India: Ancient Superpower

reply to post by audas


Well, I am glad you dropped your China claims. You had no choice really, but a concession would have been nice

Anyway you are wrong again, the Indus valley civilisation did not proceed from Sumeria. If you actually bother to do some research for claims you make you would stop making a fool of yourself. The Indus valley civilisation is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. It can be traced back to the neolithic age called the Mehgarh phase:

Mehrgarh is now seen as a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization. "Discoveries at Mehrgarh changed the entire concept of the Indus civilization," according to Ahmad Hasan Dani, professor emeritus of archaeology at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, "There we have the whole sequence, right from the beginning of settled village life."[4] According to Catherine Jarrige of the Centre for Archaeological Research Indus Balochistan, Musée Guimet, Paris

…the Kachi plain and in the Bolan basin (are) situated at the Bolan peak pass, one of the main routes connecting southern Afghanistan, eastern Iran, the Balochistan hills and the Indus valley. This area of rolling hills is thus located on the western edge of the Indus valley, where, around 2500 BCE, a large urban civilization emerged at the same time as those of Mesopotamia and the ancient Egyptian empire. For the first time in the Indian subcontinent, a continuous sequence of dwelling-sites has been established from 7000 BCE to 500 BCE, (as a result of the) explorations in Pirak from 1968 to 1974; in Mehrgarh from 1975 to 1985; and of Nausharo from 1985 to 1996.[5]

The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with contemporaneous cultures in northern Afghanistan, northeastern Iran and southern central Asia.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

In other words Indian civilisation can be traced 10,000 years back. This makes it the older than Sumer. It is possible that Sumer proceeded from the Indians though.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with Australian aboringal civilisation 50,000 years ago. They had no civilisation. They were a primitive and tribal people inhabiting jungles and forests and living hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Maybe its just me, but as a archaelogist in a former working life I studied humanity, I didn't really separate our overall contributions to justify nationalist pride. There are different cultural contributions certainly, but does it really matter to our overall collective, what developed where and when?

There has been so much movement and inter developements that we should just be pleased with our ancestoral developments no matter where they were.

Nationalism is just a made up concept.

Namaste


[edit on 29-12-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by zazzafrazz


It does matter Zazzafrazz in history. History is about the accurate representation of our past, and it does matter who did what and when and how.

And come on, let's be honest, history as it taught in modern education is incredibly nationalistic. It is all based on what the West did and defines civilisation as what the West did. It's either the Greeks, Sumeria or Egypt you will hear about. They did everything apparently. They deliberately distort the history of India to maintain their Western pride.

What this thread has done is debunked that and showed the truth. I don't see how I am being nationalistic by showing the truth. I am not even Indian. I said earlier, I go where the evidence takes me. If the evidence showed me South America was the ancient superpower I would be arguing for South America.

I think Western people need to get over themselves and realise that they were not always at the top of civilisation. We have only got to the top in the last few hundred years and that too by genocide, theft and exploitation.
History needs to be taught as it really happened without any sense of nationalism or distortion.

It is crucial that we get taught real world history.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Well it matters only when considering ones reasons for the research. The motive? Is it purely a non biased approach to a cultures development or is there something else that wants to be linked/proven. These are simple questions I ask myself when reading someones research.
Now I was replying in general to the bickering thats going back and forth. Its like your thread is cursed! lol!

To be honest I don't care who was first.
There isn't enough evidence to suggest it wasn't the Sumerians, however I am not adverse to India seeding civilisation.

You are also correct that history is tainted with a nationalistic slant.
One I don't care for.

I'm happy for any of them to have developed at a certain pace culturally, and would rather we focused on devlopments than proving who is first or better.

if one can provide Archaeological record that unequivocally illustrates them as coming first I will embrace it with much fervour, but as it stands, whilst your presentation is interesting, it isnt compelling enough for me yet, hey thats just me. I rely always on evidence, but keep digging, you may come up with something.

Please dont forget the Indigenous Australians though, there culture was pretty much established 60 000BP, I strongly advocate we do not mistake technological developments for cultural developments.
I see our indigenous brethren as very advanced with the land, they belong to it, not the land to them, and they achieved perfect harmony as hunter gatherers.
Their dreamtime also has some strong correlations with popular modern day metaphysics

The motive behind promoting a history is all I ask is thought about, if the motive is to promote truth from factual research then Im interested.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by zazzafrazz]

The motive behind promoting a history is all I ask is thought about, if the motive is to promote truth from factual research then Im interested.

Yep, I have no other motive than to present factual research. There is no nationalism in this thread. I have had this conversation before, I know how tired it sounds when we say India did this, India did that, India seeded the Egyptians, Indians civilised the Chinese, Indians taught the Greeks - everything is from India - but that is the truth. India really was the superpower of the ancient world and it attained an incredibly advanded civilisation in the ancient world.

As for who came first Sumeria or India? The evidence shows with great clarity that Indian civilisation is the oldest by 7000BCE. Sumeria civilisation appears in 6000BCE. This does not mean Indians seeded the Sumerians, it is entirely possible both Indian and Sumerian civilisation developed concurrently. They are different enough to draw that conclusion.

But the point of this thread was not to show who seeded civilisation. It was to show who was the most advanced economic, technological and scientific civilisation of the ancient world. That is unequivocally India if you have been following the evidence in this thread. I mean come on in 3000BCE it had a highly urban modern-like civilisation. Such a civilisation is not seen again until modern times. That is proof of not just ancient India being the topdog of ancient times, but proof of an advanced civilisation. It sheds a lot of light on what the world was like in 3000BCE. It is nothing like it is taught in our schools.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Project2501
And as for Islam being so young, Well why is the Qur'an so perfect? The word repetitions in the Qur'an are a "mathematical miracle" that is not shared by the hindus I believe? As well for the "scientific miracles" of the Qur'an, I don't believe the hindus share this ability as well in their scriptures?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Those claims are based on certain interpretations. I do not take such claims seriously.

I do, They prove the exoteric & esoteric superiority of the Qur'an.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I think one would have to be insecure to appeal to science to prove their religion. The following Rig Veda hymn is often compared to the big bang:

This is the famous nāsadīya sūkta the 129th suukta of the 10th mandala of the Rigveda.

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
--->post by Indigo_Child

 

for finished quote length here.

When you say you think one would have to be insecure to appeal to science to prove their religion? And then you appeal to your religions science by quoting tha Rig Veda. Isn't that doublespeak on your part? I believe it is.

As well Religion & Science have a bridge that allows progress for humanity. For those who aren't afraid to see they are one and the same? Even if the Rig Vedas big bang was rewrote?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
As soon as you start introducing unknown factors in you bring in either chance or karma.

Ok let's properly define karma in english.

"Karma" #3 means fate; destiny. this is one of the truest definitions of karma. And completely takes out that mystical spin of the word karma that appears to have to be explained. Ok so Destiny it is. And for fair fun here is "Karma's" Thesaurus as well. Which shows us destiny has a definition of fate as well. Ok so karma decrypted equals "fate." fate means to to predetermine. So now we see Karma's true face & that is "Predestination" according to your description.

Karma/No Freewill/Predestination incredibly Sounds boring as all to me, As I prefer "Occasionalism" myself. As Occasionalism allows my free will indulgence!

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Intellectual knowledge gives you the map, teaches you how to build the ship and how to use the compass to make your journey. If you make your journey with a partial map, a poorly built ship and without a compass you will get stranded out at sea.

You really only possess what you can't lose in a shipwreck. And the compass denotes conformity of constant direction, I prefer to just travel as I am without conformity. And if I need direction All I have to do is simply look up to the Stars to guide me! Once again all intellectual knowledge is in fact a very well camouflaged ignorance.

Well,,they are water consevers,,,wiff wiff...

and burn incense and stink up the hallways in apartments.


No,,they are NO up-coming super power.


next please...



ROCK RULES !!!

[quot]When you say you think one would have to be insecure to appeal to science to prove their religion? And then you appeal to your religions science by quoting tha Rig Veda. Isn't that doublespeak on your part? I believe it is.

Umm no. Read again. I was saying I do not accept the big bang interpretation. The Rig Veda is describing something esoteric not exoteric.

If you are going to appeal to science to prove the Quran is perfect, then you might as throw the Quran away and pick up a college textbook on physics. The Quran will tell you "The earth is shaped like an egg" the textbook wil give you hairsplitting analysis of the Earth. If the Quran tell you "planets go around in circular orbits" the textbook will give exact calculations of the orbits of each planet etc. It is more perfect in matters of science. I do not see any need to appeal to science in spiritual texts. If its science you want, then read a science book.

As well Religion & Science have a bridge that allows progress for humanity. For those who aren't afraid to see they are one and the same? Even if the Rig Vedas big bang was rewrote?

Religion deals with the esoteric and science deals with the exoteric. Religion is about progress in spirit; science is about progress in matter.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
As soon as you start introducing unknown factors in you bring in either chance or karma.

Karma/No Freewill/Predestination incredibly Sounds boring as all to me, As I prefer "Occasionalism" myself. As Occasionalism allows my free will indulgence!

We are talking about Hinduism here, so you should look at Karma means in the Hindu context. There are two major kinds of karma in Hinduism: Past Karma and present karma. Past karma affects who we are today, current karma affects who we are tomorrow. It is soft determinism not hard determinism. You still have the free will to earn good karma in this life. As I said a Hindu is suppose to earn a better life by doing good karma in this life. The kind of life we have in this life is based on what we did in the past. The kind of life we have in the next life will be based on what we do in the present.

You really only possess what you can't lose in a shipwreck. And the compass denotes conformity of constant direction, I prefer to just travel as I am without conformity. And if I need direction All I have to do is simply look up to the Stars to guide me! Once again all intellectual knowledge is in fact a very well camouflaged ignorance.

If you don't know where you are going, and if your ship is not strong enough to survive out at sea then you are going to get lost. If you begin your journey with a set of false beliefs it would be like setting sail with a false map. Intellect is what gives us the map, compass and the ship. An arrogant sailor who leaves without a map and a compass will certainly be doomed.

reply to post by Project2501



Project, nobody's denying the fact that the quran has a lot of information as well as good verses in it that are usefull. As I said the quran being the latest doctrine its available in its entirety i.e as you put it 'the least corrupted' when compared to the other texts. The older the doctrine, the more distorted they are.
The point is the muslims have done a miserable job of interpreting and spreading Islam. Most of the people were forced into conversion or were raped and tortured till they accepted it. Many consider it to be putting people into slavery and preaching hate. If you need proof of this just look at the middle east and most of the muslim world. Its miserable. More people are involved in following the lifestyle of muhammed rather than prayers. Else why do you think that so many in the west as well as east dont take to it? No tolerance, thats why. Just as much tolerance as you have shown here to villify every other doctrine even though it contains vast knowledge...

Originally posted by GaryGlitterRules
Well,,they are water consevers,,,wiff wiff...

and burn incense and stink up the hallways in apartments.


No,,they are NO up-coming super power.


next please...



ROCK RULES !!!

Nice comments.... did you know that Gary Glitter is a convicted child-pornographer/sex offender/pedophile?

Sorry OP... I detest racism and stereotypes.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Quran will tell you "The earth is shaped like an egg"

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.238

You appear most unread in the Qur'an. We can see that you are mistaken overly again, As the real super power is emerging here?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If you are going to appeal to science to prove the Quran is perfect, then you might as throw the Quran away and pick up a college textbook on physics. The Quran will tell you "The earth is shaped like an egg" the textbook wil give you hairsplitting analysis of the Earth. If the Quran tell you "planets go around in circular orbits" the textbook will give exact calculations of the orbits of each planet etc. It is more perfect in matters of science. I do not see any need to appeal to science in spiritual texts. If its science you want, then read a science book.

Here is a allegory that may help you with your hate of religion & science connecting. The "Left" hand is spirituality these people see the world we live in today as a painful torment. And attempt to design for us only spiritual things which don't fully connect into our lives. While the "Right" hand is "secular" these people see the world we live in today as a calculating machine only, Materialist. Now there is a middle path called Religion & Science that allows both the Right & Left hands to shake in agreement, This is called bliss! Anyone who tells you their religion is without science, Run away from their Bedrock city quickly... And definitely do not drink their cactus juice.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Religion deals with the esoteric and science deals with the exoteric. Religion is about progress in spirit; science is about progress in matter.

Those who understand Religion & Science are one & the same are truly on the straight path.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
We are talking about Hinduism here, so you should look at Karma means in the Hindu context.

Karma without the mystical encryption is "Predestination."

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If you don't know where you are going, and if your ship is not strong enough to survive out at sea then you are going to get lost. If you begin your journey with a set of false beliefs it would be like setting sail with a false map. Intellect is what gives us the map, compass and the ship. An arrogant sailor who leaves without a map and a compass will certainly be doomed.

You're just one of "those guys" who over complicate the journey with a need for all of those unneeded things. Trying to speak in a allegorical language which is not yours to own! By your over complication of the journey you are making people question their journey watching from the shore afraid of the shipwreck, & of losing it all. Because your system lacks the ability of how to teach them how to take it all with them.

Originally posted by CuteAngel
The point is the muslims have done a miserable job of interpreting and spreading Islam. Most of the people were forced into conversion or were raped and tortured till they accepted it.

If anyone walks with an oppressor to strengthen, knowing that he is an oppressor, he has gone forth from Islam. As oppression will produce excessive darkness on the Day of Resurrection.

Counter "Westerncentric" is good intention, but some remarks and claims in relation to China, as far as im concerned are not well supported.

So far one major Indian influence on China mentioned is the introduction of Buddhism, and somehow the Shaolin boxing makes the list as well.

Maybe the proponents of claims like "India civilized China" tend to regard such examples as the obvious strong arguments. But to me it is as a strong argument for India as it is a strong argument against India.

The problem is even before the introduction of Buddhism into China, which formally took place during the Eastern Han dynasty in 68 AD, the western Han had already officially utilized Confucianism to develop its imperial examination system, the Qin dynasty before it had already constructed huge imperial projects such as the Terracotta Army that we see today. Then wouldnt it be necessary to establish that everything before Eastern Han dynasty in China were not "civilized", that indigenous schools like Confucianism and Daoism, etc were not evidence of "civilized"? If this can not be addressed soundedly, then to claim that "India civilized China" simply because China embraced Buddhism is nothing but on par with the claim that various indigenous American peoples "were civilized by the West" since they have embraced Christianity, and they were not "civilized" before that. That is before trying to explore why it took a few hundred Years for Buddhism to become widely accepted religion in China after its formal introduction during the Eastern Han period.

Isnt that sound more like the "westerncentric" thing which you are here to counter? But one would be wondering why the same doctrine is discouraged on one subject then encouraged on another?

As for the claim Shaolin boxing is due to the influence of Indian martial arts. For one thing, Shaolin martial arts is not of single origin. It absorbed various branches of martial arts of overwhelmingly indigenous origins, which were contributed by hermits who had resided in the Shaolin Temple at different time period. And Chinese martial arts as a whole was developed prior to residence of any Indian monks in China, some think martial arts was first developed in the army during the Shang and Zhou period, much like how Thai boxing developed. Others think it took place further back during the neolithic period, whatever the case, as far as Chinese martial arts is concerned, India did not play the role of "civilizer" there either.

Adjustment to the arguments would be advised, for overenthusiasm may develop bigotry, then the effort could become counterproductive despite the intention.

To me citing the introduction of Buddhism to China as an example to claim India civilized China is just like Indian media claim "Chinese evolved from Indian", screams not of truth but nationalism.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by sunsky]

Originally posted by Project2501

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Quran will tell you "The earth is shaped like an egg"

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.238

No comment

Here is a allegory that may help you with your hate of religion & science connecting. The "Left" hand is spirituality these people see the world we live in today as a painful torment. And attempt to design for us only spiritual things which don't fully connect into our lives. While the "Right" hand is "secular" these people see the world we live in today as a calculating machine only, Materialist. Now there is a middle path called Religion & Science that allows both the Right & Left hands to shake in agreement, This is called bliss! Anyone who tells you their religion is without science, Run away from their Bedrock city quickly... And definitely do not drink their cactus juice.

I don't hate science and religion connecting. Religion is an inner science and science as we understand it is an outer science. In any case there is no science in the Quran. I have read 10 different translations of it. You can continue to believe in the wishful interpretations and the number crunching tricks, but they are only convincing to Muslims not to non-muslims.

Karma without the mystical encryption is "Predestination."

Hindus do not believe in predestination. I told you what we believe. Do you need a citation:

Hindu scriptures divide karma into three kinds [25] :

Sanchita is the accumulated karma. It would be impossible to experience and endure all Karmas in one life. From this stock of sanchita karma, a handful is taken out to serve one lifetime and this handful of actions, which has begun to bear fruit and which will be exhausted only on their fruit being experienced. Hence, it is the sum of one's past karmas – all actions (good and bad) that follow through from one's past life to the next.

Prarabdha Fruit-bearing karma is the portion of accumulated karma that has "ripened" and appears as a particular problem in the present life.

Kriyamana is everything that we produce in current life. All kriyamana karmas flow in to sanchita karma and consequently shape our future.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is a more logical and scientific belief than your own that belief you only come here once.

You're just one of "those guys" who over complicate the journey with a need for all of those unneeded things. Trying to speak in a allegorical language which is not yours to own! By your over complication of the journey you are making people question their journey watching from the shore afraid of the shipwreck, & of losing it all. Because your system lacks the ability of how to teach them how to take it all with them.

So you can go on a sea-voyage without a boat, a map and compass? Then I think you would be a foolish sailor. The spiritual journey is a long and difficult one, if you do not have proper guidance, proper understanding of your journey and a healthy mind and body you will most certainly fall.

This is what Hindusim has that Islam does not. Thanks to the wise sages of our religion who have taken the journey and got to the destination, they have created maps for us seekers to make the same journey. We have techniques we can use like Yoga and meditation to make the journey which have predictable and reliable results and produce real physical, mental and spiritual benefits. All you have is some flimsy faith, a prayer rituals and a set of uncritical beliefs which you will not question because you are not allowed to question your scripture. Hindus, on the other hand, can question scripture as much as they like and a learned Hindu never accepts anything just on the basis of belief. All of our key principles are based on very elaborate metaphysical systems of thought which can stand up to logic. Your beliefs do not stand up to logic.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

To me citing the introduction of Buddhism to China as an example to claim India civilized China is just like Indian media claim "Chinese evolved from Indian", screams not of truth but nationalism.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by sunsky]

Sorry sunsky. Somewhere along the way this discussion bifurcated into an India vs China and India vs Islam discussion. It then became necessary to make the comparisons. China was by no means "uncivilised" before Buddhism came to India. India did have a dominant influence on China though because more Indina influence can be found on China than Chinese influence on India. In any case India and China in the past were very closely related and there was a lot of intercourse between them, and that is hardly surprising considering they are neighbours. I have always maintained China too was a prosperous civilisation. The silly contests on who the best was, was initiated by Audes. I only responded to refute his claims on Chinese superiority over Indians.

I would appreciate having a discussion on the actual evidences I have presented so far on the Aryan invasion theory, the dating of the Buddha and the Indian colonization of many parts of the world. So far it seems a few are only interested in contests on who is the best lol

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
This is what Hindusim has that Islam does not. Thanks to the wise sages of our religion who have taken the journey and got to the destination, they have created maps for us seekers to make the same journey. We have techniques we can use like Yoga and meditation to make the journey which have predictable and reliable results and produce real physical, mental and spiritual benefits. All you have is some flimsy faith, a prayer rituals and a set of uncritical beliefs which you will not question because you are not allowed to question your scripture. Hindus, on the other hand, can question scripture as much as they like and a learned Hindu never accepts anything just on the basis of belief. All of our key principles are based on very elaborate metaphysical systems of thought which can stand up to logic. Your beliefs do not stand up to logic.

For the record Muslims accept The Torah - The Gospel of the Buddha - The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - The Zend Avesta of Zarathushtra - The Bhagavat Gita - The Dhamapada - The Upanishads - The Tao te Ching - Chuang-Tzu and other positive volumes of the "People of the Book"

And many non-muslims ask how is this possible? well allow me to enlighten you!

The Noble Qur'an Sura 16: The Bee Verse: 36
And indeed, within every community have We raised up an apostle [entrusted with this message]: "Worship God, and shun the powers of evil!" And among those [past generations] were people whom God graced with His guidance, just as there was among them [many a one] who inevitably fell prey to grievous error: go, then, about the earth and behold what happened in the end to those who gave the lie to the truth!

The Noble Qur'an Sura 16: The Bee Verse: 93
For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!

As we can see over time things have changed to make people think ill things of each & every established culture? This proof has been been proven in The Noble Qur'an Sura 16: The Bee Verse: 36 for you. So people are in effect allowed freewill

Sufi gives more importance to this subject than a Yogi, for the way of the Yogis is asceticism, the way of the Sufi is the development of humanity in nature. But according to the prophetic point of view, the only way of pleasing God is I, which is greater than so-called goodness . A good person, proud of his goodness, turns his pearls into pebbles.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
All you have is some flimsy faith, a prayer rituals and a set of uncritical beliefs which you will not question because you are not allowed to question your scripture.

1st Prayer, Dawn/Fajr is the Earth Element, And represents our dawning into the world.
2nd Prayer, Noon/Zuhr is the Fire Element, And represents our growth from our dawning into the world.
3rd Prayer, Afternoon/Asr is the Water Element, And represents our maturation from growth of the world.
4th Prayer, Evening/Maghib is the Air Element, And represents our decline in the world
5th Prayer, Night/Isha is the Etheric Element, And represents our death in the world

How is this prayer flimsy with your chauvinistic view of Islam when compared to your questions? Surely you lack in a Islamic Metaphysical education.

The word "Nirvana" means "no colour" .
The colours change into the one pure white light , the Light of God. This is a true taste of Aum.

"The Gospel of the Buddha" Here is a wonderful text as well

(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah

"The Buddha dispels the illusions of our mind and redeems us from the terror of death."

reply to post by Project2501


Project I think we are going way off-topic now. Your esoteric views on Islam are certainly not representative of the vast majority of Muslims, they are based on very particular interpretations. Some of which I personally think are farfetched.

For the record I have great respect for Sufism. Have you seen the song Khwaja from the film Jodha Akbar?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

The Indian Air Force has 3382 aircrafts which includes 1335 combat aircrafts operating from 334+ bases and its sole aircraft carrier INS Viraat.
has French built Dassault Mirage 2000s and Russian Su-30 MKI as the best aircrafts in its combat fleet (no indigenous fighters or aircrafts have been deployed by India so far).
Indian Navy is the world’s eighth largest navy with a with a fleet of 145 vessels consisting of missile-capable warships, advanced submarines, the latest naval aircrafts and an aircraft carrier in its inventory
India’s nuclear delivery system consists of bombers, supersonic cruise missiles and medium range ballistic missiles. Agni 2, India’s longest range deployed ballistic missile is capable of a range of 2500 km, carrying a single nuclear warhead of ~1000 kg.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

To me citing the introduction of Buddhism to China as an example to claim India civilized China is just like Indian media claim "Chinese evolved from Indian", screams not of truth but nationalism.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by sunsky]

Sorry sunsky. Somewhere along the way this discussion bifurcated into an India vs China and India vs Islam discussion. It then became necessary to make the comparisons. China was by no means "uncivilised" before Buddhism came to India. India did have a dominant influence on China though because more Indina influence can be found on China than Chinese influence on India. In any case India and China in the past were very closely related and there was a lot of intercourse between them, and that is hardly surprising considering they are neighbours. I have always maintained China too was a prosperous civilisation. The silly contests on who the best was, was initiated by Audes. I only responded to refute his claims on Chinese superiority over Indians.

I would appreciate having a discussion on the actual evidences I have presented so far on the Aryan invasion theory, the dating of the Buddha and the Indian colonization of many parts of the world. So far it seems a few are only interested in contests on who is the best lol

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

This certainly left me pondering what the title "India: ancient superpower" means .

And with respect i do believe in some cases the "India vs China" scenario is rather relevant and worthy of note in regard to the topic theme.

The argued superpower status and the dominant Indian influence on China i.e Buddhism which you referred to for instance, the question is isnt the spread of Buddhism to Korean peninsula and the Japanese islands etc were due to the Chinese rather than the Indian influence over these regions, despite the religon itself is of Indian origin? But Buddhism was not the only thing that were transferred to these places as result of ancient Chinese influence.

Hence, if one is going to count the embrace of buddhism by the Chinese as an evidence to argue the superpower status of ancient India (which by the way is the title of this thread, correct me if i misunderstand the title),
,without taking any consideration of the detailed reasons and background of such cultural transfer, but nevertheless attribute India dominant status by default simply because its the originator of this particular religion and simply because India did not get something in return from nations embraced buddhism. Then the question again is why arent Korea and Japan etc included in such argument? Afterall Buddhism influenced them as well and afterall it is Indian invention.

So its not simply a "China vs India" matter as one would put it that way, though the previous replies by certain forumers were more or less about that, but im here neither about that nor interested in such. (like going with a huge list of things for a contest)

Still, to me its how one interpret history and facts that boggles my mind.

As far as im concerned, the reality is the spread of buddhism to other East Asian cultures was because of Chinese rather than Indian influence, the reality is the spread of buddhism in China had more to do with internal Chinese process rather than external Indian influence (which is exactly why despite Eastern Han dynasty's formal introduction of it in 68 AD, it took more than 300 years for it to become widely accepted, if one thinks buddhism was so dominant that it was embraced wholeheartedly by the Chinese since day one then one can not be more ignorant about the actual history of its transferring), let alone any proof of the "superpower" status of ancient India.

I do hope you take my replies as for rather than against India. If you know what i mean.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by sunsky]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Project I think we are going way off-topic now. Your esoteric views on Islam are certainly not representative of the vast majority of Muslims

Actually, I can attest that they are.

Generally speaking, what I see from Project is a well educated guy/gal whose explaining Islam in a good way. Obviously there would be a monumental difference between the way he/she explains it, rather than the majority of religious clerics who have no real education and are simply speaking on behalf of government for political purposes more than anything, and therein lies the biggest problem; influence (ie; the people whose voices are loudest).

This is certainly not localized to Islam. I have noted that you explain Hinduism and India's history far better than most others I've encountered, Indigo. The same consideration should apply to yourself.

We could just as easily claim that the majority who represent what you speak of here are completely misrepresenting the issue, and proof of this is you probably wouldn't have started this thread were it not for a great deal of misunderstandings. Misunderstandings that you are hoping to clarify here, and I for one (as a Muslim) love to hear what others have to say, even if its contrary to my views.

And if I'm going to listen, it has to be from a well educated individual, representing the topic in the best light. We can't be selectively negative, otherwise thats just plain bias.

For the record, and as I said before, I have known many Indian people, of various religious backgrounds, and at times when I've opened a dialogue about India's history... say; I'd ask them what they know about Vimanas, or the nuke trails, or the advanced technology (and all that interesting stuff, you get the picture), amazingly, they claim to know nothing about it, or they just outright dismiss these claims even if they do know about it. Some of them have even looked me in the eye like I'm crazy.

So you see, there are endless levels here, and just because the majority I've encountered do not back up your claims, does not negate and take away anything from what you are saying.

Peace