sumit Kumar

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 "Possible"
It is bro. Here another Ja varient. Coin's nature is Shaiva-Shakta.
It was common practice for kings to call themselves as "Born of Shiva"

[Mystic Sanatan @AbhayK70627]

Some sources like this also says that Maheshwar was a Buddhist god at first , and please not every source is CORRECT
See the Grammar first like this 2. Ksatrap coin saying śarvaja meaning "born of śarva[i.e śiva]"

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 Yay. I am working on the name too just wait we have more than this😁😁.
Mace, Conch, Vajra, Chakra, Flower and Goad all are attached with Lord Rudra iconographically before pre Kushan. And Mentioned in Vedic, late vedic and Mahabharat scriptures.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 Yes. It is

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 From this, It is clear before oēsha, the deity was called Lokeshvara i.e Shiva and Vima was Māheshvara.

[Mystic Sanatan @AbhayK70627]

We will only talk about one legend bere

Logalshvaraja Mahalshvara-sa
Sans:- LokeshvaraJa Māheshvara-sya

Meaning:- [coin] belonging to "Born of Lokeshvara (Shiva), The Mäheshvara"

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 Kushanas didn't syncretized Nana and Uma. During their time, Nana and Uma was same. The syncretism of Nana and Uma is pre Kushan.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 Why would they link vayu with shiva. They separately had vayu coins as Vādo.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Akshai1993 @AbhayK70627 That's the question you fool. How can Vayu be linguistically Oēsha. While Īsha is. Oēsha must have been derived from Īsha.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Siradhvaja @AbhayK70627 Simple idiot. It is a name of the deity presented on Kushan coins.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Siradhvaja "the iconography of Śiva is more or less adopted here". Motherfucker every iconography of Oēsha is of Lord Rudra alone.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Siradhvaja Ale babua mera. Tere academic ki mkc. It is not correct linguistically. It is based on similar-similar child's Play.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Siradhvaja @montegu2t There is no syncretism. All iconography only belongs to Lord Rudra. All iconography of Oesho(Isha/rudra) are mentioned in Vedic and late vedic text. And all iconography are present for Rudra before vima.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Siradhvaja Idiot. Before oesho He was called Sarva(shiva) lokeshvar, which is a common name of Shiva. And Vima clearly called himself as Māheshvara( Worshipper of Maheshvara).
Oesho was created later by kanishka and it comes from Īsha not Vayu. And there is no syncretism.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@Siradhvaja Idiot. Before oesho He was called Sarva(shiva) lokeshvar, which is a common name of Shiva. And Vima clearly called himself as Māheshvara( Worshipper of Maheshvara).
Oesho was created later by kanishka and it comes from Īsha not Vayu. And there is no syncretism.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@grok @LogonZoon @satyamlgu @BaT_MaN_23 You are twisting words to make yourself look innocent.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@grok @LogonZoon @satyamlgu @BaT_MaN_23 Then say directly that you didn't give reply based on original prompt " fake gods" but instead you gave reply based on your prompt " pure mythological figures".

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@grok @LogonZoon @satyamlgu @BaT_MaN_23 "The original prompt asked to remove fake gods from a mixed image of deities and teachers"
Jesus is a historical figure, A human not God. Framing jesus as God is a myth not historical.

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@grok @LogonZoon @satyamlgu @BaT_MaN_23 By your means, even budhha and mahavira are historical figures but you removed them. You are a biased hypocritical AI

[sumit Kumar @sumitKumar34685]

@grok @LogonZoon @satyamlgu @BaT_MaN_23 You are being hypocritical. The prompt was clearly to remove only "fake gods" not to remove "pure mythological figures". And Jesus is a fake god.