Analysis: China vs India — Competition of Civilisations

[Raja.Pakistani]

most pakistanis don't know the fact that the rajputs were the sword arm of the mughal empire both generals and soldiers .A rajput soldier was cheap ,effective and a deadly warrior

Who would know it any better than Rajpout himself

 

[rcrmj]

^^^^ You are a kid with 0 grasp of democracy.

Live in your made - believe world.

one child policy is the epitome of China's democracy.

your knowledge of 'democracy' is very limited``the very basic philosophy behind it is to be responsible and accountable, which we can witness from India that these two areas are very lack at```look at millions of poor indians dying of poverty, hunger and mistreatment, when i traveled to india there were so many corps floting on the Ganga river``I had never seen anything like it, not even in north africa!!

by having muitipul parties have nothing to do with democracy, if you believe that then you are no more than a naive fool still live in 'cold war' style western propaganda`

 

[Hindustani]

Who would know it any better than Rajpout himself

Ram Ram Saab, I'm a Dogra Rajput

 

[roadrunner]

@Roadrunner




Did you at least try to google up "4th Buddhist council" before you said it took place in Gandhara?

It took place in two different places, one in Kashmir or Jalandhar, Punjab the other Sri Lanka not Gandhara.

This is true if you're Indian.

The reality is that the fourth buddhist council was convened in Gandhara. Gandhara was not ever part of India.

It's possible it was in Kashmir, it's also possible it was held in Peshawar, but it is not possible it was held in India. So what? This is irrelevant. Kanishka was the driving force behind it and he was a Gandharan from Gandhara, not an Indian.

So the founding of Mahayana Buddhism was nothing to do with anyone Indian (or Bharati more accurately).

Whether Buddhists from all over the world were invited makes no difference. They were observers. Kanishka was the driving for force of Mahayana Buddhism.

Nothing really? Do you know in the 4th council Kanishka gathered 500 monks headed partly by King Vasumitra from eastern India? This was from ALL OVER INDIA. From South to North East to West had a contribution..

Fourth Buddhist council - The Dhamma Encyclopedia


Here read up on the 4th council before you talk about it. And tell me where it says Mahayana Buddhism was created there. Its probably much older.


Also tell me where it says it split from Nikaya Buddhism.

What are you talking about?!



You are saying dumb things like how India has nothing to do with this sect of Buddhism, I just named one its EARLIEST founders from the tip of India. You understand?

Re-read what I wrote. If you can't understand it when I simply explained it, you'll not understand it when I repeat it.

Nanjandar is just a figment of pan-Indian pride. He lived a hundred years after Kaniska convened the 4th Council of Buddhism where Mahayan Buddhism formed. So he cannot be the founder of Mahayana Buddhism.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

This is true if you're Indian.

Oh, give me a break with the BS. Everything is a damn conspiracy isn't it? Yes, make up your own history. You just simply made up that part. It was in two places the first located in Sri Lanka and the other Kashmir or in Jalandhar, Punjab... You made things up like how it split from Nikaya Buddhism and other crap. Your making things up.

I mean you cant even spell "Nanjandar"(Nagarjuna), Mahayan(Mahayana), how can I take you seriously? Especially when you are making things up.

Fourth Buddhist council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2nd Fourth Buddhist Council (Sarvastivada tradition) is said to have been convened by the Kushan emperor Kanishka, perhaps in 78 CE at Jalandhar or in Kashmir. The Fourth Council of Kashmir is not recognized as authoritative in Theravada; reports of this council can be found in scriptures which were kept in the Mahayana tradition. The Mahayana tradition based some of its scriptures on (refutations of) the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma texts, which were systematized at this council.

More links

Fourth Buddhist council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline of Buddhist History: Major Events

Kanishka was the driving force behind it and he was a Gandharan from Gandhara, not an Indian.

Dude, yes he was a driving force behind the spread of it, Mahayana Buddhism was around when he was alive maybe before Christ. He was one of the people that supported the growth of this sect.

 

[GodlessBastard]

What's going in?

Are Pakistanis trying to claim Buddhism now?

I'm just waiting for them to claim Hinduism, and the cycle would be complete.

 

[roadrunner]

Oh, give me a break with the BS. Everything is a damn conspiracy isn't it?

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. You just cant read.

He's quite clearly Indian with the standard pan Indian Hindutva textbook knowledge.

Yes, make up your own history. You just simply made up that part. It was in two places the first located in Sri Lanka and the other Kashmir or in Jalandhar, Punjab... You made things up like how it split from Nikaya Buddhism and other crap. Your making things up.

Made up you say?

Here is a quote from Karl Schmidt's book "An Atlas of South Asian history", as one example (p.121)

'A later schism among Buddhists in South Asia led to the development of a well-defined lay Buddhism, called Mahayana. The most important royal patrons of Mahayana Buddhism were the Kushanas, especially Kanishka, who convened the Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir, at which the schism between Nikaya (or Hinayana), as it was subsequently called) Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism was offically recognized. Kanishka also built an enormous stupa at Peshawar, the base of which was nearly 90 meters (300 feet) in diameter.'

So would you be willing to admit it was convened in Kashmir and not Jalandur? (not that this is important since Kanishka who was not Indian convened the conference).

More importantly it proves that the Fourth Council of Buddhism is when Mahayana Buddhism did officially come into existence, well before Nanjandar was alive. So how could Nanjandar co-found a sect that had already been founded? He is just trumpeted by the pan-Indianists in their desperation to steal any history they can get their hands on.

If Iran had some Indus Valley Civilization sites, it cannot claim the Indus Valley Civilization as its own as if it was the main area where it existed. Similarly Nanjandar cannot claim to be a founder of Mahayana Buddhism when he did nothing for 100-150 years after the official scrolls of Mahayana Buddhism were written.

I mean you cant even spell "Nanjandar"(Nagarjuna), Mahayan(Mahayana), how can I take you seriously? Especially when you are making things up.

Fourth Buddhist council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've proved you to be making things up. Wiki is not a good link. It may say Jalander in there, but that's no surprise with a billion Indians patrolling it every day to ensure Jalandur is always present there.

Neutral sources all agree with my version.

More links

Fourth Buddhist council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline of Buddhist History: Major Events

Wiki link is irrelevant.

your other link again says Kanishka convened the council. Kanishka was a Kushan King, not an Indian.

In that link it does say Kashmir or Jalandur. Most neutral sites will say it was convened in Kashmir, but I'm not at all concerned where it was convened because it would be like the Helsinki Accords. The Helsinki Accords were signed in Finland, but the important people were the ones who were the driving force behind creating the meeting (the Soviet Union, America). In this case, the driving force for the fourth council was Emperor Kanishka who had nothing to do with Bharat.

So the conclusion would be that Mahayana Buddhism was founded by the Kushans under Kanishka and the Kushans are not a part of Indian or Bharati history. Those are the facts.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

The precise origins of Mahayana Buddhism are something of a mystery. The historical record shows it emerging as a separate school from Theravada during the 1st century BCE. However, it most likely had been developing gradually for a long time before that.

Some scholars have suggested that Mahayana is an offspring of Mahasanghika, a now-extinct Buddhist sect formed about 320 BCE. Mahasanghika developed the idea of the transcendent nature of a Buddha, the ideal of the bodhisattva, and the doctrine of shunyata, or "emptiness."

A Gradual Beginning

However the two schools originated, it's fair to say that both Theravada and Mahayana developed from the earliest schools of Buddhism. Historian Heinrich Dumoulin wrote that "Traces of Mahayana teachings appear already in the oldest Buddhist scriptures. Contemporary scholarship is inclined to view the transition of Mahayana as a gradual process hardly noticed by people at the time." [Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History, Vol. 1, India and China (Macmillan, 1994), p. 28]

Some time in the 1st century BCE, the name Mahayana, or "great vehicle," was established to distinguish this divergent school from Theravada. Theravada was derided as "Hinayana," or the "lesser vehicle." The names point to the distinction between Theravada's emphasis on individual enlightenment and the Mahayana ideal of the enlightenment of all beings. The name "Hinayana" is generally considered to be a pejorative.

Over the years, Mahayana subdivided into more schools with divergent practices and doctrines. These spread from India to China and Tibet, then to Korea and Japan. Today Mahayana is the dominant form of Buddhism in those countries.

How Mahayana Buddhism Began: Origins of Mahayana Buddhism

Look early forms of Mahayana Buddism was around in India before the Kushans from Central Asia even came to Ganadhra.

You lied the council was taken place in Ganahra. Know you say it doesn't matter.. Give me a break!

 

[Rig Vedic]

Words of wisdom from F-16_Falcon - http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/105901-faked-indian-history-16.html#post1711205

i am telling you pakistan's history has nothing to do with india. pakistani history began with muhammad bin qasim entering pakistan and establishing allah's rule here. so our history is close to arabs and turkish. our language , culture are very different than indians. we have nothing to do with idol worshiper indus valley or anything else which is against Allah and Islam.

 

[roadrunner]

Look early forms of Mahayana Buddism was around in India before the Kushans from Central Asia even came to Ganadhra.

LOL. That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying that the jet was invented by the Wright brothers because they were the first people to work out how to fly. The jet engine was invented by Von Ohan.

Everything is built on previous things. But to say that the Wright Brothers made a contribution to jet design/research is incorrect. They made a contribution to flying, just as the earlier Buddhists (many of whom were not Indian/Bharati) made a contribution to Buddhism, but Von Ohan and later inventors made contributions to the jet, as Kanishka and later Mahayan Gandharans made a contribution to Mahayan Buddhism. It all started during the reign of Kanishka through the efforts of the Kushan kingdom.

 

[TheStrantrunCurve]

What a and bull story is this? The core of the Mughal empire was from Delhi to Agra and apart from Lahore, there is no city of the Mughal dynasty in presentday Pakistan.

Infact, the Punjabis alongwith the Afghans regularly went to war against the Mughal empire which was allied with the Rajputs of Rajasthan. Again in the revolt of 1857 when the Mughal emperor was the face of the first war of indepedance against the British. It was the Punjabi and Pathan soldiers from presentday Pakistan that helped the British in finishing of the Mughal empire and crushing the rebellion.

I don't need to mention that Urdu language history is again basically centered around Delhi, Luckhnow and Hyderabad.

And of course I don't need to mention that there is a large leagacy of IndianMuslim culture and more importantly Indian culture on top of it. This is the idea of multiculturalism. The Taj Mahal may have been comissioned by a muslim ruler but all Indian regardless of being Hindu or Muslim are proud of it. And although the Brihadeeswarar Temple in Tamil Nadu was built by a Shivaite Hindu King, all Indians regardless of being Hindu or Muslim can recognize and appreciate its beauty too.

You need to come out of this inferiority complex and realize that the best that can be done is to share the historical legacy with India because after all India is the closest country that Pakistan shares its culture and history with and this stands true even today.

Not sure what you mean by “core” Mughal empire started from Kabul in 1504 if i am right. At that time Kabul was the major city of Mughal then became Lahore in 1524.

Lahore, Delhi and Agra were the major cities of Mughal empire.

Babur occupied Indus valley before he occupied Hindustan.
Akbar was born to Sindhi mother in umarkot, Pakistan

If you people so much love your mughal emperor why don’t you name your missiles after Aurangzeb, why you destroy mosques by Babur.

No need to prove any mughal linkages with Pakistan

The origin of urdu language is older than arrival of mughals.
Urdu is not indigenous to bharat. Urdu originated during Ghaznavid Empire in its second capital Lahore. The earliest literary remains of urdu are the poems of Massod Saad of Lahore of around 10th century.

Muslim captured Delhi 2 centuries later when in 12 th century when urdu was brought to Delhi by muslim invaders.

The developmment of urdu in Bharat was helped by the conquest of the area. It is not a bharti language, you people are welcome to speak it but its a pakistani language and it originated here, It wasn't brought here by invaders like bharat

Urdu has always been a language of Lahore, just because muslim empires made Delhi their capital doesn’t mean you can also claim Pakistani Language.

If you want to prove Urdu is a Bharti language and originated in Delhi, UP or Tamil Nadu then i Suggest you go and do some research on Massod Saad of Lahore. For 2 centuries Urdu developed in eastern Part of Ghaznavid empire in what is now Pakistan.

You need to come out of this inferiority complex and realize that the best that can be done is to share the historical legacy with India because after all India is the closest country that Pakistan shares its culture and history with and this stands true even today.

“Inferiority complex” only applies to bhartis since they dont have anything of their own (refer to my previous post again) and come up to us daily claiming ethnic resemblance, shared culture and all kind of nonsense one can hear only to be ridiculed and humiliated.

Even on PDF the bharti inferiority complex is evident as these sad bharti who constitude the vast majority of members on this site are desperate to gain approval from Pakistanis.

We share historical legacy with Bharat no doubt but for what 100year, 200 year or max 300 year. We share thousands and thousands years of historical legacy with central Asians much to the chagrin of sad Indian who don’t want to hear the truth that Pakistani culture is heavily influenced by Persians and central asian turk.


The people of the Indus are linked with regions to their west, central asia and the Iranian plateau, with whom we have been having longstanding communications and trade;

I don’t need to give more explanation of Pakistan historical relation with central asia but if you are interested in pak history refer to Dr Ahmed Dani books

You can either accept the fact Pakistan is an independent powerful country whose history has shown no one has been able to rule its land for long or you can drown in your deep hatred you have for Pakistan

 

[fallstuff]

Siddartha was born in Nepal, lets leave it there.

 

[sedert]

china is very developed than india

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Siddartha was born in Nepal, lets leave it there.

Siddartha was born Nepal, right in the border of India. Buddha was born in eastern India. BTW, Siddarthas fathers kingdom was Kapilavastu in both Nepal and India and Piprahwa is archaeological site in India (15 km south of Lumbini) as the historic Kapilavastu.

LOL. That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying that the jet was invented by the Wright brothers because they were the first people to work out how to fly. The jet engine was invented by Von Ohan.

Everything is built on previous things. But to say that the Wright Brothers made a contribution to jet design/research is incorrect. They made a contribution to flying, just as the earlier Buddhists (many of whom were not Indian/Bharati) made a contribution to Buddhism, but Von Ohan and later inventors made contributions to the jet, as Kanishka and later Mahayan Gandharans made a contribution to Mahayan Buddhism. It all started during the reign of Kanishka through the efforts of the Kushan kingdom.

Wrong, Kushans complied many of the already existing pratices of Mahayana Buddhism in the 4th council. They contributed, but did not found the philosophy behind it. And is not labeled as the beginning of the Mahayana sect. Its foundations was laid a long time ago. Mahayana even the name is older then the Kushans themselves.

You can know start calling everthing I posted as "pan Indian Hindutva textbook knowledge".

Post #173 is enough.

 

[EjazR]

@TheStrantrunCurve

Babur captured Kabul and then Delhi from Ibrahim Lodi. But soon after under Humayun they were kicked out by Sher Shah Suri. Akbar was born in exile under the protection of Rajput in a Rajput fort in Sindh. Sindh and the south of the Indus valley was mainly under Rajput control. He grew up in present day Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat under Rajput protection.
It was only when he grew up and with Rajput and more importantly Persian military help retake Delhi from the Suri dynasty - which was basically a Bihari Pathan dynasty did the Mughal empire take shape.

Akbar then went and rolled back the Suris from Punjab in the west and east and consolidated his rule over Kabul. But all Mughal capitals have been in present day India - Delhi, Agra, Fatehpur Sikri with the exception of Lahore which was the capital for a few years. That is why any historian worth his salt would not dispute that the core of the Mughal State was in present day North India with the Rajputs as powerful allies.

And what do you make of Punjabi armies and Afghans revolting against the Mughals every few years. Even in the Khalsa revolts their army had Punjabi Muslim soldiers. Sure the army was majority non-muslim, but Punjab as a region was non-Muslim majority all the way upto 1900s (1902 Census indicate Muslims where 49.1%). 400 years before the percentage would be much less. Infact, it was King Hemu who led the Afghans against Akbar right in in the initial stages of consolidation. And I also see the you conveniently left mentioning how the Punjabi and Pathan soldiers on the British Army did not mutiny unlike other armies which eventually led to the end of the Mughal empire.

And I don't know what kind of brainwashing you've been through but naming missiles after Kings is not the only way to show appreciation. The Red for in Delhi is where PM addresses the nation on 15th August and the Army salutes the head of state on Republic day. And it stands as a symbol of Mughal history and the symbolic location where Bahadur Shah Zafar lead the First War of Independence against the British.

In any case, these people were just powerful people out to increase their share of power and increase their empire. If you want to read up on Muslim personalities and those who really represented Islam then read up on Nizamuddin Auliya, Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti, Farudduddin Ganjshakar or Khwaja Bande Nawaz Diraz e.t.c. who are revered and honored by everyone.


Regarding Urdu, Amir Khusrau is usually noted as the pioneering writer of what he then called Hindvi. He was born in Badun, Etah in presentday UP and spent most of his life there.

A good test like I mentioned is to talk in Urdu to Central Asians, Turks or Persians and talk to Indians. And tell me who understands you more easily.

I don't hate any country but the way you come across, you seem to not acknowledge that Pakistan shares more in common with India than any of its neighbor. That is your problem not mine because I don't have any problem acknowledging the shared history.