the town "the soil of Kapila" or Kapilavastu.
When they had become very numerous, a deva pointed out another spot, on which they built a town, which they called " shown by a deva " or Devadaha. 2
They made a law in a general assembly of the clan that they should only marry one wife, and that she must be of their own clan (f. 444 b ).
The above is the Buddhist version. The etymologies given by these Buddhists are all misleading, infact it seems to be a deliberately mischievous attempt to play foul with Hindu scriptures.
The Krushnavarna mentioned in the above excerpt has another reading. I read in another version that his name was Krushna-Dwaipayana. Basically, the Buddhist version claims that Krushna-Dwaipayana was the teacher of Buddha in his previous life. And that Krushna-Dwaipayana was made into a Kanaka-Dwaipayana by the Buddha according to the buddhist version. What more, Kanaka-Dwaipayana brought up the children of the Buddha(in his previous life). Buddha was called Gauthama in his previous life according to the above version. So, he came to be known later in the next life as Gauthama Buddha!(Hardly makes any sense to me).
This is a joke on Hindu icon Vyasa. Vyasa is being made fun of.
Also notice the satire on Ikshvaku and Angiras that is being pulled by this buddhist works.
The following is the Hindu version of Ikshvaku's lineage from Valmiki Ramayana in Bala Kaanda Sarga 70:
अव्यक्त प्रभवो ब्रह्मा शाश्वतो नित्य अव्ययः || १-७०-१९
तस्मात् मरीचिः संजज्ञे मरीचेः कश्यपः सुतः |
विवस्वान् कश्यपात् जज्ञे मनुर् वैवस्वतः स्मृतः || १-७०-२०
"The Unprovable emanated the timeless, changeless and perishless Brahma, and from that Being, namely Brahma, Mariichi is begotten, and Kaashyapa is the son of Mariichi, and the Sun is begotten from Kaashyapa, and Manu is said to be the son of the Sun... [1-70-19b, 20]
मनुः प्रजापतिः पूर्वम् इक्ष्वाकुः च मनोः सुतः |
तम् इक्ष्वाकुम् अयोध्यायाम् राजानम् विद्धि पूर्वकम् || १-७०-२१
"Manu is the earliest Prajaapati and Ikshvaaku is the son of Manu, and that Ikshvaaku is the first king of Ayodhya... know thus... [1-70-21]
According to Hinduism, Ikshvaku was the son of Manu. Which Manu? Vaivaswatha Manu. Vaivasvatha Manu was the son of Sun. And therefore, it was called Suryavansha. Shri Rama was born in that lineage. The buddhist version is simply a spoof on the Hindu version. Actually, it seems to me that they are deliberately trying to insult Hinduism by giving silly etymologies to terms important for Hindus.
Kapila is the avatara of Vishnu according to Hinduism. It was Kapila Maharshi who taught Sankhya. Buddhism is playing with his too by saying that incest(between brother and sister) was sanctioned by him.
Buddha is being punished, in his previous life, for a crime that he did not commit. The motif is copied from the MB.
There is a sanskrith play based on the above buddhist version mixed with another Bhasa's play. That means there is a play of Bhasa. It was remixed with this buddhist version of the story and a new play was created. It is called Mricchakatika(little clay cart, eng translation).
That play was made into a movie by the left-liberal Karnad named utsav. He introduced crass insinuations about Vatsayana and Kamasuthra into the movie.
Now, the same motif(based on play and buddhist version) is remixed in NT in so-called crucification of Jesus. BTW, Jesus is a corruption of Yashas. Yashas was one of the first converts to Buddhism according to the Buddhist literature. He was an agra-kulika-putra according to Buddhist literature.
The word 'agra-kulika-putra' is not found in ancient Hindu literature, as far as I know. The word 'Kula' is used to mean a school/family in Valmiki Ramayana and MB. But, in Buddhist literature, there is a curious new word called 'agra-kulika-putra'. So, there were some kulas which were considered agra-kulas. The word agra-kula comes from buddhist literature. Here, Kula gets conflated with Jaathi. The word agra-kula is still used in AP.
The word 'agra-kulika-putra' is found in NT as 'ho tou tektonos huios'(Greek). It is the description of family of Jesus. It means son of ‘tekton’. ‘Tekton’ can refer to any artist. It can also mean a chief of a guild. ‘Agra-kulika’ is being translated as ‘tekton’ in NT.
The following is the NT version:
17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
The Soldiers Mock Jesus
16 The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17 They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18 And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” 19 Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.
The Crucifixion of Jesus
21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.
27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left.  [a] 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
The Death of Jesus
33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
Golgotha(place where Jesus was crucified) -> Kukutha(place where Gauthama was crucified)
Xulon (cross) -> Shulam (stake)
Crown of thorns -> wreath made of karaveera flowers
The greek word for 'crown of thorns' is 'Akantha'. 'Akantaka' in sanskruth means 'without thorns'. So, its clever pun which conveys 'thorns' in greek while 'thornless' in sanskruth.
morning became dark in Jesus story -> Gauthama was impaled in dark night and died when the sun rose and became hot.
Jerusalem -> Kushinagari
Simon of Cyrene, father of Rufus and Alexander is mentioned. Who is he? In another source, there is a mention of Simon the niger. He is called Niger because he is dark. That means Krushnavarna or Krushna Dwaipayana. Dwipa means Island. Krushna-Dwaipayana means Black-Islander. He is originally a Hindu character. He has been used by the Buddhists. Then a proxy is being introduced namely Simon of Cyrene or Simon the niger.
Rufus and Alexander are the proxies for the sons of Gauthama(who are called Ikshavakus in Buddhist version making a mockery of Hinduism).
In Buddhist version, Gauthama(Buddha in his previous life) has his blood and semen drop on earth and two eggs are formed by that. These egg-shells are 'kapalani'. So, the place Kukutha is described as a place of 'kapalani'(i.e. egg-shells formed by the semen of Gauthama). In NT version, the place is called Golgotha and described as place of skulls. Egg-shells become skulls. Because, in sanskruth, skulls are also called kapalani. It is a pun a sanskruth pun executed in Greek to fool the audience. It is like taqqiya. You say one thing but mean something else.
Another version of so-called Jesus crucification:
Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives
39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his [b]sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[c]
That angel is Krushna-Dwaipayana or Krushnavarna or Simon of Cyrene or Simon the niger.
Jesus' sweat fell like drops of blood on the ground. This is the imitation of Gauthama's blood and semen falling on the ground and producing the eggs and children from those eggs. Those children are Rufus and Alexender in NT, while Ikshvakus in Buddhist literature.
One more version of the same tale:
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
This is a more direct imitation of the original Gauthama story. Gauthama is impaled by a stake in his anus(like Ani-Mandavya). Similarly, Jesus is poked by a spear. Blood and water(semen or sweat?) flow and fall on ground. In Buddhist version, Gauthama's blood and semen fall on ground and become egg-shells(i.e. kapalani which also means skulls).
In the Hindu version(MB), Ani-Mandavya goes to Hell to meet with Yama after his impalement. In the Buddhist version, Gauthama goes to Tushitha heaven after impalement. And then, Gauthama is reborn as Siddhartha(or Buddha). In X-ist version, Jesus is crucified, then he is dead(death means hell in Buddhism). Then, Jesus is 're-born' as Savior(i.e. Buddha).
Actually, it is a quite complex remix, but may be it should be reserved for other posts. For example, thieves accompanying the Jesus are Ananda and Subhadra who accompanied the dying Buddha. Chundas is Judas. Chundas offered bad food to Buddha while Judas betrayed Jesus. Basically Chundas/Judas is responsible for the death of Buddha/Judas. Amrapali is Mary Magdalene. Amrapali and Mary Magdalene are prostitutes. Sermon on mount is sermon near varanasi.
The Buddhist version is used to create several crypto versions to attract other audiences. This is not at all new. This happened in all the countries that Buddhism spread to. The same thing is being done in NT versions also. But, Buddhist versions themselves are an elaborate copies/spoofs/fakes/imitations of Hindu versions.
Buddha is remix of motifs from MB, ramayana and Bhagavatha. No, not just Shri Krushna, but other figures(like Ani-Mandavya, Asitha, Vyasa, Ikshvaku, Pandavas, ...etc) are also spoofed/copied/stolen by the Buddhist versions.
Link to original post
Thatha(Sanskrit-Father)->Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->O Tats(Russian-Father)
Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->Dhadha(Hindi-Grand Father)->Dada(Father).
Amba(Sanskrit-Mother)->Amma(Telugu/Tamil-Mother)->Ammi(Arabic-Mother)->Mama(many langs- Mother)->Ma(Hindi-Mother)->Eom Ma(Korean-Mother)
suna(Sanskruth-son) -> son(english-son)
pilla(Thelugu-young one) -> pilla(Hindhi-puppy)->fille(french-son/daughter)
Arya is used in all languages(especially Indian languages) with or without corruption. Ayya(Thelugu), Appa(Tamil), Abba(Persian), Papa(Latin), Bapu(Gujrathi), Baba(Arabic), Bappa(Marathi), Pappa, Pai(Portuguese),...etc are all corruptions of Arya. Arya was used as honorific for elders(generally father). Its meaning is 'noble'.
If you were to talk in Sanskruth and want to call someone respectfully without using their name, what would you say?
Arya or Deva. These are used as honorifics in Sanskruth. All other languages being corruptions of Sanskruth, they also use the word Arya in various forms.
BTW, several abrahamic characters have their names ending in 'ayya'. For example,
All the above names end in 'ayya' kind of sound. Is it possible that 'ayya' is a suffix to their original names and 'ayya' is a honorific which is a corruption of 'arya'? In Thelugu, 'ayya' is a honorific and corruption of 'arya'.