Grgdai, either you are very cunning or totally confused person

You talked about the existence of NEPAL I gave you Kautilya mentioning a country called Nepal in his time period 350-283 BCE.

You answered me saying the origin of the word Nepal is controversial, It does not matter where the word come from Ne muni or from Nepal bhasa but the country existed there is a proof for it. You could not produce a counter argument for the existence of Nepal.

Let me give you one example

The word "China" is derived from Cin (چین), a Persian name for China popularized in Europe by Marco Polo. In early usage, "china" as a term for porcelain was
spelled differently than the name of the country, the two words being derived
from separate Persian words.

References

·  "China", Online Etymology Dictionary

·  ^ Wood, Francis, Did Marco Polo go to China (1995), p. 61.

Both these words are derived from the Sanskrit word Cīna

Reference

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Boston

and New York, Houghton-Mifflin, 2000.

The traditional theory, proposed in the 17th century by Martin Martini, is that the word is derived from "Qin" (秦)(778 BC – 207 BC), the westernmost of the Chinese kingdoms during the Zhou dynasty, or from the succeeding Qin dynasty (221 – 206 BC
Reference

Martino, Martin, Novus Atlas Sinensis, Vienna 1655, Preface, p. 2.

I showed only these three, there are so many other controversies about the origin of the word “China.”

You showed only two possibilities of origin of the word Nepal;

I showed you, with proof, three possibility of the origin of the word China,
now don’t tell me that china didn’t exist at the time of Kautilya or before
that. Kautilya has mentioned China in his book “Arthasastra”

My friend, be honest to your self and come up with some acceptable logic or be brave like “tamanhkagola”. The way you are countering just proves that you still have to learn a lot.

I questioned about the existence of India at the time of enlightenment of Buddha. You brought up Mahabharata, when I questioned the existence of India I was thinking that you may brought up this thing but I was not sure, but my guess was right.

Let me answer you about this.
You were unable to come up with existence of country India and its ruler at that time that because there was no India at the time of enlightenment of Buddha.

Now for Mahabharata,

The original name of Mahabharata was called “Jaya” which contained 8800 verses, and there was no Geeta in it. It later on  became “Bharata” with 24000 added  verses. Finally it became “Mahabharat” with 1, 00,000 verses.

So. They change the name two times and added contents to it and you want people to believe Mahabharata?

You want people to trust a book whose name was changed twice and verses was increased by almost 12 fold? And at the same time you want to tell me that there are two schools of thoughts about the origin of the word “Nepal”. Have you ever tried to find how many schools of thoughts are there about the origins of Mahabharata?

It looks like you want to believe with your eye closed when good things are written about India and whenever there is some good thing about Nepal you raise questions why so? Is that what Buddhism taught you?

As far as india existing or not we should go back to Mahabharat to look at the
'bharatbarsha' where it all took place

Does this mean we can say United State of America existed at 1000 AD? Because land was there, people were living there and they also had many states there?

And do you know what bharatbarsha means?

Barhsa means continent  

Reference

India Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition: 1989

Even in modern time people call this part of earth as Indian sub continent, a sub continent is not a country you should at least know that.

Even if you believe in Mahabharata, Mahabharata no where mentions the existence of a country called Bharat, Instead Mahabharata mentions the war between two countries and its allies. There are names of so many other countries that existed at that time but no Bharat existed even at the time when Mahabharata was written?

Yes in mythology there existed the King Bahrat  and  country called bharatbarsham, based on that mythology after Independence they called their country Bharat, Even then the there is no proof that mythological king Bharat ruled Bodhgaya. Buddha and his
teachings were for real not mythology.

"But yes, when I argue that bodhisatwa was attained in India, I am only trying to explain how the state of the mind of”buddha" was born in india"

My friend if you are trying to follow your own logic then please say

that bodhisatwa was attained in bodhgaya, I am only trying to explain how the state of the mind of  "buddha" was born in bodhgaya.

I am happy with that.

You can replace Bodhgaya by one of the Janapaarishad where Bodhgaya belongs but not the India which did not exists at that time.

Because when Buddha got enlightenment there was no India, why don’t you do some research what were the countries around that area at that time.

Repeating again and again “the mind of  "Buddha" was born in India” conflicting your own logic  at the cost of losing your own credibility? (I borrowed this sentence from you)

And to novaguy83  

My friend, If you don’t like some of the things Indians saying doesn’t mean that you have to boycott all Indian products, nobody does that. Lots of Indians say so many things about United States, but they are the one who are always ready to immigrate to US and love green bucks.

Or, if you like Hindi songs does not mean that you have to accept everything India is saying. India/Indians like green bucks, American products or may be white husband/wife does that means India/Indians have to accept whatever US says?