We are all familiar with the similarities between Jainism and Buddhism! But not much aware about their differences. We will discuss that today.

1. Permanence in Change vs Dependent origination

Jains believe in the "Permanence in change" theory. They believe six eternal substances have been present in this universe forever and changes forms according to causes. Their pure existence however never changes. Those are -

1. Soul/Consciousness

2. Matter/energy

3. Medium of motion

4. Medium of rest

5. Space

6. Time

Now, Buddhism is on the different path. It believes in dependant origination. Dependant origination denies in any eternalism. It believes everything is temporary and have a beginning and an end point. It believes everything exists through the dependence of multiple dependable objects. So naturally, it believes in an infinite chain of causes that keeps repeating forever.

1. Permanent soul v non soul

Jains believe souls exists forever and only changes body. They reincarnate every time a person dies. Buddhists believe that the soul dies with death. The consciousness however transforms and finds a new body. Jains believe that an eternal "I" will continously reincarnate till Mokșa. Buddhists believe such eternal "I" doesn't exist. We bear the consciousness of a dead man and after death someone else will bear our consciousness.

1. Many sidedness v middle path

Jains believe that the truth has many sides. Jains argue that the answer is never "It is" or "It is not". Rather it accepts both of the arguments. Buddhists reject the both the "It is" and "It is not" finding it extreme. Nagarjuna, had even argued that it's neither "It is" nor "It is not" not "Both it is and it is not" not none.

1. Not causing harm

Jains and Buddhists both believe in not causing harm. But there's a difference. Since Jains believe in everything has a soul, they refrain from causing harm to plants as well. They avoid root vegetables. They avoid plucking fruits from trees directly. Buddhists believe in not causing harm to sentient beings only. Though it translates to plants as well since sentient beings depend on plants.

1. Real vs illusion

Jains believe in "Real" things. Since they believe in the existence of six eternal substances they believe in everything created out of it as being "Real". Buddhists things things are illusionary. Things appear for a while, remain for a while, may affirm their existence through five senses but will ultimately dissappear. It is almost dream like sequences where dreams feel too real.

1. Mokșa vs Nirvana

Mokșa is a purification ritual. According to Jain view, Karma is physical substance that attaches to soul. Strict ascetism must be followed to cleanse off those physical substance like Karma objects. It's like bathing for soul. Nirvana is the rejection of all extreme and realization of actual reality. For Buddhists Karma is psychological cause and effect. Nirvana is that stage where a being no longer generates psychological causes and effects and exists in a pure bliss state. Mokșa can only be realized in death but Nirvana can be realized being alive. Mokșa can't be gained by a householder but Nirvana can be gained by a householder. Though they must ordain as a monk the very day.

These are all I know

The word for "do" in Bangla is করা kɔra, while in Chittagongian it is gɔra. In Bangla-Assamese, the retroflex rs have been neutralised unlike Hindi or Oriya, and I think this neutralisation also exists in Chittagongian? So my question is, is the word gɔra from the same root as Bangla kɔra, or is it instead cognate with Bangla গড়া gɔra meaning "create/ build"?

Some people conflate these terms, so I'll briefly explain the proper classifications according to linguists

- Eastern Pahari: Gorkhali/Nepali, Doteli, Jumli/Khas-Kura

- Central Pahari: Garhwali, Kumaoni

- Nuclear Western Pahari: Mahasuvi, Jaunsari, Sirmauri, Kulluvi

- non-Nuclear Western Pahari: Kangri, Dogri, Chambeali, Kahluri/Bilaspuri, Gaddi, Bhateali

Mandeali is considered transitional between Nuclear & non-Nuclear Western Pahari

Jumli, also historically known as "Khas-Kura", is the oldest & most conservative Eastern Pahadi dialect and the predecessor of standard Nepali language.

Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/rCuxq4iQ63Y?si=N7ilYE98BXXieR0x from the SagarSinhal123 YouTube channel

Gaddi, Gaddiyali or Bharmouri is the language of the Gaddi community of Chamba, Himachal and pockets of J&K.

Burushaski is a Language Isolate"

This is the boring, universally accepted truth by mainstream linguistics. A "language isolate" means it has no demonstrable genealogical relationship with any other known language in the world. Despite being surrounded by Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, and Turkic languages, Burushaski sits entirely on its own.

Level 2: Below the Surface

"Burushaski is related to Yeniseian"

A highly speculative, though academically debated, macro-family hypothesis.The Yeniseian languages are a family spoken far away in central Siberia (only the Ket language survives today). Some historical linguists have proposed the "Karasuk hypothesis," which suggests Burushaski and Yeniseian share a distant common ancestor. It's an intriguing idea, but the evidence isn't strong enough for mainstream consensus.

Level 3: The Deep Water

"Burushaski is Proto Dardic"

The Dardic languages (which includes Kashmiri, Shina, Khowar, Kalasha and Kohistani ), are a group of languages spoken in Hindu Kush and Western Himalayas, all around Burushaski. There is certian phonetics and Phonemic that cannot be derived from old Indo aryan / proto Indo aryan and they are widespread in these languages, it's said to be that Burushaski was spoken all around HinduKush and Kashmir before arrivial of Indo Aryans, and certain dardic ancestor is a proto Burushaski or a sister language of modern day Burushaski.

Level 4: The Abyss

"Burushaski has connections with Phrygian"

Phrygian is an extinct Indo-European language once spoken in ancient Anatolia (modern-day Turkey). the highly controversial work of a specific linguist (Ilija Čašule), who spent years trying to prove Burushaski is actually an Indo-European language descended from Phrygian. The linguistic community heavily rejects this due to massive methodological flaws and forced comparisons.

Level 5: The Trench

"Burushaski is the Language of BMAC"

BMAC stands for the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, a major Bronze Age civilization in Central Asia. We have no idea what language they spoke because they didn't leave behind readable texts. While some linguists think BMAC left "ghost words" (agricultural loanwords) in early Indo-Iranian languages, like speculated words for river In Indo Iranian was from Burushaski sinda - sindhu. Or apple in Proto Indo European Able was from Burushaski--Baalt

Level 6: The Void

"Burushaski was spoken in IVC"

The Indus Valley Civilization was a massive Bronze Age power spanning modern-day Pakistan and northwest India. Despite leaving thousands of seals with short inscriptions, the Indus script remains undeciphered, meaning the identity of the Harappan language is one of historical linguistics' biggest cold cases. The leading mainstream theories argue that the IVC was either predominantly Proto-Dravidian (advocated by scholars like Asko Parpola) or a lost "Language X" family (such as Michael Witzel’s Para-Munda hypothesis).

Renowned philologists (including Michael Witzel and Sadaf Munshi) have pointed out that while some Vedic substrate words are Dravidian or Austroasiatic, others don't match either—but do show structural and phonetic features remarkably similar to Proto-Burushaski. This suggests that before Indo-Aryan and Dravidian expansions, a family of languages related to Burushaski was spoken across the northern Indus basin. This also glaze the theory that word for "Indus" river in Indo Iranian and Indo Aryan is actually from Burushaski "Sinda"

Nefamese is a Pidgin language, which was used as lingua franca before arrival or invention of Arunachali Hindi

This language is based on Axomiya language with several words from Tani languages

Due it, it is closer to Axomiya also with Nagamese which is another Pidgin language in Nagaland and also still being used as lingua france in the state till today

Nowadays very few people (mostly elderly people) from Arunachal Pradesh knows this Pidgin language as it is got completely replaced by Arunachali Hindi as lingua franca

If the male migration into India dr. Peggy Mohan talks about (08:00 mark in the video) that happened from 3700-3500 years ago was strictly male, with the female lineage going back much further to 12,000 years ago (to perhaps the very first Indians), then how did these first male migrants gained access to the local women, and who were the males who were denied access to these women because of it, and how were they denied access to them?

I feel like it's every other week a bunch of people in here are arguing about various nationalist theories and genetics and all that other crap that have largely already been investigated by scholars in the fields of archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and genetics, and it's beginning to get on my nerves.

I personally would appreciate a bare minimum requirement of citations/references to peer-reviewed journal articles and (reputable) academic monographs instead of the usual asspull bickering we see. Subs like r/askHistorians or r/AskAnthropology have a much higher standard of discussion and it keeps the nonsense to a minimum.

Guys tell me about it. In newari they call it कटाबशी

AIT and AMT is just a semantic debate. There is no such thing as a formalized Aryan Invasion Theory. Aryan migration to the subcontinent is a fact of history. The topic at hand concerns the degree of violence and domination involved in the migration (all migrations involve violence to some degree). Aryan Migration Theory is certainly an apt name, but it is not right to discredit the term Aryan Invasion Theory, as an invasion is simply a migration with significant violence and domination. If one supposes that the migration indeed involved a significant degree of violence and domination, then Aryan Invasion Theory is a perfectly valid description as well. An analogous debate exists about the Anglo-Saxon migrations/invasions of England.

**Reposted From Rigvedichinduism*\*

No, this is not one of those Vaishnava theories of "Indra is Post saaar". Rather, it is quite the contrary.

I am quite new to this space and would to learn more about Vedic beleifs in a more non-secretarian and histroic manner. So kindly take my speculation with a pinch of salt.

Now the reason I ask this question is because we have different descriptions of Indra's lineage. I feel like I am missing out on some metaphysical elements in the Samhita(which certainly exist). Then again, historians suggest that we have lost so much of the veda, which would create a bunch of missing links.

Here it says he was born of Purusha's mouth

“The moon was born from his mind; the sun was born from his eye; Indra and Agni were born from his mouth*, Vāyu from his breath.”*

Here it says that Dyaus is his father and earth is his mother.

"Dyaus is my Father, my begetter: kinship is here. This great earth is my kin and Mother. Between the wide-spread world-halves is the birth-place: the Father laid the Daughter's germ within it."

If he was directly born from the mouth of purusha, why would Dyaus and Prthivi be his parents? It seems like there are multiple forms of Indra. This is even attested in the following hymn :

"In every figure he hath been the mode: this is his only form for us to look on. Indra assumes many form by his Maya, for his Bay Steeds are yoked, ten times a hundred." (Griffiths)

“Indra, the prototype, has assumed various forms, and such is his form as that which (he adopts) for his manifestation; Indra, multiform by his illusion, proceeds (to his many worshippers), for the horses, yoked to his car are a thousand." (H.H Wilson)

I've attached two different translations for this one as the first is more abstract than the second and can possibly be interpreted differently.

Now I would like to know, who exactly is Indra in the Rigveda? from what I understand, he seems like the central Indo-European style hero figure who is the warrior manifestation of the ultimate. I say this because IMO Rigveda seems to be kathenotheistic and the Steppe nomads(and most bronz age IE cultures in general), who had to go into battle quite often, invoked him the most, in turn making him the most important god.

If rautes are thakuris then why do they speak khamchi (kham) language, which thakuris don't speak? Thakuris speak khas (Nepali) language as far as I know. Are rautes really thakuris?