Chinese paper accuses Indian media of engaging in war rhetoric

gpit · Sep 23, 2009

oceanx said:
Look Pit. Most of what you are saying apply to India just as much, if not more. Historical China was to an extent a "Hindu" country with the "export version" of Hinduism carrying the day. I am surely no Buddhist, but a Christian instead. However, the very Chinese identity is tied into "cultural Buddhism", with its positives and negatives.

I assume that you are talking to me. Otherwise please allow me to take the liberty of answering you.

No, China has never been a Hindu caste system. Otherwise how could Liu Bang, once a jobless outcaste, have become the emperor of one of the strongest Chinese Dynasty. If Liu Bang were the untouchable, and if the Chinese had accepted hindu caste system, nobody would have followed this condemned dirty hooligan. Let’s not forget lots other social outcastes, such as Zhu Yunazhang, who was also the emperor establishing Ming Dynasty.

By your first paragraph, I know your knowledge about China is either extremely limited or you are deadly wrong in your study.

In addition, Chinese identity is more complex and richer than just a unique language and Buddhism. The fact is, Taoism, Islam, … all left remarkable print on Chinese identity. Just remind you that before all above mentioned –isms were widely accepted, numerous philosophers like Zhuang Zi, Zhuangzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mo Zi Mozi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia were competing each other. All there teachings contributed to the culture.

It is even more ridiculous in your next paragraph to hint that using chopsticks is being Chinese. Anybody can use chopsticks or speak a language, but that does not make him/her a Chinese or adopt Chinese culture.

1) Let alone India, you could say what you did about the Anglo-saxons, who "absorbed" the Normans; the Iranians, who "absorbed" the Mongols; the Hebrews, who "absorbed" the Khazars. Spend the whole night typing! Historical China (as a evolving concept of a people who spoke the Chinese language and more or less used chopsticks) "submitted" aplenty to the Mongols, Manchus, Jurchens, Qiangs, even Tibetans (the pre-Buddhist kind), while assimilating only some of them ... Hong Kong still adopts a mostly British system, as does Singapore (which granted is more of a "Chindian" hybrid"). Co-opting the British system by itself isn't a sign of weakness. After all, where did the Germanic barbarians of Middle Ages Britain cobble together their system from?

Unlike the Sepoys, no "Chinese" soldiers in Hong Kong or Shanghai ever took up arm against the British in any recordable scale. Indians had their Marathis, BTW. Back in 1962, it was exactly a "Marathi" peasant-dominated PLA that defeated the "Mughuls" led by the "Singhs" using inferior equipment, but time-tested Marathi guerrilla tactics and a certain fearlessness.

Of course, that was then. Don't count on any "Marathis" from PRC today.

BTW, if Indians "cravenly" idolizes the British system, then what say you about the on-going worship of Marxists in China? BTW, I don't negate the contribution of Marxism to China's social and philosophical development, as much as acknowledging its patently ill effects. Rest assured that the Indians do the same vis-a-vis the British legacy.

Before the communist revolution, who inspired the Chinese Nationalists? Mustafa Kemal - once again a "foreigner".

You quote of Anglo-Saxon’s type of absorption is a wrong example in comparing with the assimilation of Chinese “Barbarians”. Those barbarians conquered China by force. It was not that they wanted to finish off China, but rather, they admired Chinese culture and prosperity, by and large, in the first place.

Your Shanghai, HK example is event more ridiculous. At that time, HK was a poor and rustic fishing village rented to British as British’s war booty. Shanghai was in a similar situation and was shared among the imperialistic powers.

Corrupted Chinese armies were fighting somewhere else. Opium Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Kingdom, Qing Dynasty
France
United States (1856 and 1859 only)
~40,000 troops,
American: 287 troops, ~ 110,000 troops
3 warships
over 2,800 KIA or WIA, 47,790 KIA or WIA

Dare you still say there was no fighting?

1962 Sino-India misfortune is all about system and is a typical failure of Indian type of democracy: Nehru knew the consequence but democratic heehaws pushed Nehru for Forwarding into China, and marching on the road of defeat. Whereas PLA had sharp focus and well defined objectives.

Maxism and its communist were/are used as a tool to eradicate morbid status of sick China. Over the period of CPC, there is no less of modification of communism. The open-up and adoption of market economy should be self evident enough.

“Mustafa Kemal” Mustafa Kemal Atatürk? You got to be kidding, friend. True that during that period time of miserable China, intellectuals were looking for Western ways to save them. After all the westerners were stronger.

If you have an iota idea of Chinese revolution, it is Sun YatShan or Sun ZhongShan who tried to borrow from US system to establish a republic.

BTW, you statement does not negate my post that the Chinese never stop learning good ideas from foreigners, but they never just copied. Even CPC's communism is NOT a copy of Soviet one. There were pieces and parts that were copied, but once it did not work, they'd abandone it. Otherwise, you can’t explain why China was among the first communist countries that embrace capitalism. Hk system is still under China's leadership. All laws that HK adopts, only Chinese People's Congress has the ultimate power of interpretation. Does British laws need be interpreted by another institute?

This is in stark contrast against Indian system that has a copy and then sticks to the copy regardless of the difference in cultural soil, (with due respect) resulting persistent and vast poor, malnutrition and illiteracy to date.

2) The concept of a land of pragmatic "meritocracy" is hardly unique to China. The Ottomans were a military meritocracy. And that was not enough. And for your information, the Yuan Mongols only became "Chinese" in the most superficial sense of the word, if at all. If they became "Chinese", then Lord Mountbatten became Indian ... well, her ladyship did carry on with Nehru so perhaps that counts as naturalization ...

China was never an egalitarian society and the Yuan divided people into 9 (or more) castes, although not strictly based on birth. Of course, that was part of the reason why they didn't last long. Castism in the subcontinent was not restricted to the Hindus, either. How do you think the War of 1971 started? If some Indians today "praise" the Brits, that could well be due to the fact that the latter's rule helped bring down Castism (to an extent), which you are fond of bashing (don't all internet "patriots" when they run out of straw men). In other words, Indians may "praise" the British for the same reasons CCP idolizes Marx.

You have huge logical problem in your statement. Mountbatten is an individual; Yuan Mongol is a collection of race. All Yuan Mongols are mostly Chinese today, are most British Indians?

Mongolia today was separated from China by Soviet instigation. It has only a few million citizens. Mongol Chinese is more than 10 times of that in Mongolia. Thus, the center of weight is more in China than in Mongolia.

Does India have 10 times more British living in Bharat than living in UK? Nobody would be so foolish as to think the British would love India more than UK!

When those “barbarians” conquered China, they say your people suck but your culture is good and we’ll adopt your system.

When British conquered India, did Mountbatten proclaim that Indian culture is great and we’d adopt your system? :lol:

“9 castes”? Give us a break! :devil:

What hell is that! Is that from brain-washing lectures? This further testifies your recklessness in posting your stuff.

Let me correct you erroneous mind. Yuan Dynasty did separate people into four levels: “In essence, society was divided into four classes in order of privilege: Mongols, "Color-eyed" (Central Asians, mostly Uyghurs and Tibetans), Han (Han Chinese in northern China, Khitans, and Jurchens), and Southerners (Han Chinese within Southern Song and other ethnic groups).” Yuan Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, Han was discriminated, but was not excluded in governance. Precisely because of its discrimination policy, Yuan was one of the shortest major Dynasties in Chinese history. This lesson caused later Qing Dynasty to adopt more Han stuff.

While everywhere else adopts meritocracy, only Indian Caste system denies that. You know how foolish is that.

BTW, did I say China is egalitarian? But I did say the Chinese have chances to move around among different social levels.

Surely that everybody knows the "71" war. That was a master piece of Indian RAW to split Pakistan by utilizing then Pakistan's internal issues. It looks you can’t seal your glee over that.

3) Regarding the ideographic characters of Chinese language, they are indeed unique, but hardly more so than the Nile Hieroglyphics. No doubt knowing them is important. I thank God for having arrived at North America at an age that allowed solid retention of my Chinese language skill. However, you should know that there was also a time when Sanskrit was China's Greek ...

Pls spare us this left/right brain pseudoscience. If that were true, why not do away with letters and just teach kids to draw pictures to "express themselves". They'll all be Einsteins in no time.

Does anybody use Nile Hieroglyphics on daily basis? Further, Does Nile Hieroglyphics is an official language of United Nations? More, does Nile Hieroglyphics used by ¼ of the world population?

I bet you your Gods give you more Indian Sanskrit than Chinese characters. Otherwise, you would use more brain and be more logic in your reasoning and debating. :rofl:

Finally, there are also lots dark sides in Chinese culture that some Chinese are bravely facing up to. For that you may read Bo Yang(柏&#26954

's book <The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture> (醜陋的中國&#20154

. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Yang

quriosity · Sep 23, 2009

Dear gpit,

You are very educated and intellectual person. Your posts are very enlightening.

Well, I want to ask you one question. Its off topic, but I am eager to know the answer from persons like you.

Was KMT more patriotic nationalist than CPC? What would have happened if KMT had not been defeated by CPC?

In my opinion, Mao was more nationalist than communist. I am just curious to know the answer.

BATMAN · Sep 23, 2009

gpit said:
How foolish those Indian alarmists are! They simply “lift the rock to hit their own feet.”

Behold only time will tell who is foolish! india or US senate
Very soon indian mafia in US will convince US to transfer wepons technology to india.
India, after successive failures in its local defence production in the face of Pakistan is very desprate to get his hands on western fighter a/c technology, AESA radar technology, Nuclear bomb technology, Tank manufacturing technology, train hugging missile technology etc. etc.
US is the only place where all is available under one roof, no other country of the world has potential to supply all.
US have animosity with China and will be prepared to go extra mile in return of indian promise to keep check on China's rising bussiness and military influence.
It would be foolish for india (a next door country) not to exploit this opportunity potentail to its full, in their moment of shere desperation.
Any such trade will be a chnage of fortune for india who will earn a hegemony over middleastern states and South Asian states.
With aspirations like of india, US will soon find it self in black mail position where his expensively developed technology will end up in the hands of a ovewhelmingly ambitous state, having specialization in conspiracies, terroism, access to sucide bomebrs, military links with Russia and established mafia in western world.
Forward indian military and air bases are just an argument to support their words on the face of China hater American senate.

Khajur · Sep 23, 2009

gpit said:
When British conquered India, did Mountbatten proclaim that Indian culture is great and wed adopt your system?

U obivously dont know much about indian histroty, do u??

And also u dont look like someone who is interested knowing facts to despel to fiction.

Well, talking of Britishers in india,they arrieved in india as trading company purely for commercial interest in way back during Moughal Empero Jahangir's time .

The East India Company established its first permanent factory in India in 1612.

Before they start to look india colonial aspirations the However, following the decline of the Mughal Empire 1707,Company gradually began to expanding dominions over the next 150 yrs till the Queen finally became the ruler of india in after 1857 sepoy revolution.Its never like they conquered India in a single battle or in wars of lasting few yrs.

To know the interaction of the British with the natives from 16th century to till the 1800s before they turn colonial masters ,and how they admired the local indian culture of that time when india accounted for more than 20% of worlds GDP.U must read the "White Mughals " a best seller history book by William Dalrymple.[/

As for china,its the barbarian who invaded china,not by the British,the most modern western society.

And be it Singapore or HK where the British established themselves,those cities became extended western cosmopolitan metros and remain so till date.

oceanx · Sep 24, 2009

Okay Pit, pls cool your jets, Mr. 深水细流. It's the internet - you'd have to excuse me for a little "hyperbole" from time to time, you know, as "literary devices", Mr. Shakespeare.

Where can I start? You are a Yank! Some things are common to Yanks (whom I am largely fond of except when ...)

And you are a fan of Wikipedia!

Anyways, I appreciate your effort, really.

Regarding 柏杨's 丑陋的中国人, that book happens to have been quite popular in China in the 80s and I definitely learned a few things from it in high school ...

Anyhow, just a few points you raised:

1. When did I say China copied a Vedic style Caste system?

Obviously the Middle Kingdom adopted the "export version" of Hinduism for a reason. The influence of Buddhism was/is simply not on the same plane as those of the other "isms" and philosophers that you brought up.

BTW, I never implied that Chinese Muslims didn't make significant contributions - quite to the contrary, I might just know about them better than you.

Going with the Chairman's 9 fingers vs 1 finger analogy, Buddhism is good for "5 fingers" - the rest combine to give you the other 5. Fair?

See what 赵朴初 says - 佛教对中国的影响

I quote: "... 恰恰在这一时期中作为中国哲学思想发展主流的却是佛学。其时期之长，声势之大，影响之广(传播国&#22806

，都远非两汉经学、宋明理学所能比拟。所以胡适当年写《中国哲学史》半途辍笔，就是因为当时不懂佛学写不下去了。"

With all due respect, do I take his word or your Yankeeship's?

Let's check the "Chinese Wiki" to see what is said "heuristically" on the relative contribution to the development of Chinese Classic Culture from Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism: "... 到了宋时的全真教，根本就是佛化的道教 ... 宋元明的儒家理学的出现，根本就是禅化的儒教" (佛教、道教、儒家思想分别从哪些方面影响了中国传统文化？)

2. Regarding so-called "barbarians", your verbatim: "Those barbarians conquered China by force. It was not that they wanted to finish off China, but rather, they admired Chinese culture and prosperity, by and large, in the first place."

Pls tell me which Chinese Sunday school you graduated from?

Okay seriously friend. Let's agree that unadulterated 意淫 should have no place in a supposed military forum. What you wrote may have applied to the Jurchens， Manchus， or 高苟丽. But across the board? Of course, the Germanics loved Rome so much that they just couldn't help themselves, either. Ditto Timur - another lover, not a fighter, just like your friend Grey Wolf

lol

.

3. "Surely that everybody knows the "71" war. That was a master piece of Indian RAW to split Pakistan by utilizing then Pakistan's internal issues." - true to an extent perhaps. But are you sure the vestige of castism casted no ugly shadow over those so-called "internal issues"?

You don't think I've come across Pakistani friends in Canada over that many years I have been here, do you? Granted, I know much less than most here about such topics. I am NOT saying things in China and Pakistan are necessarily to the same degree as in India - particularly rural India. But, "shadows" exist in all three countries.

4. Kemalism - absolutely it inspired the Chinese nationalists, particularly Jiang himself. Before Kemal, it was the Young Turks (1908) that immediately gave impetus to 辛亥革命. Oh no, I had no idea who Dr. Sun was. Thanks for "teaching" me. :smitten:

Look, I'm not going to give you all the sources. You need to do some homework yourself for a change, preferably from non-wiki based "research".

One more thing - every revolution was not inspired by the American Revolution (I know, hard for patriotic Yanks to swallow that).

5. BTW, if you are going to source the mighty Wikipedia, you still need to do more than "copy and paste".

Your verbatim "Mongol Chinese is more than 10 times of that in Mongolia" is a joke. I know you got the figure of 24 million for Inner Mongolian population vs ~2.6 million for Outer Mongolia from Wikipedia (as the whole world knows thank you). But what else does your beloved "pedia" say? It says that 80% of those in Inner Mongolia are Han.

As to Yuan castism, there may have been four "Varnas", what do you know about the 10 "Jatis" (granted, I said 9)? Wikipedia should once again not be your fountain of definitive knowledge: "十等人

Hit the books, friend. Leave war mongering to war mongers - you'd do "your people" a favour, particularly if "your people" are Yanks (truly, no offense).

That's enough babbling. Call me a fool. Take it or leave it.

feifanke · Sep 24, 2009

到了宋时的全真教，根本就是佛化的道教 ... 宋元明的儒家理学的出现，根本就是禅化的儒教

====================================
哈哈，看来全真教的灭佛行动及宋明儒家的谤佛思潮对赵朴初这位前佛学院院长的刺激很大啊！

在中国，没有任何宗教能取得绝对政治地位，中国朝廷的根本策略还是法家的法、权、术、势

oceanx · Sep 24, 2009

feifanke said:
哈哈，看来全真教的灭佛行动及宋明儒家的谤佛思潮对赵朴初这位前佛学院院长的刺激很大啊！

在中国，没有任何宗教能取得绝对政治地位，中国朝廷的根本策略还是法家的法、权、术、势

Hear hear, Mr. "Guest Extraordinaire". Your point is not exactly "feifan", but it nevertheless sits well.

And I didn't imply Mr. Zhao was a completely "detached" observer, thank you ...

China the ruthlessly secular, China the amorally pragmatic, and China the primitively "universaril" - don't think we've heard those before, uh?

Nothing is truly new under the Sun, my friend.

Jews have their "Talmud", and Shia "Taqiyya" (of both I know little, so no one asks any questions!).

Christians - "harmless as doves", or "wise as serpents"? Okay, if thy name is "John Hagee", then perhaps "wicked as a serpent" is most apt?

Who is Mr. Pit's Ataturk? A Sufi nemesis or Muslim modernist?

Cardinal Richelieu - man of God, or Machiavellian supremo?

Mao's world - idealistically Marxist (with necessary "Chinese characteristics" :devil:

), or just the 20th century iteration of another peasant despot?

You see some are "means", while others are "ends". What you may see as a "strength" could well be the ultimate tragedy if the two get mixed up for long ...

Anyhow, Mr. Pit may have started it; and I am guilty of taking it up a notch. You my frient, went all out.

Therefore, out of respect for our hosts, I say let's emphasize the language of the highest common denominator among all here.

We wouldn't want be accused of "Babelism", no? Let's return to English.

And thanks for reading my previous rant and posting your comment.

vkurian · Sep 24, 2009

oceanx said:
Hear hear, Mr. "Guest Extraordinaire". Your point is not exactly "feifan", but it nevertheless sits well.

And I didn't imply Mr. Zhao was a completely "detached" observer, thank you ...

China the ruthlessly secular, China the amorally pragmatic, and China the primitively "universaril" - don't think we've heard those before, uh?

Nothing is truly new under the Sun, my friend.

Jews have their "Talmud", and Shia "Taqiyya" (of both I know little, so no one asks any questions!).

Christians - "harmless as doves", or "wise as serpents"? Okay, if thy name is "John Hagee", then perhaps "wicked as a serpent" is most apt?

Who is Mr. Pit's Ataturk? A Sufi nemesis or Muslim modernist?

Cardinal Richelieu - man of God, or Machiavellian supremo?

Mao's world - idealistically Marxist (with necessary "Chinese characteristics" ), or just the 20th century iteration of another peasant despot?

You see some are "means", while others are "ends". What you may see as a "strength" could well be the ultimate tragedy if the two get mixed up for long ...

Anyhow, Mr. Pit may have started it; and I am guilty of taking it up a notch. You my frient, went all out.

Therefore, out of respect for our hosts, I say let's emphasize the language of the highest common denominator among all here.

We wouldn't want be accused of "Babelism", no? Let's return to English.

And thanks for reading my previous rant and posting your comment.

People from both our countries will go to any lenghth to prove who is superior to the other. What I don't understand is why can't we accept each other as we are. We have come a long way but have to do a lot to make our countries any where close to what the developed world is today.

I agree Indian media has gone overboard in the recent times on foreign policy issues but my chinese friends must understand it is because our government has to be reminded of its responsibilities.The irritation on the Chinese side is may be they are able to control media in their country so can't understand our point of view.

All in India feel media is going overboard but so is the PLA in case of intrusions into the Indian boundary.You should act as our senior partners as we have to fight the developed world together.We don't have people to people animosity nor any cultural hangover of past as is the case with Pakistan.

So these talks will derail us from our path of economic devlopment. China should desist from creating problems for India directly or thru good friend Pakistan. Such moves the world see thru and take the shine of from you as the leader of the emerging economies.Similarly we Indians should be sesitive to Chinese sentiments. We should have regular talks on all issues of concern and solve it in mutual intrest.

We should also make efforts to normalise relation with Pakistan and get them to see reason. Good India China relationship will be key to good Indo Pak relation.Pakistan will also have to take onus of things on their side of the border. You as a nation can't run with the hare and hunt with the hound it is too obvoius if it makes you proud I have nothing to say.

I will sign off saying even if we agree to disagree peacefully and think the larger good of the masses in all three countries and don't play in to the hands of hawkish leaders.Our children will be better friends and the leaders of the world.

Spring Onion · Sep 24, 2009

kungpaochicken said:
Well if that's the common view of High Rank Indian officials , may god has mercy on Indian ppls.

I really pity Indians in a sense that they're so desperately want to score one over CHINA since the humiliations in 60s.

It is a really dangerous game that Indian Government/media is playing now.

Before US launched the 2nd gulf war, it sanctioned Iraq for 12 years, no food, no medicine, not to mention any replenishment for the aging weapons and ammunition. Not until the US got confirmation that the Iraq army is near collapse, has it started the military initiatives. And everyone knows the huge economical and military advantages of US over Iraq even before the lengthened economy deprivation carried out on the country.

Any responsible government will not risk the life of its ppl to start a war without any hope. After years of brainwash and propagation, ordinary Indian ppl simply can not have a realistic view on their own and their country.

I met a lot of Indians, most of them believe that New York is the most advanced city in the world, and Bombay ranks the second. And most common questions raised by India about China are:
Does China have electricity?
Does China has internet?
Does China has highway?
Does Chinese ppl know what is cell phone...

Yes Indian media is playing bad bad role in this case too.
BTW Bombay ranks the second in the world for ???????

mmmmm

EyelessInGaza · Sep 25, 2009

^^ Oh great, now do you want me to find pictures of Chinese cities? What does that prove?

aimarraul · Sep 25, 2009

while india media propagate false news against china，i am watching a TV programme cherishing the memory of an indian doctor，how ironic it is

EyelessInGaza · Sep 25, 2009

aimarraul said:
while india media propagate false news against china，i am watching a TV programme cherishing the memory of an indian doctor，how ironic it is

Our entire history cherishes the memory of Hieun Tsang and Fa-Hien (as the names are spelled in India).

The Indian doctor- would that be Kotnis?

gpit · Sep 25, 2009

oceanx said:
Okay ...

Appreciate your entertaining me with your application of “Yank”. :rofl:

Hope you know what Yankee means. After all, it’s a fun to observe the diffident and abashed spewing on me “Pakistani”, “communist”, “living in Pakistan”, now “Yank”. As usual, you are unable to show the public any evidence that would otherwise support your claim.

Now, in the following, let me show you how rampant your fallacies are in many of your statements:

1) You claimed in your earlier post “Historical China was to an extent a "Hindu" country with the "export version" of Hinduism carrying the day.” In next post, you said: “Obviously the Middle Kingdom adopted the "export version" of Hinduism for a reason. The influence of Buddhism was/is simply…” Obviously and sadly, you've mistakenly considered the two as the same due to your lacking some preliminary knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism,.

China is nowhere a Hindu country. In addition, two religions are different, though they appear to bear some similarity. Hinduism adopts casteism, but Buddhism, more so for Mahayana school, does not. “According the Rig Veda, the ancient Hindu book, the primal man - Purush - destroyed himself to create a human society. The different Varnas were created from different parts of his body. The Brahmans were created from his head; the Kshatrias from his hands; the Vaishias from his thighs and the Sudras from his feet.” So those sects of people are bound to secular duties according to the religious theory.

On the other side “Buddhism as a religion does not advocate the presence of a God and indeed questions the Hindu practices of image worship, elaborate rituals, subjugation of women and dividing people on the basis of caste.” Hinayana Buddhism,Mahayana Hinayana Buddhism,Buddhism Mahayana Hinayana,Buddhism Hinayana,Mahayana Hinayana Theravada Buddhism,Buddhism of Mahayana Hinayana

Even in this forum, there is a topic discussing how Hinduism and Buddhism are at odds with each other. http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...-buddhism-non-violent-india-untold-story.html

How come, in your recklessness, (only partly) Buddhist China becomes an extended Hinduism!

Furthermore, your claim that Buddhism dominates China in most aspects is no less ridiculous than your earlier claim that Chinese language and chopsticks are Chinese culture.

赵朴初 was a respected top leader of Chinese Buddhism. If he didn’t praise Buddhism, who will? If he would praise Taoism more than Buddhism, he would have joined the other religion.

Thus, IMHO, it is perhaps very important to be secularist, at least for a moment, if you want to evaluate religions impartially.

Chinese scholar Chen Yinke （陈寅恪）　Chen Yinke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thus comments on Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism ：“南北朝时即有儒释道三教之目，至李唐之世，遂成固定之制度。如国家有庆典则召集三教之学士，讲论于殿廷，是其一例。自晋至今，言中国之思想可以儒释道三教代表之。”　“儒者在古代本为典章学术所寄托之专家。……秦之制实儒家一派学说之所附系。故二千年来华夏民族所受儒家学说之影响，最深最钜者，实在制度法律公私生活之方面，而关于学说思想之方面，或转有不如佛道二教者。……释迦之教义，无父无君， :woot:

……能与吾国思想史上，发生重大久远之影响者，皆经国人改造吸收之过程。……六朝以后之道教包罗至广，演变至繁，不似儒教偏重政治社会制度，故思想上尤易融贯吸收。然仍不忘其本来民族之地位。”

Another scholar 牟钟鉴 went even further:“魏晋以降，儒佛道三家成为三大主流学说，其中以儒为主体，以佛道为辅翼，互相渗透、互相推动……。“

Thus, it is perhaps relatively safe to conclude that it is Confucianism that influences Chinese secular culture the most, meanwhile the Three Bigs all have deeper influence over Chinese culture more than any other philosophies/religions.

2) Whether Yuan Dynasty is purely a part of Chinese is indeed discussed/debated by some. One of the most convincing Yeses was the proclamation of the founding of the dynasty 《建国号诏》. In this proclamation, the emperor basically said, our (Chinese) ancestors (堯, 舜, &#31161

did these, and (Chinese) dynasties (秦, 漢, 隋, &#21776

did those, and now it’s my turn to do the similar. Based on (Chinese teaching) 易經, he used the name 元 (Yuan) from 乾元之義 of the book to name his dynasty. The establishment of Yuan can be considered as an official transition from tribe lifestyle based on nomadic type of pillage or robbery to city based, more constructive society centered in China proper and based on Chinese culture and philosophies.

If your Timur was indeed vowing to adopt a foreign culture, philosophy or system, etc. and build a country on where that foreigners’ land and mixed with them, then Timur can also be considered as being assimilated.

It is very childish and silly to claim 十等人 (ten kinds of people) of Yuan as Caste. Caste is roughly that people are born into a profession, and you can’t change it in your life. What the “ten kinds of people” tells is that people are respected/discriminated according to those professions. It does not prevent people moving from one kind of job to the other. Dare you further claim that the Mongols were not allowed to read book and to be scholars so they would not be ranked in the 9th place? Or that there is no Mongol prostitute in Yuan Dynasty? You know nothing about Caste and know absolute zero about what “ten kinds of people” means. More naively, you mixed social injustice/prejudice with Casteism.

According to you, even this day’s America is a caste society, because Wall Street financial alligators are somehow on the top of the society.

3) For “71” war, your hint is that West Pakistani discriminating against East Pakistani is caused by (vestige) Caste system. I want to remind you that East Pakistan became East Pakistan during India Partition is simply because people there are predominately Muslims.

Please indeed teach us since when Islam starts to advocate Caste or similar system. In my view, if there was any discrimination, that would be perhaps more appropriately called regional discrimination. Those phenomena exist nearly everywhere. Just as you look down on Yankees, many Yankees are proud to be Americans and perhaps look down on Canadians.

4) To disprove your foolhardiness, show us your claim “4. Kemalism - absolutely it inspired the Chinese nationalists, particularly Jiang himself. Before Kemal, it was the Young Turks (1908) that immediately gave impetus to 辛亥革命.”

Admittedly, often Wiki can’t be regarded as a serious source, it nonetheless can at least give you some hint, and may perhaps lead to somewhere you can study further. My quoting of Wiki is for your reference conveniences. Unlike you, funny conclusions and weird assertions come from nowhere, but full of illogical dislocations and willful fragmentations: no sources, no references.

BTW, let me admit that Mongols in China is about 2.5 times of those in Mongolia not the amount that I stated wrongly earlier. For this, I’d like to thank you for pointing out. Still, that doesn’t rule out that China bears many times more Mongol weight than Mongolia.

Finally, your 细水长流 recalls me the translation of the "Milky Way" into 牛奶路. :lol:

SinoIndusFriendship · Sep 25, 2009

gpit said:
1) ........

China is nowhere a Hindu country. In addition, two religions are different, though they appear to bear some similarity. Hinduism adopts casteism, but Buddhism, more so for Mahayana school, does not. According the Rig Veda, the ancient Hindu book, the primal man - Purush - destroyed himself to create a human society. The different Varnas were created from different parts of his body. The Brahmans were created from his head; the Kshatrias from his hands; the Vaishias from his thighs and the Sudras from his feet. So those sects of people are bound to secular duties according to the religious theory.

On the other side Buddhism as a religion does not advocate the presence of a God and indeed questions the Hindu practices of image worship, elaborate rituals, subjugation of women and dividing people on the basis of caste. Hinayana & Mahayana Buddhism

Even in this forum, there is a topic discussing how Hinduism and Buddhism are at odds with each other. http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...-buddhism-non-violent-india-untold-story.html

........

赵朴初 was a respected top leader of Chinese Buddhism. If he didnt praise Buddhism, who will? If he would praise Taoism more than Buddhism, he would have joined the other religion.

Thus, IMHO, it is perhaps very important to be secularist, at least for a moment, if you want to evaluate religions impartially.

Chinese scholar Chen Yinke （陈寅恪）　Chen Yinke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thus comments on Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism ：南北朝时即有儒释道三教之目，至李唐之世，遂成固定之制度。如国家有庆典则召集三教之学士，讲论于殿廷，是其一例。自晋至今，言中国之思想可以儒释道三教代表之。　儒者在古代本为典章学术所寄托之专家。秦之制实儒家一派学说之所附系。故二千年来华夏民族所受儒家学说之影响，最深最钜者，实在制度法律公私生活之方面，而关于学说思想之方面，或转有不如佛道二教者。释迦之教义，无父无君， 能与吾国思想史上，发生重大久远之影响者，皆经国人改造吸收之过程。六朝以后之道教包罗至广，演变至繁，不似儒教偏重政治社会制度，故思想上尤易融贯吸收。然仍不忘其本来民族之地位。

Another scholar 牟钟鉴 went even further:魏晋以降，儒佛道三家成为三大主流学说，其中以儒为主体，以佛道为辅翼，互相渗透、互相推动。

Thus, it is perhaps relatively safe to conclude that it is Confucianism that influences Chinese secular culture the most, meanwhile the Three Bigs all have deeper influence over Chinese culture more than any other philosophies/religions.

2) Whether Yuan Dynasty is purely a part of Chinese is indeed discussed/debated by some. One of the most convincing Yeses was the proclamation of the founding of the dynasty 《建国号诏》. In this proclamation, the emperor basically said, our (Chinese) ancestors (堯, 舜, &#31161 did these, and (Chinese) dynasties (秦, 漢, 隋, &#21776 did those, and now its my turn to do the similar. Based on (Chinese teaching) 易經, he used the name 元 (Yuan) from 乾元之義 of the book to name his dynasty. The establishment of Yuan can be considered as an official transition from tribe lifestyle based on nomadic type of pillage or robbery to city based, more constructive society centered in China proper and based on Chinese culture and philosophies.

If your Timur was indeed vowing to adopt a foreign culture, philosophy or system, etc. and build a country on where that foreigners land and mixed with them, then Timur can also be considered as being assimilated.

It is very childish and silly to claim 十等人 (ten kinds of people) of Yuan as Caste. Caste is roughly that people are born into a profession, and you cant change it in your life. What the ten kinds of people tells is that people are respected/discriminated according to those professions. It does not prevent people moving from one kind of job to the other. Dare you further claim that the Mongols were not allowed to read book and to be scholars so they would not be ranked in the 9th place? Or that there is no Mongol prostitute in Yuan Dynasty? You know nothing about Caste and know absolute zero about what ten kinds of people means. More naively, you mixed social injustice/prejudice with Casteism.

According to you, even this days America is a caste society, because Wall Street financial alligators are somehow on the top of the society.

3) For 71 war, your hint is that West Pakistani discriminating against East Pakistani is caused by (vestige) Caste system. I want to remind you that East Pakistan became East Pakistan during India Partition is simply because people there are predominately Muslims.

Please indeed teach us since when Islam starts to advocate Caste or similar system. In my view, if there was any discrimination, that would be perhaps more appropriately called regional discrimination. Those phenomena exist nearly everywhere. Just as you look down on Yankees, many Yankees are proud to be Americans and perhaps look down on Canadians.

4) To disprove your foolhardiness, show us your claim 4. Kemalism - absolutely it inspired the Chinese nationalists, particularly Jiang himself. Before Kemal, it was the Young Turks (1908) that immediately gave impetus to 辛亥革命.

Admittedly, often Wiki cant be regarded as a serious source, it nonetheless can at least give you some hint, and may perhaps lead to somewhere you can study further. My quoting of Wiki is for your reference conveniences. Unlike you, funny conclusions and weird assertions come from nowhere, but full of illogical dislocations and willful fragmentations: no sources, no references.

BTW, let me admit that Mongols in China is about 2.5 times of those in Mongolia not the amount that I stated wrongly earlier. For this, Id like to thank you for pointing out. Still, that doesnt rule out that China bears many times more Mongol weight than Mongolia.

Finally, your 细水长流 recalls me the translation of the "Milky Way" into 牛奶路.

Gpit, comrade he mistakenly took you for a 'Yankee' because you live there. He is a newbie here and thus did not figure out where the prominent members of this forum are from. So far he doesn't seem to be malicious as he has made some good points (along with some misinformed points). :angel:

Regarding the American-Canadian debate, a wiser person would know both of these nations are full of hypocrites, it just so happens one is 10 times the population as the other.

I like some of your points concerning the important differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which many people mistakenly equate the two to be similar. Other than the place of origin, Buddhism is the anti-thesis of Hinduism, thus the reason for the fear and animosity by Hindus towards Buddhist - leading to the present situation.

gpit · Sep 25, 2009

SinoIndusFriendship said:
Gpit, comrade he mistakenly took you for a 'Yankee' because you live there. He is a newbie here and thus did not figure out where the prominent members of this forum are from. So far he doesn't seem to be malicious as he has made some good points (along with some misinformed points). Regarding the American-Canadian debate, a wiser person would know both of these nations are full of hypocrites, it just so happens one is 10 times the population as the other.

I like some of your points concerning the important differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which many people mistakenly equate the two to be similar. Other than the place of origin, Buddhism is the anti-thesis of Hinduism, thus the reason for the fear and animosity by Hindus towards Buddhist - leading to the present situation.

Thanks brother for your appreciation and advice.

Hope I controlled my emotion well, otherwise I'll apologize to him. BTW, I really don't want to reveal from which "Sunday school" I graduated to prevent him from sh!tting on his pants. :lol:

Search

Chinese paper accuses Indian media of engaging in war rhetoric

gpit

SENIOR MEMBER

quriosity

BANNED

BATMAN

ELITE MEMBER

Khajur

BANNED

oceanx

FULL MEMBER

feifanke

BANNED

oceanx

FULL MEMBER

vkurian

BANNED

Spring Onion

PDF VETERAN

EyelessInGaza

FULL MEMBER

aimarraul

SENIOR MEMBER

EyelessInGaza

FULL MEMBER

gpit

SENIOR MEMBER

SinoIndusFriendship

BANNED

gpit

SENIOR MEMBER

Similar threads

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts