[QUOTE=Nietzsche;60394]I will hunt down the 8 people who disliked that video and do this to each and every one of them.[/QUOTE]
It’s not necessary, they are already punished enough by being dead on the inside.
There is a saying in Hindi, "A dog's tail never becomes straight" I think what is hilarious here is that after the expose I did of him showing how he repeatedly asked the question, "Why was India colonized" despite it being answered and the fact he ignored my posts where I answered him in his subsequent response, later denies his question was answered - and now behold - he asks it again 
To me:
Had it all, science, philosophy, technology and the oh-so-strong warrior culture? Then how come a large country like that was sacked by small countries like Portugal and Britain.
To Sarva:
he depicts it as if I would justify rape. What a bitch! Or the questions how and why an allegedly ultra-superior country, with a science ahead of that of today, with a huge population, even a strong warrior-culture, could be conquered by a small nation like Britain?
"I simply don't get it. How can a small inferior nation conquer a huge superior one? I'd think that this nation and culture is not so much ahead as claimed. Also the fact that if a nation might have a neat science, but isn't prepared for the dangers of real life, like war, it's scientifical advancements do not outweigh the lack in self-defense and in the end is worthless - just look at India today."
Similarly, he repeated his ignorant statements about dancing being banned in India despite actually saying he admitted it was wrong. First he justifies himself for making the statement:
Do you know why I brought it up? No you don't. I had explained it several times, and now have to do it again: I watche a documentary on public dancing being indeed illegal in Iran, searched the web for "illegal dancing" and there was this video. That's how I came to the idea and in the heat of the moment I brought it up, in said sub-sentence, without futher research. Neither grand of me, nor a big deal that renders anything I say worthless. Do you know, that I already had admitted it was a misconception and that I had even apologized for it? No you don't. You don't even know that I was talking about public dancing, not formal dancing on a show, like you link in the clip. Such dancing is even legal in Iran.
It was an incredibly stupid thing to state. To come to conclusions like "Dancing is bannnd in India" a conclusion which indicts 1.1 billion people on a single youtube clip with 20,000+ views and a 33% dislike rating is the height of stupidity. In fact the clip itself did not say "dancing was banned in India"
Note I countered his clip with another clip showing cops in America storming into a house and shooting dead a 7 year old boy. What an idiot I would be to conclude from one youtube clip that cops routintely storm into peoples homes and kill innocent children.
And if his stupidity has not already hit rock bottom, he repeats the same stupid conclusion he made today in another form:
However, since we all had been searching for video-proof that dancing is not illegal and we barely found examples of people just dancing in the streets, like you find a bazillion after 5 minutes with people dancing on concerts or outside bars and such in the West, I still believe that it's uncommon in India and probably frowned upon. That for example it's kinda out of the question that a woman would just start to dance on the streets in India and move her hips, as it is considered as offensive. Or stuff like this:
I must say this level of stupidity is unparalled on this forum. I have talked to damn right stupid people on this forum who have said stupid things, but this is a whole new level. What can explain this stupidity?
- A senile brain: total lack of cognitivity ability and comprehension.
- A dishonourable racist troll
I know Q is not stupid, it is blatantly obvious to anybody that Q is not a stupid person but a formally educated person, even if the statements above are at an abject level of stupidity. He is a dishonourable racist, that is what he is.
Racist people make sweeping generalizations about entire races based on the most miniscule of evidence e.g., "All Iranians are muslim fanatics, with long beards and ride tanks because I saw one on TV" That is because they already hold very negative views about them, so are only looking for an excuse to defame them further. Racists do not give any credibility or credence to other races, and this will be shown by how now three Indian members have told Q dancing is not banned in India, but he has dismissed their view branding them as "fanatics/liers"
Racists very begrudginly and sarcastically acknowledge achivements by other races.
Look at what Q has to say about the great achivements of the Indians:
And it is as well a valid point to make, that some technological advancement like your awesome flush toilet and some fancy philosophies are worth squat if the inventor can't stand their ground in real life, when confronted with a reality that all
This is blatantly racist where he is summing up the entire achivements of another people as toilets and "fancy philosophies" in a blatant attempt to undermine its achivements.
Here is a thread I found on stormfront today doing exactly what Q is doing here: What inventions did non-whites invent?
I can not think of one, can anybody else?
Member 1: Ummmm... the door stop
Member 2: The only thing that comes to mind is peanut butter.Not really the invention of a lifetime.
Member 3: Well it looks like the non-whites have very little to contribute to the advancment of the human race.Even thou they outnumber the white people by a few BILLION they still don't have the brain power.Since historians say life originated in Africa long time before the evolvment of European whites.They also invented RAPE,MURDER,SLAVERY, and the most important invention OF racism.aFTER ALL THE WHITE MAN WAS NOT EVEN AROUND BACK THEN.These inventions are not things but inventions of action and since we are at it they also invented tons of diseases.
Member 4: HIV
Member 5: Ebonics
Member 6: To compare the invention of peanut butter, the traffic light, paper bags and Jungle Music to the discovery/invention of Euclidean geometry, Cartesian co-ordinates, Newtonian physics, the steam engine, telescopes, microscopes, Wagnerian operas, (this list could go on and on) is laughable in its desperation.
You can see Q's posts would fit right in this forum. Look at Q very first post which started this whole war: Click here: http://www.yogaforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=57755&postcount=85
He sums up India's inventions as follows: the toilet, toy elephant, a button, the zero and he sums up India's great philosophical tradition as:
He sums up the West inventions as follows: The Hadron collider, the space station, robotics.
He is doing EXACTLY what the Stormfront members are doing in that thread. In fact it would not surprise if one of the posters in that forum is him. In fact earlier he even showed he knew the exact URL of the stormfront forum.
Why would you summarize another peoples achivements as just toilets and buttons? The answer is very obvious to undermine and dismiss them. Just as the Stormfront members are summarizing non-white achivements as door stops, peanutbutter, and paper bags.
On that notes lets see exactly some of the inventions Indians did achieive:
Wiki: Indian inventions
Chaturanga and Shatranj: The precursors of chess originated in India during the Gupta dynasty (c. 280 - 550 CE).[5][6][7][8] Both the Persians and Arabs ascribe the origins of the game of Chess to the Indians.[7][9][10] The words for "chess" in Old Persian and Arabic are chatrang and shatranj respectively — terms derived from caturaṅga in Sanskrit,[11][12] which literally means an army of four divisions or four corps.[13][14] Chess spread throughout the world and many variants of the game soon began taking shape.[15] This game was introduced to the Near East from India and became a part of the princely or courtly education of Persian nobility.[13] Buddhist pilgrims, Silk Road traders and others carried it to the Far East where it was transformed and assimilated into a game often played on the intersection of the lines of the board rather than within the squares.[15] Chaturanga reached Europe through Persia, the Byzantine empire and the expanding Arabian empire.[14][16] Muslims carried Shatranj to North Africa, Sicily, and Spain by the 10th century where it took its final modern form of chess.[15]
Cotton gin, single-roller: The Ajanta caves of India yield evidence of a single roller cotton gin in use by the 5th century.[20] This cotton gin was used in India until innovations were made in form of foot powered gins.[21] The cotton gin was invented in India as a mechanical device known as charkhi, more technically the "wooden-worm-worked roller". This mechanical device was, in some parts of India, driven by water power.[4]
[22][23]Crucible steel: Perhaps as early as 300 BCE—although certainly by 200 CE—high quality steel was being produced in southern India also by what Europeans would later call the crucible technique.[24] In this system, high-purity wrought iron, charcoal, and glass were mixed in a crucible and heated until the iron melted and absorbed the carbon.[24] The first crucible steel was the wootz steel that originated in India before the beginning of the common era.[25] Archaeological evidence suggests that this manufacturing process was already in existence in South India well before the Christian era.[26][27]
Plastic surgery: Plastic surgery was being carried out in India by 2000 BCE.[137] The system of punishment by deforming a miscreant's body may have led to an increase in demand for this practice.[137] The surgeon Sushruta contributed mainly to the field of Plastic and Cataract surgery.[138] The medical works of both Sushruta and Charak were translated into Arabic language during the Abbasid Caliphate (750 CE).[139] These translated Arabic works made their way into Europe via intermidiateries.[139] In Italy the Branca family of Sicily and Gaspare Tagliacozzi of Bologna became familiar with the techniques of Sushruta.[139]
Atomism: The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to India in the 6th century BCE.[154][155] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs).[156][157] The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systematized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term ?tomos (Greek: ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter", i.e., something that cannot be divided. Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus.[158
Linguistics: The study of linguistics in India dates back at least two and one-half millennia.[169] During the 5th century BCE, the Indian scholar Pāṇini had made several discoveries in the fields of phonetics, phonology, and morphology.[169]
Urban planning: Remains of major Indus cities (mature period c. 2600–1900 BCE) in what today is Pakistan and Western India, display distinct characteristics of urban planning such as streets crossing each other at right angles, well arranged rows of structures as well as neatly built, covered drainage and sewage lines, complete with maintenance sumps, running along backlanes.[180][181] Drains in the ancient maritime city of Lothal for example, designed to be able to take out the city’s entire domestic sewage and storm-water were mostly underground, and built to high levels of uniformity, whereby the slopes never exceed 1 in 10,000.[181][182] In terms of segregation, Lothal was divided into three districts: the citadel, the lower town and the dockyard, which were further divided into smaller administration centres, all having well planned infrastructure such as wide, straight roads along neatly arranged buildings to suit their purpose.[181][183] Such planning is also evident from remains of Mohenjo-Daro, a city to the north-west of Lothal, which appears to have been built adhering to a complex level of city grid planning.[180][184] This leads archaeologists to the conclusion that these cities were conceived entirely if not to a large extent before they were built—the earliest known manifestation of urban planning.[180][185][186
Zinc, mining and medicinal use: Zinc was first recognised as a metal in India. Zinc mines of Zawar, near Udaipur, Rajasthan, were active during 400 BCE.[152] There are references of medicinal uses of zinc in the Charaka Samhita (300 BCE).[152] The Rasaratna Samuccaya which dates back to the Tantric period (c. 5th - 13th century CE) explains the existence of two types of ores for zinc metal, one of which is ideal for metal extraction while the other is used for medicinal purpose.[152][153]
Cataract surgery: Cataract surgery was known to the Indian physician Sushruta (6th century BCE).[132] In India, cataract surgery was performed with a special tool called the Jabamukhi Salaka, a curved needle used to loosen the lens and push the cataract out of the field of vision.[132] The eye would later be soaked with warm butter and then bandaged.[132] Though this method was successful, Susruta cautioned that cataract surgery should only be performed when absolutely necessary.[132] Greek philosophers and scientists traveled to India where these surgeries were performed by physicians.[132] The removal of cataract by surgery was also introduced into China from India
Inoculation and Variolation: The earliest record of inoculation and variolation for smallpox is found in 8th century India, when Madhav wrote the Nidāna, a 79-chapter book which lists diseases along with their causes, symptoms, and complications.[134] He included a special chapter on smallpox (masūrikā) and described the method of inoculation to protect against smallpox.[134
Chakravala method: The Chakravala method, a cyclic algorithm to solve indeterminate quadratic equations is commonly attributed to Bhāskara II, (c. 1114–1185 CE)[103][104][105] although some attribute it to Jayadeva (c. 950 ~ 1000 CE).[106] Jayadeva pointed out that Brahmagupta’s approach to solving equations of this type would yield infinitely large number of solutions, to which he then described a general method of solving such equations.[107] Jayadeva's method was later refined by Bhāskara II in his Bijaganita treatise to be known as the Chakravala method, chakra (derived from cakraṃ चक्रं) meaning 'wheel' in Sanskrit, relevant to the cyclic nature of the algorithm.[107][108] With reference to the Chakravala method, E. O. Selenuis held that no European performances at the time of Bhāskara, nor much later, came up to its marvellous height of mathematical complexity.[103][107][109]
Carding, devices for: Historian of science Joseph Needham ascribes the invention of bow-instruments used in textile technology to India.[4] The earliest evidence for using bow-instruments for carding comes from India (2nd century CE).[4] These carding devices, called kaman and dhunaki would loosen the texture of the fiber by the means of a vibrating string.[4]
Binomial coefficients: The Indian mathematician Pingala, by 300 BCE, had also managed to work with Binomial coefficients.[99][100]
Brahmagupta–Fibonacci identity, Brahmagupta formula, Brahmagupta interpolation formula Brahmagupta matrix, and Brahmagupta theorem: Discovered by the Indian mathematician, Brahmagupta (598–668 CE).[101][102]
Fibonacci numbers: The Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers named after Leonardo of Pisa, known as Fibonacci.[112] Fibonacci's 1202 book Liber Abaci introduced the sequence to Western European mathematics, although the sequence had been
Infinite series for Sine, Cosine, and arctangent: Madhava of Sangamagrama and his successors at the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics used geometric methods to derive large sum approximations for sine, cosin, and arttangent. They found a number of special cases of series later derived by Brook Taylor series. They also found the second-order Taylor approximations for these functions, and the third-order Taylor approximation for sine.[113][114][115]
Why would Q sum up the above as toilets, buttons and naked Sadhus? Because he a racist troll. A most morally reprehensible and dishonourable man. It is shameful to think this man is 40-50 years old in age. To reach such an age and have such a mentality is shameful. A big disgrace.
Q went on discreding, mocking and ridiculing every Indian discovery and invention I showed him. I showed how how Kanada of the Vaiseshika school had given the laws of motion, described force vectors, described kinetic energy and atoms and atomic bonding - he rejected it and mocked it as "fancy ideas amongst loads of ideas" I showed him how Kapila of the Samkhya school was the first to describe quantum matter, superpostioning and collapse of the superpositioning by the observer and was the first to propose the cyclic evolutionary model of the universe as expanding and contracting perpetually - he dismissed it as "a primitive world myth that every culture had" I showed him how Charaka had describes genetics, chromosomes and given a list of genetically inherited diseases - he dismissed it as "obvious"
A reasonable person would have no problem accepting this and I produced blatant citations from the primary texts as well to show him it was all racist - but a racist troll would have a problem in acknowleding the achivements of another civilisation because it hurts them do it.
Therefore make no mistake about it Q is, in his own words, a damn racist. There should be no doubt in anybodies mind he is a racist white supremist member. He has now even admitted he believes his race is superior because they beat the crap out of other races:
How can a small inferior nation conquer a huge superior one? I'd think that this nation and culture is not so much ahead as claimed. Also the fact that if a nation might have a neat science, but isn't prepared for the dangers of real life, like war, it's scientifical advancements do not outweigh the lack in self-defense and in the end is worthless - just look at India today.
Here he directly equates the superiority of a people with how good they are war and how superior their army is. Again, this is a Nazi social Darwinist view that ony the fittest survive. He sees the West as the culmination of history and takes great pride in it and how it sacked every culture on the planet. Ask any stormfront member and they will say the same.
Is there still anymore doubt that Q is a most morally reprehensible annd dishonourable man?
Correction: A reasonable person would have no problem accepting this and I produced blatant citations from the primary texts as well to show him it was all real and factual
I had no idea what Stormfront was so I Googled it. What I found thoroughly repulsed me.
It isn’t just a website that attracts racists and neo-Nazis. Its a website that draws in Westerners like Quetzalcoatl (who make up the majority of the people in the Western world) who are ignorant of history and consequently, the considerable achievements of other cultures and civilizations.
Such websites only reveal the fact that history must be revised so as to reveal the accomplishments of other civilizations and the developments (in which the Chinese, Muslims, and the Indians played no small part) that led to the Western world becoming what it is today (constant warfare and lack of culture = weaponry = conquest = getting rich = #1 spot in the world).
The world has suffered too long from this historical ignorance.
Indeed. Now that Q has been thoroughly exposed and his facade stripped, we know what he really is and really thinks. He is a neo-nazi racist. Have no doubt about it. Here is what he really believes:
- He believes his civilisation is naturally more superior and the culmination of social and/or biological evolution(Social darwinism)
- He believes that his civilisation has civilised and is civilizing the rest of the world and it is inevitable that this entire planet will become like them, and all means are justified to achieiving this end war, conquest, exploitation of the weaker third world countries, genocides. The end justifies the means.
- He sees with contempt countries that are are militarily weaker and spiritual, seeing them as weak strains of human DNA that cannot survive.
- He sees with admiration those countries that are military stronger, that through brute force, exploitation, wars and deceit conquer and subjugate other nations. He sees this strain of humanity as being more biologically evolved and which will survive because it is the fittest.
- He is not at all apologetic about the hundreds of millions that the West slaughtered, the raping and looting of non-Western countries, but sees this as a necessary means to civilise the world and the unfolding of natural law. Nor he is apologetic about the wars and exploitation going on today - because he’s sees third world countries as weaker strains of human dna.
Make no mistake about it you are talking to a highly morally reprehensible and dishonorable man and lacks scruples. According to him, raping, looting, killing piracy are all good and the victims of these acts deserve it anyway because they are pathetic enough in the first place to have this done to them. It is the Asura mind.
On the other the Deva mind says that the progress of ones civilisation is measured by how virtuous you are by the extent if your compassion, peace, and wisdom, by ones spiritual development. How close to the divine one is. They recognise that in order to become truly human one must rise above their base insticts inherited from the animal stage in evolution and gain self control and mastery of their inner life.
The Asura mind does not understand this because it cannot recognise virtue. The Asura may have a human body but their mind is still that of an animal.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;60351]much better than adyashanti, eh?[/QUOTE
you really think so ? mmmmm
http://www.youtube.com/user/LifeOM
probably my last post goodbye yoga forum
[QUOTE=charliedharma;60429][QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;60351]much better than adyashanti, eh?[/QUOTE
you really think so ? mmmmm
http://www.youtube.com/user/LifeOM
probably my last post goodbye yoga forum[/QUOTE]
Wait what? Don’t leave!
Your insights and opinions have always been valuable. What’s making you leave now?
[QUOTE=Nietzsche;60306]At the moment, you actually are proving your immaturity.
I have, by now, apologized to you three or four times for what I said to you on this thread.
You do not acknowledge these apologies.
I do not understand why my views would trouble you now as they are no different than Surya Deva’s.
I can only conclude you are allowing your resentment at my words (which I, once again, repeatedly apologized for) is coloring your actions.[/QUOTE]
Don’t get offended Nietzsche. You are doing the same thing again, jumping into the conclusions before things come cleaner. Besides, I haven’t seen you actually apologised me till you mentioned here… I just found out which threads you refer… Well, it wasn’t necessary, but thank you 
I’m just trying to be constructive towards you. You are a clever guy, but have a very bad habit of jumping into the conclusions and exaggerating things. I think I told him to Surya as well about half a year ago about this particular issue: “do not render people who oppose your views as your enemies.” This is one of the most dangerous human attitudes ever. And mostly un-educated people show this sort of thing. Resentful and reactionary.
Why not, instead, engage them in a leveled discussion and clarify why you have this view and why you believe that is right and so on. Labeling ones who oppose your views as Western supremacist, usurper, racist, and so on, is a rather terroristic, reactionary attitude, and you’d lose a lot of diplomacy and credibility with this.
And if someone is opposing your views, instead of doing shock and blame tactics, use your intellect to rely upon a sound judgment. And if someone is persistently refuting what you say, admit that you are mistaken. It is not a hard thing, and unlike the common belief, doesn’t show that you are vulnerable and submissive to other’s notuons, but you are “ready to learn” on your own. Instead of making an opposition a problem to your position, make it a “part” of your stance.
So, take this High Wolf’s constructive offering;) I am not here to stir up hatred and a righteousness game, but to offer some humble wisdom that I gathered through “lived” experience, tho’ might be inadequate every now and again.
Surya,
I admire your views about Hinduism and your great knowledge about its lore and history. However - please do not misunderstand - you have a very bad habit of converting certain statements into alleged “offences” to your belief and position. That is, if somebody opposes your view, then somebody becomes your rival, your enemy, your exclusive pain-in-the-ass troll. This, in my view, is a very self-centered and not a healthy way to engage in debates. Again, take extreme care to not misunderstand me.
You are inserting certain notions that you have as “moral imperatives.” In that way, You retain an ambiguous notion that everyone should be apologetic about their past and do this and do that - which also sanctimoniously excludes Indian civilization in your view. This sounds like the Christian idea of, “Jesus died for our sins, and we have to remember this everyday; we have to live in guilt. We are born sinners, and sinners we shall be.” Thusly, in general, your shock and blame tactic deriving from this sort of conceptualization becomes increasingly deconstructive and alienating insofar as Quetzalcoatl becomes obsessed to show you that you might be wrong about certain thing. As I understand, you dwell too much in the past, and too less in the present day. This is what Quetzalcoatl points out, and I think, overshadows a sound yogic judgement you could bring out. For after all, this is Yoga forums. However, hereby I don’t necessarily mean that Q is always right in what he’s pointing out.
Now, let’s forget everything Qutzalcoatl and you said in the past, and focus on this: if India was so great in everything, what happened that let the British invade the entire country? Ok, let’s assume that the social systems were working perfectly, and as evidence shows, country was very rich due to its role in international trade. And as you claim, and I also support, British used their notorious “divide and rule” gradualist politics as a diplomatic ploy to deconstruct India; however, my questions are that,
-
Why India was incapable of teaching peaceful, scientific dharmic religions to those aggressive, colonialist Europeans, of converting them into dharmic religions from Christianity?
-
Similarly, why India, if so supreme she was in religion, was incapable of teaching the dharma to those bloodthirsty muslim invaders?
-
Why did Indian social system, which was so perfect, allowed itself to be overtaken by the colonialists, muslims, which in your claim, send the country back to the stone age, an incommensurable poverty?
…
I have indulged myself today, and read all your debate with Q today in this thread. You do not clearly address these above questions as well as some other relevant questions that Q asked… One reference from that website, one reference from that book - this is not a good way to preserve your stance. In that way, you’d assume too much about the credibility of your sources as long as they satisfy your view momentarily. And views change all the time - you yourself observed this here in this forums. What I want, is therefore, to hear your own original rationale in addressing these questions. I think, if you refresh yourself, and address these questions succinctly with your own words, Quetzalcoatl would be reasonable to pay attention what you are saying. If you switch from automatic gear to manual, I am sure he’d to the same.
On the other side of this, I acknowledge that you have a very legitimate and thought-provoking view on the difference between science and technology. This could benefit many people in many context. If Q doesn’t understand this, why not try to explain this to him in a constructive way, rather than via shock and blame? You take in refusing Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” analogy to an extreme level. As I always say, if you fight fire with fire, there’ll be more fire in the end. And trust High Wolf’s humble, “lived” wisdom: that fire could burn everything you hold dear down to the ashes.
Take this High Wolf’s offering to seek a chance to refresh your wits 
It is not bad to admit that one is wrong on something. The persistence to claim that one is right about everything he/she says closes the pathway to many learning potentials. I, myself, learnt a lot of things from you, but at the some time, disagreed with you on many things, which again in return, taught me many things. This is a true education and how it ought to be in this world in every area, if we, as humanity, desire to evolve as more spiritually-aware entities.
Socrates, the man that inspires me every living day, is famous with this:
[B]“I only know that I know nothing.”[/B]
[QUOTE=High Wolf;60464]Don’t get offended Nietzsche. You are doing the same thing again, jumping into the conclusions before things come cleaner. Besides, I haven’t seen you actually apologised me till you mentioned here… I just found out which threads you refer… Well, it wasn’t necessary, but thank you
I’m just trying to be constructive towards you. You are a clever guy, but have a very bad habit of jumping into the conclusions and exaggerating things. I think I told him to Surya as well about half a year ago about this particular issue: “do not render people who oppose your views as your enemies.” This is one of the most dangerous human attitudes ever. And mostly un-educated people show this sort of thing. Resentful and reactionary.
Why not, instead, engage them in a leveled discussion and clarify why you have this view and why you believe that is right and so on. Labeling ones who oppose your views as Western supremacist, usurper, racist, and so on, is a rather terroristic, reactionary attitude, and you’d lose a lot of diplomacy and credibility with this.
And if someone is opposing your views, instead of doing shock and blame tactics, use your intellect to rely upon a sound judgment. And if someone is persistently refuting what you say, admit that you are mistaken. It is not a hard thing, and unlike the common belief, doesn’t show that you are vulnerable and submissive to other’s notuons, but you are “ready to learn” on your own. Instead of making an opposition a problem to your position, make it a “part” of your stance.
So, take this High Wolf’s constructive offering;) I am not here to stir up hatred and a righteousness game, but to offer some humble wisdom that I gathered through “lived” experience, tho’ might be inadequate every now and again.[/QUOTE]
No. I shouldn’t have jumped at you. I’m still sorry for saying what I said to you. My apologies were necessary.
Yes, I will take your advice.
But, at times, its extremely difficult for me to do so. There is so much misinformation and ignorance of Hinduism out there that it becomes incredibly frustrating to see people mentioning the same garbage over and over again: “Ancient Indians were cannibals,” “Yoga predates Hinduism,” “Face the facts: without western civilization and Christianity, India and the vast cultures of the world would still be wrangling on or near the stone age; living, fighting and dying under primitive tribalism,” and so on.
Every day I meet an Indian who has completely lost his grasp on his religion; seeing an Indian dismissing his own religion as nothing more than an amalgam of rituals is one of the most unbearable things for another Indian to witness.
None of this excuses my actions of course. I am trying to do my best to not to lose my temper. Its already bad enough that those Hindus who combat their discrimination, express pride in their heritage, reject the Aryan Invasion theory, teach others that their religion isn’t just a bunch of nonsensical rituals, etc are considered extremist. I shouldn’t add more fuel to the fire when those who discriminate against us are the ones ruling the world.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;60465]
-
Why India was incapable of teaching peaceful, scientific dharmic religions to those aggressive, colonialist Europeans, of converting them into dharmic religions from Christianity?
-
Similarly, why India, if so supreme she was in religion, was incapable of teaching the dharma to those bloodthirsty muslim invaders?
-
Why did Indian social system, which was so perfect, allowed itself to be overtaken by the colonialists, muslims, which in your claim, send the country back to the stone age, an incommensurable poverty?
[/QUOTE]
I will, to the best of my ability, answer these questions, the likes of which have already been answered 100’s of times on this forum.
1). High Wolf…these are [B][U]CHRISTIANS[/U][/B] we are talking about. You have to remember that back in those times (hell, even today), Westerners were the most racist and supremacist people in the world. Why would they accept our teachings when, for centuries, they had it drilled into their heads that their ways were superior?
2). High Wolf…these are [B][U]MUSLIMS[/U][/B] we are talking about. Why would they learn anything that a kaffir had to say about…anything? Why would they attempt to learn our religion when their Quran clearly asserts the supremacy of their religion?
3). You know that the British had an easy time taking over India because of the Mughal empire’s rapidly crumbling power. It has also been explained 1000’s of times that when the Muslims came into India, it was already weak and divided.
As for our societal system, I, unlike SD, don’t believe that our societal systems were so amazing to such an extent that we Indians would be immune to things such as internal strife and other external factors.
You are inserting certain notions that you have as “moral imperatives.” In that way, You retain an ambiguous notion that everyone should be apologetic about their past and do this and do that - which also sanctimoniously excludes Indian civilization in your view. This sounds like the Christian idea of, “Jesus died for our sins, and we have to remember this everyday; we have to live in guilt. We are born sinners, and sinners we shall be.” Thusly, in general, your shock and blame tactic deriving from this sort of conceptualization becomes increasingly deconstructive and alienating insofar as Quetzalcoatl becomes obsessed to show you that you might be wrong about certain thing. As I understand, you dwell too much in the past, and too less in the present day. This is what Quetzalcoatl points out, and I think, overshadows a sound yogic judgement you could bring out. For after all, this is Yoga forums. However, hereby I don’t necessarily mean that Q is always right in what he’s pointing out.
SD and I have consistently maintained that it is our past, or the way our past was rewritten by racist Indologists, that is effecting Hindus today. You have no idea how such “historical facts” like the AIT and the alleged importance of caste in Indian society, or the sheer lack of historical facts effects Hindus today.
This is partly of why Hindus have a hard time combating their persecution. Whenever SD and I say something about Indian history, people Google it and throw back racist history at us. Then the discussions then diverge into a game of who knows better about our history.
Additionally, we have already told you that the way Europeans wrote history makes every utterly ignorant of the accomplishments of other civilizations and cultures. If someone doesn’t take the time to research outside of what is taught to them inside classes, they will eventually come to hold Western supremacist biases.
We must also point to the past repeatedly because it is ignorant fools like Q who make fun of India’s poverty and current condition. But whenever SD and I reply by giving the causation behind our current condition, we are derided as extremists and fundamentalists.
History is vital, more so because of the way Europeans raped it to favor them. History is nothing but the identity of every ethnic group, nation, culture, and religion and to say that everyone should move on from it is like telling us oppressed peoples to bow down to Europeans/Westerners forever.
History will never be put to rest until it gets fixed to highlight the considerable achievements of other civilizations. The past will not be forgotten until everyone, including Westerners, understand the great evil they unleashed in the modern world by colonialism and imperialism and, most importantly, [B][U]LEARN[/U][/B] from it so that such a thing will never happen again.
If Q doesn’t understand this, why not try to explain this to him in a constructive way
Why would an adult who has grown up in an environment that indirectly portrays the superiority of Western civilization and Western ideology understand anything we explain to him?
High Wolf,
I will leave Q aside, because I have more than proven he is a racist neo nazi. There is no doubt on this matter for me to debate it any further.
I will rather focus on your questions, which I have already answered, but in your case I assume innocent and good intentions. Hence I will provide more information than I have done before
Why India was incapable of teaching peaceful, scientific dharmic religions to those aggressive, colonialist Europeans, of converting them into dharmic religions from Christianity?
Why India was incapable of teaching peaceful, scientific dharmic religions to those aggressive, colonialist Europeans, of converting them into dharmic religions from Christianity?
Similarly, why India, if so supreme she was in religion, was incapable of teaching the dharma to those bloodthirsty muslim invaders?
To answer this question ask youself why are you incapable of convincing unreasonable, extremist and hateful people? Why were the Buddhists incapabe of convincing the Chinese? Why were the Druids incapable of convincing the Romans? Why were the Jews incapable of convincing the Nazis? Why were the Native Americans incapable of convincing the the Europeans?
The answer to your question is obvious: you cannot reason with what is unreasonable. I once read a scholar write regarding the sacking of the Buddhist state and burning down of their universities at"Ghandara" now Afghastan: “The Buddhists rosararies were no match for the bloody thristy and vengeful sword of Islam”
To say it is ones incapacity to do so is almost suggesting that one is in the wrong because they cannot correct another’s wrongs. I cannot correct anothers mistake because I have no control over their will. I can attempt to reason with them, but if they choose to ignore that, there is nothing I can do. In fact, strangely enough when I use to watch those holocaust movies and see the evil the Nazis did to the jews, I asked myself, “If I was there then, what could I have said to the Nazis to make them realise what they are doing was wrong. Is there any choice of words, any kind of argument that could have changed their mind” I finally answered it for myself, “Rationality cannot convince the irrational”
I am not to blame if some extremist and racist man approaches me on the streets and then beats me up because I am brown. It is not my incapacity. This is quite obvious though, isn’t it?
- Why did Indian social system, which was so perfect, allowed itself to be overtaken by the colonialists, muslims, which in your claim, send the country back to the stone age, an incommensurable poverty?
Well, first of all the Indian social system was not perfect. Nor was any social system on the planet in those times or the social system in our times. However, was it the best on the planet at the time? Yes, by a long shot. It had a 33 to 28% share of the GDP in the world from 1AD to 1000AD, a mass education system, hospitals and thriving architecture and science. This cannot be disputed because this is historical fact easily proven by research.(I have cited many articles already in this thread)
India’s focus was predominatently on scientific and economic progress. It had a strong warrior culture too, but the main drive in society was science and economy and not war. On the other hand, the Muslims cultivated very quickly an incredibly fanatical and powerful religious army, which like a wildfire consumes a forest, spread all over the world into Arabia, Europe, Africa and Asia. They were an unstoppable force, the likes of which had not seen before.
Wiki: Muslim conquests
Age of the Caliphs
Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632/A.H. 1-11
Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661/A.H. 11-40
Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750/A.H. 40-129
Muslim conquests (632–732), (Arabic: الغزوات, al-Ġazawāt or الفتوحات الإسلامية, al-Fatūḥāt al-Islāmiyya) also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests,[1] began after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He established a new unified polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of Muslim power.
They grew well beyond the Arabian Peninsula in the form of a Muslim Empire with an area of influence that stretched from the borders of China and India, across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees.
The Muslim conquests brought about the collapse of the Sassanid Empire and a great territorial loss for the Byzantine Empire. The reasons for the Muslim success are hard to reconstruct in hindsight, primarily because only fragmentary sources from the period have survived. Most historians agree that the Sassanid Persian and Byzantine Roman empires were militarily and economically exhausted from decades of fighting one another.
Jews and Christians in Persia and Jews and Monophysites in Syria were dissatisfied and sometimes even welcomed the Muslim forces, largely because of religious conflict in both empires.[2] In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before been reacquired from the Persians, and had not been ruled by the Byzantines for over 25 years.
Fred McGraw Donner, however, suggests that formation of a state in the peninsula and ideological (i.e. religious) coherence and mobilization was a primary reason why the Muslim armies in the space of a hundred years were able to establish the largest pre-modern empire until that time. The estimates for the size of the Islamic Caliphate suggest it was more than thirteen million square kilometers (five million square miles), making it larger than all current states except the Russian Federation.[3]
Byzantine–Arab Wars: 634–750
Wars were between the Byzantine Empire and at first the Rashidun and then the Umayyad caliphates and resulted in the conquest of the Greater Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Armenia (Byzantine Armenia and Sassanid Armenia).
Under the Rashidun
The conquest of Syria, 637
The conquest of Armenia, 639
The conquest of Egypt, 639
The conquest of North Africa, 652
The conquest of Cyprus, 654
Under the Umayyads
The conquest of North Africa, 665
The first Arab siege of Constantinople, 674–678
The second Arab siege of Constantinople, 717–718
Conquest of Hispania, 711–718
The conquest of Georgia, 736
Later conquests
The conquest of Crete, 820
The conquest of southern Italy, 827
Conquest of Persia and Iraq: 633–651
In the reign of Yazdgerd III, the last Sassanid ruler of the Persian Empire, a Muslim army secured the conquest of Persia after their decisive defeats of the Sassanid army at the Battle of Walaja in 633 and Battle of al-Qādisiyyah in 636, but the final military victory didn’t come until 642 when the Persian army was destroyed at the Battle of Nahāvand. Then, in 651, Yazdgerd III was murdered at Merv, ending the dynasty. His son Peroz II escaped through the Pamir Mountains in what is now Tajikistan and arrived in Tang China.
Conquest of Transoxiana: 662–709
Following the First Fitna, the Umayyads resumed the push to capture Sassanid lands and began to move towards the conquest of lands east and north of the plateau towards Greater Khorasan and the Silk Road along Transoxiana. Following the collapse of the Sassanids, these regions had fallen under the sway of local Iranian and Turkic tribes as well as the Tang Dynasty. By 709, however, all of Greater Khorasan and Sogdiana had come under Arab control. By 751, the Arabs had extended their influence further east to the borders of China, leading to the Battle of Talas.
What is clear from the above is just how militiarily powerful the muslims were and how they laid seige to and rampaged throughout every part of the world; sacking huge parts of the Roman empire and sacking the Persian empire completely. The Muslims were an unstoppable and relentless force the likes of which were unprecedented in history.
So why blame India for also falling under the occupation of the Muslims, when the rest of the world could not stop the Muslims? In fact, the Muslims had the least amount of success when they laid seige on India, than they did with everywhere else. They faced stiff resistance from Hindu kingdoms and eventually Hindu empires formed against them:
Wiki: Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent
The Battle of Rajasthan is a battle (or series of battles) where the Hindu Rajput clans defeated the Muslim Arab invaders in 738 CE. While all sources (Hindu and Muslim) agree on the broad outline of the conflict and the result, there is no detailed information on the actual battle/s. There is also no indication of the exact places where these battles were fought——what is clear is that the final battle took place somewhere on the borders of modern Sindh-Rajasthan. Following their defeat the remnants of the Arab army fled to the other bank of the River Indus.
Background
With the break-up of the Gupta Empire (550 CE), northern India was covered with warring states, which attempted to wrest the imperial position left vacant by the Guptas. Among these were Yasodharman of Malwa, the Maitrakas of Vallabhi, and Harshvardhan of Thanesar. But a stable empire in the north was only established by the Gurjara Pratiharas of the Rajasthan-Gujarat-Malwa region by 750 CE, which lasted for over a century.
Before the onset of this age West Asia was conquered by the politico-religious ideology of Islam (7th Century). Under the Umayyad Caliphs the Muslim Arabs attempted to conquer the frontier kingdoms of India; Kabul, Zabul, and Sindh, but were repulsed. In the early 8th Century the Kingdom of Sindh under King Dahir was convulsed by internal strife——taking advantage of the conditions the Arabs renewed their assaults and finally occupied it under Muhammad bin Qasim, the nephew of Al-Hajjaj (governor of Iraq and Khurasan). Qasim and his successors attempted to expand from Sindh into Punjab and other regions but were badly defeated by Lalitaditya of Kashmir and Yasovarman of Kannauj. Even their position in Sindh was unstable at this time.
Muhammad Ghori was a Turkic-Afghan conqueror from the region of Ghor in Afghanistan. Before 1160, the Ghaznavid Empire covered an area running from central Afghanistan east to the Punjab, with capitals at Ghazni on the banks of Ghazni river in present-day Afghanistan, and at Lahore in present-day Pakistan. In 1160, the Ghorids conquered Ghazni from the Ghaznevids, and in 1173 Muhammad was made governor of Ghazni. He raided eastwards into the remaining Ghaznevid territory, and invaded Gujarat in the 1180s but was rebuffed by Gujarat’s Solanki rulers. In 1186 and 1187 he conquered Lahore in alliance with a local Hindu ruler, ending the Ghaznevid empire and bringing the last of Ghaznevid territory under his control, and seemed to be the first Muslim ruler seriously interested in expanding his domain in the sub-continent, and like his predecessor Mahmud initially started off against the Ismaili Shiite kingdom that had regained independence during the Nizari conflicts, and then onto booty and power.
In 1191, he invaded the territory of Prithviraj III of Ajmer, who ruled much of present-day Rajasthan and Haryana, but was defeated at Tarain by Govinda-Raja of Delhi, Prithviraj’s vassal. The following year, Muhammad assembled 120,000 horsemen and once again invaded the Kingdom of Ajmer. Muhammad’s army met Prithviraj’s army again at Tarain, and this time Muhammad won; Govinda-Raja was slain, Prithviraj captured and Muhammad advanced onto Delhi. Within a year, Muhammad controlled Northern Rajasthan and Northern Ganges-Yamuna Doab. After these victories in India, and Muhammad’s establishment of a capital in Delhi, Multan was also incorporated into his empire. Muhammad then returned east to Ghazni to deal with the threat on his eastern frontiers from the Turks and Mongols, whiles his armies continued to advance through Northern India, raiding as far east as Bengal.
Muhammad returned to Lahore after 1200. In 1206, Muhammad Ghori had to travel to Lahore to crush a revolt. On his way back to Ghazni, his caravan rested at Damik near Sohawa (which is near the city of Jhelum in the Punjab province of modern-day Pakistan). He was assassinated on March 15, 1206, while offering his evening prayers. The identity of Ghori’s assassins is disputed, with some claiming that he was assassinated by local Hindu Gakhars and others claiming he was assassinated by Hindu Khokhars, both being different tribes.
Muhammad’s successors established the first dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate, while the Mamluk Dynasty in 1211 (however, the Delhi Sultanate is traditionally held to have been founded in 1206) seized the reins of the empire. Mamluk means “slave” and referred to the Turkic slave soldiers who became rulers. The territory under control of the Muslim rulers in Delhi expanded rapidly. By mid-century, Bengal and much of central India was under the Delhi Sultanate. Several Turko-Afghan dynasties ruled from Delhi: the Mamluk (1211–1290), the Khalji (1290–1320), the Tughlaq (1320–1413), the Sayyid (1414–51), and the Lodhi (1451–1526). Muslim Kings extended their domains into Southern India, Kingdom of Vijayanagar resisted until falling to the Deccan Sultanate in 1565. Certain kingdoms remained independent of Delhi such as the larger kingoms of Rajasthan, parts of the Deccan, Gujarat, Malwa (central India), and Bengal, nevertheless all of the area in present-day Pakistan came under the rule of Delhi.
Wiki: Mughal empire
The Mughal Empire (Persian: شاهان مغول, Shāhān-e Moġul; Urdu: مغلیہ سلطنت; self-designation: گوركانى, Gūrkānī),[2][3] or Mogul (also Moghul) Empire in former English usage, was an imperial power in South Asia that ruled a large portion of the Indian subcontinent. It began in 1526, invaded and ruled most of India by the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and ended in the mid-19th century.[4]
The Mughal emperors were descendants of the Timurids, a dynasty of Turco-Mongol ancestry, and at the height of their power around 1700, they controlled most of the Indian Subcontinent—extending from Bengal in the east to Balochistan in the west, Kashmir in the north to the Kaveri basin in the south.[5] Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 150 million, over a territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometres (1.2 million square miles).[1]
The “classic period” of the Empire started in 1556 with the accession of Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar, better known as Akbar the Great. It ended with the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707 by the rising Hindu Maratha Empire,[6] although the dynasty continued for another 150 years. During the classic period, the Empire was marked by a highly centralized administration connecting the different regions. All the significant monuments of the Mughals, their most visible legacy, date to this period which was characterised by the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and architectural results.
Following 1725 the Mughal Empire declined rapidly, weakened by wars of succession, agrarian crises fueling local revolts, the growth of religious intolerance, the rise of the Maratha, Durrani, and Sikh empires and finally British colonialism. The last Emperor, Bahadur Shah II, whose rule was restricted to the city of Delhi, was imprisoned and exiled by the British after the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
In other words the Muslims did not have it easy in India by any stretch of the imagination. They were defeated in several wars with Hindu kingdgoms, and even during the Mughal empire when all of India was under its rule, several Hindu kingdoms remained independent and even Hindu new empres arose like the Vijaynagra empire, Sikh empire and Maratha empire which bought the Mughal empire to an end.
Wiki: Sikh empire
Mughal Rule of Punjab
The religion of Sikhism began at the time of the Conquest of Northern India by Babur. His grandson, Akbar supported religious freedom and after visiting the langar of Guru Amar Das had a favorable impression of Sikhism. As a result of his visit he donated land to the langar and had a positive relationship with the Sikh Gurus until his death in 1605.[4] His successor, Jahangir, saw the Sikhs as a political threat. He arrested Guru Arjun Dev because of Sikh support for Khusrau Mirza[5] and ordered him to be put to death by torture. Guru Arjan Dev’s Martyrdom led to the sixth Guru, Guru Har Gobind, declaring Sikh sovereignty in the creation of the Akal Takht and the establishment of a fort to defend Amritsar.[6]Jahangir attempted to assert authority over the Sikhs by jailing Guru Har Gobind at Gwalior and released him after a number of years when he no longer felt threatened. Sikhism did not have any further issues with the Mughal Empire until the death of Jahangir in 1627. His successor, Shah Jahan “took offense” at Guru Har Gobind’s sovereignty and after a series of assaults on Amritsar forced the Sikhs to retreat to the Sivalik Hills.[6] Guru Har Gobind’s successor, Guru Har Rai maintained the guruship in the Sivalik Hills by defeating local attempts to seize Sikh land and taking a neutral role in the power struggle between Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh for control of the Timurid dynasty. The ninth Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, moved the Sikh community to Anandpur and traveled extensively to visit and preach in Sikh communities in defiance Aurangzeb, who attempted to install Ram Rai to the guruship. He aided Kashmiri Brahmins in avoiding conversion to Islam and was arrested and confronted by Aurangzeb. When offered a choice between conversion or death, he chose to die rather than compromise his principles and was executed.[7] Guru Gobind Singh, assumed the guruship in 1675 and to avoid battles with Sivalik Hill Rajas moved the gurship to Paunta. He built a large fort to protect the city and garrisoned an army to protect it.The growing power of the Sikh community alarmed Sivalik Hill Rajas who attempted to attack the city but the Guru’s forces routed them at the Battle of Bhangani. He moved on to Anandpur and established the Khalsa, a collective army of baptized Sikhs, on 30 March 1699. The establishment of the Khalsa united the Sikh community against various Mughal-backed claimants to the guruship.[8] In 1701, a combined army composed of the Sivalik Hill Rajas and the Mughal army under Wazir Khan attacked Anandpur and, following a retreat by the Khalsa, were defeated by the Khalsa at the Battle of Muktsar. In 1707, Guru Gobind Singh accepted an invitation by Bahadur Shah I, Aurangzeb’s successor to meet in southern India. When he arrived in Nanded in 1708, he was assassinated by agents of Wazir Khan, the governor of Sirhind.
Portrait of Maharaja Ranjit Singh
The Sikh Empire (1801–1849) was formed on the foundations of the Punjabi Army by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. The empire extended from the Khyber Pass in the west, to Kashmir in the north, to Sindh in the south, and Tibet in the east. The main geographical footprint of the empire was the Punjab region. The religious demography of the Sikh Empire was Muslim (80%), Sikh (10%), Hindu (10%),.[12]
The foundations of the Sikh Empire, during the time of the Punjabi Army, could be defined as early as 1707, starting from the death of Aurangzeb and the downfall of the Mughal Empire. The fall of the Mughal Empire provided opportunities for the army, known as the Dal Khalsa, to lead expeditions against the Mughals and Afghans. This led to a growth of the army, which was split into different Punjabi armies and then semi-independent “misls”. Each of these component armies were known as a misl, each controlling different areas and cities. However, in the period from 1762–1799, Sikh rulers of their misls appeared to be coming into their own. The formal start of the Sikh Empire began with the disbandment of the Punjab Army by the time of coronation of Ranjit Singh in 1801, creating a unified political state. All the misl leaders who were affiliated with the Army were nobility with usually long and prestigious family histories in Punjab’s
Wiki: Vijaynagara empire
The Vijayanagara Empire Kannada: ವಿಜಯನಗರ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ Vijayanagara Sāmrājya, Telugu: విజయనగర సామ్రాజ్యము Vijayanagara Sāmrājyamu, referred as the Kingdom of Bisnaga by the Portuguese, was a South Indian empire based in the Deccan Plateau. Established in 1336 by Harihara I and his brother Bukka Raya I.[1] The empire rose to prominence as a culmination of attempts by the southern powers against Islamic invasions by the end of the 13th century.[2] It lasted until 1646 although its power declined after a major military defeat in 1565 by the Deccan sultanates. The empire is named after its capital city of Vijayanagara, whose impressive ruins surround modern Hampi, now a World Heritage Site in modern Karnataka, India. The writings of medieval European travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fern?o Nunes[3] and Niccol? Da Conti and the literature in local vernaculars provide crucial information about its history. Archaeological excavations at Vijayanagara have revealed the empire’s power and wealth.
The empire’s legacy includes many monuments spread over South India, the best known being the group at Hampi. The previous temple building traditions in South India came together in the Vijayanagara Architecture style. The mingling of all faiths and vernaculars inspired architectural innovation of Hindu temple construction, first in the Deccan and later in the Dravidian idioms using the local granite. Secular royal structures show the influence of the Northern Deccan Sultanate architecture. Efficient administration and vigorous overseas trade brought new technologies like water management systems for irrigation. The empire’s patronage enabled fine arts and literature to reach new heights in the languages of Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Sanskrit, while Carnatic music evolved into its current form. The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in South Indian history that transcended regionalism by promoting Hinduism as a unifying factor.
Before the early 14th century rise of the Vijayanagara empire, the Hindu kingdoms of the Deccan, the Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri, the Kakatiya dynasty of Warangal, the Pandyan Empire of Madurai, and the tiny kingdom of Kampili had been repeatedly invaded by Muslims from the north, and by 1336 they had all been defeated by Alla-ud-din Khilji and Muhammad bin Tughluq, the Sultans of Delhi. The Hoysala Empire was the sole remaining Hindu kingdom in the path of the Muslim invasion.[13] After the death of Hoysala Veera Ballala III during a battle against the Sultan of Madurai in 1343, the Hoysala empire merged with the growing Vijayanagara empire.
In the first two decades after the founding of the empire, Harihara I gained control over most of the area south of the Tungabhadra river and earned the title of Purvapaschima Samudradhishavara (“master of the eastern and western seas”). By 1374 Bukka Raya I, successor to Harihara I, had defeated the chiefdom of Arcot, the Reddy dynasty of Kondavidu, the Sultan of Madurai and gained control over Goa in the west and the Tungabhadra-Krishna River doab in the north.[14][15] The original capital was in the principality of Anegondi on the northern banks of the Tungabhadra River in today’s Karnataka. It was later moved to nearby Vijayanagara on the river’s southern banks during the reign of Bukka Raya I.
With the Vijayanagara Kingdom now imperial in stature, Harihara II, the second son of Bukka Raya I, further consolidated the kingdom beyond the Krishna River and brought the whole of South India under the Vijayanagara umbrella.[16] The next ruler, Deva Raya I, emerged successful against the Gajapatis of Orissa and undertook important works of fortification and irrigation.[17] Deva Raya II (called Gajabetekara)[18] succeeded to the throne in 1424 and was possibly the most capable of the Sangama dynasty rulers.[19] He quelled rebelling feudal lords as well as the Zamorin of Calicut and Quilon in the south. He invaded the island of Lanka and became overlord of the kings of Burma at Pegu and Tanasserim.[20][21][22] The empire declined in the late 15th century until the serious attempts by commander Saluva Narasimha Deva Raya in 1485 and by general Tuluva Narasa Nayaka in 1491 to reconsolidate the empire. After nearly two decades of conflict with rebellious chieftains, the empire eventually came under the rule of Krishnadevaraya, the son of Tuluva Narasa Nayaka.[23]
In the following decades the Vijayanagara empire dominated all of Southern India and fought off invasions from the five established Deccan Sultanates.[24][25] The empire reached its peak during the rule of Krishnadevaraya when Vijayanagara armies were consistently victorious.[26] The empire annexed areas formerly under the Sultanates in the northern Deccan and the territories in the eastern Deccan, including Kalinga, while simultaneously maintaining control over all its subordinates in the south.[27]
Wiki: Maratha empire:
The Maratha Empire (Marathi: मराठा साम्राज्य Marāṭhā Sāmrājya; also transliterated Mahratta) or the Maratha Confederacy was an Indian imperial power that existed from 1674 to 1818. At its peak, the empire covered much of South Asia, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km?.
The empire was founded and consolidated by Shivaji Bhosale. He created an independent Maratha kingdom with Raigad as its capital,[1] and successfully fought against the Mughals to defend his kingdom.[2] The Maratha Empire waged war for 27 years with the Mughals from 1681 to 1707 which became the longest war ever fought in the history of India. The Marathas eventually emerged victorious. Shivaji pioneered “Shiva sutra” or Ganimi Kava (guerrilla tactics), which leveraged strategic factors like demographics, speed, surprise and focused attack to defeat his bigger and more powerful enemies.[3] While Venkoji the younger half-brother of Shivaji founded the Thanjavur Maratha kingdom.
Shahu, a grandson of Shivaji became ruler. During this period, he appointed Peshwas as the prime ministers of the Maratha empire. After the death of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, the empire expanded greatly under the rule of the Peshwas. The empire at its peak stretched from Tamil Nadu in the south to Attock (modern-day Pakistan) on the Indus River to the north and Expeditions in Bengal to the east. Ahmad Shah Abdali, amongst others, were unwilling to allow the Marathas’ gains to go unchecked. In 1761, the Maratha army lost the Third Battle of Panipat which halted imperial expansion.
After 1761, young Madhavrao Peshwa reinstated the Maratha authority over North India, 10 years after the battle of Panipat. In a bid to effectively manage the large empire, semi-autonomy was given to strongest of the knights which created a confederacy of Maratha states. They became known as Gaekwads of Baroda, the Holkars of Indore and Malwa, the Scindias of Gwalior and Ujjain, Bhonsales of Nagpur. In 1775, the British East India Company intervened in a succession struggle in Pune which became the First Anglo-Maratha War. Marathas remained the preeminent power in India until their defeat in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars (1805–1818) which left Britain in control of most of India.
A large portion of the empire was coastline which was secured by a potent navy under commanders such as Kanhoji Angre. He was very successful at keeping foreign naval ships, particularly of the Portuguese and British, at bay.[4] Securing the coastal areas and building land-based fortifications were crucial aspects of the Maratha’s defensive strategy and regional military history.
After the end of the Mughal empire, the Maratha and Sikh empires arose, but were finally defeated by the British. But once again it was not easy for the British. The British fought with the Maraths and Sikhs and fought long and hard wars with them and also lost some.
Wiki: First Anglo-Saxon Maratha war
The First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-1782) was the first of three Anglo-Maratha wars fought between the British East India Company and Maratha Empire in India. The war began with the Treaty of Surat and ended with the Treaty of Salbai.
Battle of Wadgaon
The East India Company’s force from Bombay consisted of about 3,900 men (about 600 Europeans, the rest Asian) accompanied by many thousands of servants and specialist workers. They were joined on the way by Raghunath’s forces, adding several thousand more soldiers, and more artillery. The Maratha army included forces contributed by all the partners in the federation, tens of thousands in all, commanded by the brilliant Tukojirao Holkar and General Mahadji Shinde (also known as Mahadji Sindia). Mahadji slowed down the British march and sent forces west to cut off its supply lines. When they found out about this, the British halted at Talegaon, a few hours’ brisk march from Pune, but days away for the thousands of support staff with their ox-drawn carts. Now the Maratha cavalry harassed the enemy from all sides. The Marathas also utilized a scorched earth policy, burning farmland and poisoning wells. The British began to withdraw from Talegaon in the middle of the night, but the Marathas attacked, forcing them to halt in the village of Wadgaon (now called Vadgaon Maval), where the British force was surrounded on 12 January 1779. By the end of the next day, the British were ready to discuss surrender terms, and on 16 January signed the Treaty of Wadgaon that forced the Bombay government to relinquish all territories acquired by the Bombay office of the East India Company since 1773.[1]
Wiki: Indian rebellion of 1857
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 began as a mutiny of sepoys of the British East India Company’s army on 10 May 1857, in the town of Meerut, and soon erupted into other mutinies and civilian rebellions largely in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, with the major hostilities confined to present-day Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, northern Madhya Pradesh, and the Delhi region.[3] The rebellion posed a considerable threat to Company power in that region,[4] and it was contained only with the fall of Gwalior on 20 June 1858.[3] The rebellion is also known as India’s First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, the Uprising of 1857, the Sepoy Rebellion, and the Sepoy Mutiny.
Other regions of Company controlled India—Bengal province, the Bombay Presidency, and the Madras Presidency—remained largely calm.[3] In Punjab, the Sikh princes backed the Company by providing both soldiers and support.[3] The large princely states, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, and Kashmir, as well as the smaller ones of Rajputana did not join the rebellion.[5] In some regions, such as Oudh, the rebellion took on the attributes of a patriotic revolt against European presence.[6] Rebel leaders, such as the Rani of Jhansi and Rani of Tulsipur of Tulsipur-State, became folk heroes in the nationalist movement in India half a century later,[3] however, they themselves “generated no coherent ideology” for a new order.[7] The rebellion led to the dissolution of the East India Company in 1858, and forced the British to reorganize the army, the financial system, and the administration in India.[8] India was thereafter directly governed by the Crown in the new British Raj.[5]
In conclusion: It should be established from the above that the notion Hindus did not fight or were weak is a myth. The Hindus fought tooth and nail from the very first invasions by the Muslims, despite the Hindus having numerically a weaker army. They not only fought, they defeated the Muslims in many wars. Even after losing territory, Hindus reorganized and fought back forming their own empires. The Hindus never stopped fighting even as late as 1857. However, the British had a more superior military with cannons, rifles and more powerful ships that the Hindus ultimately lost the war. Although the independence struggle carried on to 1947 and India finally won.
This goes to attest for how strong the Hindu warrior spirit is, which continues to live on in Hindus like me and Neitzsche. We may have ultimately lost the wars, but we never stopped fighting.
Now to answer the question why did Hindus not have a superior military? The answer to this question is because it had superior science, philosophy, economy and society. The main emphasis was on scientific, social and economic development and not war. As we can see Hindus did have a very strong army - but what could the Hindus do against a civilisation whose main culture is a culture of war and conquest, whose main area of development is weapons technology.
Even today a country has to make a choice on how much money they are going to spend on their military. The more spent on the military, the less spent on other areas. Today Japan is more scientifically, economically and technologically advanced than China, but its military pales to insignificance when compared to China’s. China could easily annex Japan and would have done it already if America was not protecting Japan. If such a thing happend, would you say it is Japans fault? Rather, it would be more accurate to say Japan emphasised its scientific and economic development, whereas China emphasised its military.
Imagine a planet in the universe which is highly scienticially and spiritually advanced - where everbody lives in peace and harmony and it has a reasonably developed military to defend itself - a peace planet. Now imagine a second planet which is highly technologically and military advanced where everybody is constantly at war with one another and all its resources are spent on its military - a war planet. What would happen if this war planet decided to invade this peace planet? The peace planet would fall under its occupation.
Then would you say it is the fault of the peace planet it fell under occupation of war planet? I would say absolutely not. It is the fault of the war planet. The peace planet is a more evolved planet. The war planet is under-evolved and still at the animal stage.
One has to make a choice in life which area of life they want to develop: the material or the spiritual. Those who choose the material sacrifice the spiritual but they becomes masters of the material. Those who choose the spiritual sacrifice the material but they become masters of the spiritual. Then there are those who balance the material and the spiritual and develop reasonable competence in both.
India is somewhere between one who has chosen the spiritual and the one who has chosen the balance the spiritual and material - and as a result it has developed the best philosophy, arts and spirituality with a reasonable military. On the other hand, the Muslims and the British have chosen the material almost exclusively and as a result they have developed the best technology and military, with a medicore to poor philosophy, arts and spirituality.
From an evolutionary perspective it is clear India is more evolved and civilised. Therefore it is no fault of India - it is the fault of the Muslims and Christians for being less evolved and less civil. If a racist man attacked me on the steet for being brown it would not be my fault, it would be their fault for being an underdeveloped savage.
As for our societal system, I, unlike SD, don’t believe that our societal systems were so amazing to such an extent that we Indians would be immune to things such as internal strife and other external factors.
There is no unlike. I believe exactly what you believe on this matter. India was not a perfect society. But it was the best society in the world by a long shot and the history indeed attests for it. In terms of science and economy India was the leading nation in that time. It had mass education and mass healthcare systems with hundreds of hospitals and universities.
India was not as divided prior to the Muslims, as it was afterwards. Largely there was political unity and many empires rose and fell in India. The Muslims radically weakened India by constant invasions. The Muslims were possessed by this spirit of fanatacism that they must destroy the Hindus, so they just kept regrouping and attacking India over and over again, until India finally gave. However, the spirit of patriotism you can see in Hindus is indomitable, because Hindus never stopped fighting, even after the Muslims conquered most of India.
This is totally unlike any other part of the world the Muslims conquered, which accepted their subjugation and converted to Islam and most of them are still Islamic today, such as Persia. Hindus were too proud of their own culture to convert to Islam - and most of India is still Hindu today.
Somehow, against all odds we were able to create entire Hindu empires like the Marathas, Vijaynagara and Sikhs and fight back and we almost completely defeated the Muslims in India, but then the British, Portugese, French and Dutch came. Now we were fighting not just the Muslims, but the British, Portugese, French and Dutch. This is the reason why India became so divided and why the Hindus could not consolidate all of India. The British took advantage of how divided India was then and pit everybody against each other, and when both sides were weakened, annexed them both. In addition the British had superior weapons technology and could deliver more firepower with fewer numbers.
Hindus in India must not allow the same thing to happen today. India is as divided today as it was when the British took advantage of it and again the West is trying to take advantage of its division and are trying to break it apart.
If 80% Hindus do not unite today and establish a Hindu country, then history will repeat itself.
Can 80% Hindus not deal with 20% Muslims and Christians?
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;60534]Interesting, India’s population future: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9121[/QUOTE]
This is most unfortunate. There are too many people in this world. And this world has a carrying capacity, which has been breached already. It occurs to me that the entire human race is raping the planet-earth. This has gone beyond cultural or religious horseshits now >.>
I do not look forward to see the outcome of this. Baby boomers are self-devising their own doom.
[QUOTE=High Wolf;60561]This is most unfortunate. There are too many people in this world. And this world has a carrying capacity, which has been breached already. It occurs to me that the entire human race is raping the planet-earth. This has gone beyond cultural or religious horseshits now >.>
I do not look forward to see the outcome of this. Baby boomers are self-devising their own doom.[/QUOTE]
Actually we?re all on the same planet so I?m not specifically pointing the figure at any one country, just happen to be in the news today, no doubt mother earth will eventually make a correction to the problem, As is.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;60534]Interesting, India?s population future: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9121[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is indeed a problem in India. However, with increasing urbanization and industrial development, birth rates will start decreasing.
dear friends:
It is precisely because of all such passionate feelings that the world needs to come together on a common platform, which is yoga.
This divine science has the potential dissolve all external differences so that every one can move forward towards the highest and the noblest human goals.
regards
anand
[QUOTE=Anand Kulkarni;60606]dear friends:
It is precisely because of all such passionate feelings that the world needs to come together on a common platform, which is yoga.
This divine science has the potential dissolve all external differences so that every one can move forward towards the highest and the noblest human goals.
regards
anand[/QUOTE]
Excellent.
I’ll start listening when you get around to the “how” part.
Do you plan to go up to Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fanatics and say “accept our divine science (without either getting laughed at, beaten up, or having a fatwa issued on you)?”
Or do you think that going around and saying “Yoga = Divine science” will convince Westerners their ways are not as superior as they once thought?
What do you plan to do when Westerners start claiming Yoga for themselves and start utilizing it as nothing more than a commercialized exercise program (oh wait, they already are)?
Whats the next step when Westerners continue to deride India as nothing but a shit hole and a toilet with the big turd stain called Hinduism (oh damn, I think that’s also happening)?
I simply cannot wait for an answer. How could I not love this idealism when it causes weak and divided Hindus to elect corrupt, anti-Hindu, Christian butt-kissing parties to our government?
How could I not love this exact kind of universalistic idealism that has resulted in Hindus being one of the most religiously and academically persecuted people in history?
Nevertheless, I trust in your wisdom blindly. To hell with all the missionary activity, Islamic fundamentalism, and foreign aggression! Let’s just move on with our lives while bigots continually destroy our culture!