What's new

Chinese Foreign Affairs News & Discussions

That's interesting, is there a revival of Buddhism going on in India?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Mainstream Hinduism, under the impact of external forces, has become a harsh distortion of its original form, a Semiticised version, borrowing much from the ideology of the west.

Mainstream Islam is also an all-or-nothing option. As, for that matter, is Christianity, in some of its manifestations.

Many people have sought middle paths, which borrow the relaxed theological mindset of the original Hinduism, and the stern egalitarianism of the Muslims, and mingle them. Some took to the Khalsa path, became Sikhs, and before they were literally driven to take up the sword, they were a peaceful set of people minding their own business. After they turned to war, they went all the way, and became one more all-or-nothing religion, although one which is far more tolerant than others of its sort.

Because Buddhism isn't associated with social divisions any longer, it has become popular, especially among the oppressed classes, who see it as a viable, very undemanding alternative to the Abrahamic faiths (at least to the two of them to which conversions are allowed). This is apart from the existing widespread profession of the religion among the hillsmen of the north and the east.
 
.
It didn't go over. It went around. Many of the Greeks who stayed in Afghanistan area who were left over from Alexanders army. Formed Indo-Greek kingdoms. They adopted Buddhism and formed Greco-Buddhist culture. This was then passed down to the Kushans which had extensive trade with China. These central Asian Buddhist would go to China and pass Buddhism to China. So It wasn't really Indian to Chinese contact. China would later spread it to Korea and Japan.

Only famous Indian monk that I think that went to China was Bodhidharma.He founded Zen Buddhism there.

varghese-albums-pics-2-picture3682-bodhidharma.jpg

Er, no, actually.

It went around and it also went over. Look up the second phase of Buddhist proselytisation in the 13th century, under Atish Dipankar and others. What you described is some elements of the first phase, in no way a full description of the first phase.
 
.
At the risk of being a party pooper, allow me to inject some common sense and a reality check into this superficial love-fest. I will phrase my questions to the Chinese members, but the mirror questions apply equally well to the Indian members.

You are not being a party-pooper, merely ignorant. I say this not with rancor or to put you down, but as an assessment of fact. If you take the trouble to go through the responses to your several theses below, you will understand that my response to your post is that with sufficient information and knowledge, you might not have written that post; another of its sort, perhaps, that vents your spleen, but not that precise one.

- I see a lot of this fraternal feeling is based on a perceived mutual enmity of 'the white man', but what makes you think the Indian is any more trustworthy than the European? Surely it isn't based on some misplaced belief in Asian brotherhood -- not after what the Japanese, Chinese, Mongols, Cambodians, Indians, Arabs, etc. have all done to each other over the centuries.

There is no particular necessity for fraternal feeling to be based on shared (not mutual) enmity for the white man. In fact, this is hardly possible given the widespread occurrence of bananas and coconuts.

The only reason why the white man comes in again and again is because they have been the most recent oppressors in South Asia, and the most recent but one in China.

Finally, don't you feel silly quoting Asian disagreements as a reason for fraternal feeling not to be present, given that the example of the European Union stares you in the face? There is nothing that one Asian has done to another that has not been exceeded many times over by the Europeans in their dealings with one another. And yet France and Germany are at peace with one another, support each other in the EU, enter into complex business arrangements and build a whole generation of polyglot businessmen, from whose spoken languages, it is impossible to tell if they are French or German. Sometimes, in spite of there being many shared names, their names are the only way to tell.

- Whom exactly do you suppose the Indian military buildup is aimed at?

Please do a quick check of the order of battle of the Indian Army.

23 divisions out of 33 are oriented towards Pakistan. 10 are oriented to China. China has the capability of the following:

  • Deploy one (mountain) brigade in 8 hours at any point of the Sino-Indian frontier;
  • Deploy one (mountain) division on the frontier within 24 hours (one phase of an airlift is the way it is phrased in the original, where it also states that a brigade now takes 8 hours to deploy);
  • The quick reaction force of 4 divisions within 4 days, to any frontier or any part of the PRC;
  • Up to 10 divisions within 15 days, on any frontier;
  • Up to 25 divisions within 30 days.

Does this tell you where the focus of the Indian Army is? Does it tell you which potential hostile power it considers more dangerous and unpredictable, above all, unpredictable? Hint: it isn't PRC.

- There is almost no shared culture between China and India; they might as well be on separate continents.

A superb argument. Worthy of your acumen and intellectual grasp of the matter.

Arguing in reverse, therefore, we can re-write sub-continental history, as there is shared culture on the sub-continent, as well as being not only on the same continent, but within the rather narrow confines of the same sub-continent.

- Anecdotal evidence about interaction with people from the other country is meaningless. Ordinary people are mostly decent, smart, hardworking, etc. from all countries. We are all human. It will have zero impact if there is a significant national security conflict between the nations.

Tell us about it!

However, let us read on; the essential indefensibility of this position appears very clearly further on.

- The only reason there hasn't been any significant clash of the two nations is purely an accident of history. The reason the Mongols spared India was because it was an insignificant backwater compared to the flourishing and rich Middle East.

The only reason that there hasn't been any significant clash of the two nations is because China's trajectory of expansion was by way of Qing Hai, Xijang and Xinjiang. If it continues, it will be through Kazakhstan and Baltistan.

China has always sought to consolidate its northern and western boundaries; its western boundaries were forcefully defined by the Arabs first, but subsequently and without let-up, China has challenged those frontiers, fought the Turks to a standstill at a huge distance from her own power centres, and then annexed Xinjiang. There are no explicit threats to the west any more; threats to the north have disappeared, with the crumbling of the Soviets; threats to the south were put on the shelf of history many centuries ago, and threats to the east are its primary concern today.

Note that there is no desire to 'expand' to the east, as Taiwan is already considered part of China, but being ruled by an adversarial political system, still Chinese in every respect.

In contrast, India has always had a defensive and inward-looking mindset; this is staple historical analysis, and is fed with the future history scholar's baby food. In an ironically mistaken posting by one of your good friends from Bangladesh, this was described by the Brookings Institute as a policy of strategic restraint.

A brilliant phrase, an epigram which sums up the whole situation.

- Geographically, there is absolutely nothing India can provide to China that it doesn't already get from Pakistan. In fact, considerably less, since alienating Pakistan will mean that China has to go the long way through the CARs to get to the Middle East. And neither Turkey nor Russia is going to let China get too comfortable in the CARs.

Perhaps you should consider a look at the trade figures and the breakdown of those figures. It might help illuminate the matter.

So, bottom line, China doesn't need India as an ally at all -- except to keep it from becoming a Western ally.

No, China doesn't need India as an ally at all. China has a perfectly viable alternative; to lock herself into the same gangrened point of view as other, traditional rivals of India, in spite of the dreadful example of what results thereby. On the whole, she might prefer an alliance, or, properly speaking, friendly relations with mutual self-respect.

Why would she wantonly frighten India into building her arsenals to levels that will force the PRC to dedicate some effort to this front?
 
.
I would love to visit Sarnath one day. :cheers:

I would also like to visit Bodh Gaya, the place where the Buddha attained enlightenment.

Bodh Gaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I said, my family are mostly Buddhists so they would probably love the idea of visiting these places. I'm non-religious personally, but I would still go at least once in my life to see those places.

It is very easy to do so; large crowds from Asia go there, people from Thailand, Cambodia and the rest of south-east Asia, people from Mongolia, the Japanese, all are to be found there. Pick your season; before or after the rains, preferably in the 'cold' weather, when the heat will not kill you. Look up the facilities; there is accommodation at various layers of comfort and cost. Much of the infrastructure development has been done by a pious, worshipful Japan, and she has made a wonderful job of it. India owes her enormous gratitude for that.
 
. .
Also, Ancient Chinese literature was highly influenced by Indian culture and Buddhism in particular. The most well-known example is "Journey to the West", where Sun Wukong and a Buddhist monk travel West to India, in order to obtain sacred Buddhist scrolls.

Journey to the West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Japanese then took our idea of the Monkey King, and turned it into Dragon Ball. The main character even has the exact same name as Sun Wukong, 孫悟空 (the Japanese pronounce it as Son Goku).

It might amuse you, on some future lazy Sunday afternoon, to look up the cultural antecedents of the Monkey King.

In my personal opinion, the matter goes further even than that, into Indo-European linguistics and mythology. But I'd like you to browse through those fascinating possibilities for yourself first ;-)
 
.
Yes Developereo... I agree with the stats that it is still a minority religion... I said it is picking up in some places and social circles mostly amongst the educated and urban class indians ... but it would still be a minority religion for a long long time in India if that is what you wanted to point out by the stats.

Following Buddhism does not always mean that you have to give away your birth religion. I have often see people who claim they are Hindus, but actively follow principles of Buddhism.

Indeed.

In the same line of discussion, it is worth pointing out that Buddhism swept through the sub-continent, through its different kingdoms and states, to peak in or around 100 BC to 400 AD. There were attempts at reviving Hinduism, after the priests recovered from the shock of religious, cultural and finally social and economic overthrow. However, the big reformation of Hinduism, which led to a desiccation of its formerly rich philosophical systems, down to Vedanta alone, occurred during the time of Sankaracharya (800 AD). There was a period of a further tussle for another four centuries, but Islam was a greater enemy of Buddhism than any other previous religion had been, and it proved to be its mortal enemy, eradicating it on a large scale in wide parts of the country.

Those parts of India that survived the social, economic and cultural pressure to convert to Islam were generally regions where Buddhism was never very strong: the extreme south, for instance, although there has been an Asokan pillar found even in Madurai. These parts later led a drive towards conflating the two religions. One visible, iconic sign of this assimilating tendency is the famous ten avatars of Vishnu: the last avatar but one, the last avatar that has arrived is the Buddha himself.

Shades of the Borgs.
 
.
You are not being a party-pooper, merely ignorant. I say this not with rancor or to put you down, but as an assessment of fact. If you take the trouble to go through the responses to your several theses below, you will understand that my response to your post is that with sufficient information and knowledge, you might not have written that post; another of its sort, perhaps, that vents your spleen, but not that precise one.



There is no particular necessity for fraternal feeling to be based on shared (not mutual) enmity for the white man. In fact, this is hardly possible given the widespread occurrence of bananas and coconuts.

The only reason why the white man comes in again and again is because they have been the most recent oppressors in South Asia, and the most recent but one in China.

Finally, don't you feel silly quoting Asian disagreements as a reason for fraternal feeling not to be present, given that the example of the European Union stares you in the face? There is nothing that one Asian has done to another that has not been exceeded many times over by the Europeans in their dealings with one another. And yet France and Germany are at peace with one another, support each other in the EU, enter into complex business arrangements and build a whole generation of polyglot businessmen, from whose spoken languages, it is impossible to tell if they are French or German. Sometimes, in spite of there being many shared names, their names are the only way to tell.



Please do a quick check of the order of battle of the Indian Army.

23 divisions out of 33 are oriented towards Pakistan. 10 are oriented to China. China has the capability of the following:

  • Deploy one (mountain) brigade in 8 hours at any point of the Sino-Indian frontier;
  • Deploy one (mountain) division on the frontier within 24 hours (one phase of an airlift is the way it is phrased in the original, where it also states that a brigade now takes 8 hours to deploy);
  • The quick reaction force of 4 divisions within 4 days, to any frontier or any part of the PRC;
  • Up to 10 divisions within 15 days, on any frontier;
  • Up to 25 divisions within 30 days.

Does this tell you where the focus of the Indian Army is? Does it tell you which potential hostile power it considers more dangerous and unpredictable, above all, unpredictable? Hint: it isn't PRC.



A superb argument. Worthy of your acumen and intellectual grasp of the matter.

Arguing in reverse, therefore, we can re-write sub-continental history, as there is shared culture on the sub-continent, as well as being not only on the same continent, but within the rather narrow confines of the same sub-continent.



Tell us about it!

However, let us read on; the essential indefensibility of this position appears very clearly further on.



The only reason that there hasn't been any significant clash of the two nations is because China's trajectory of expansion was by way of Qing Hai, Xijang and Xinjiang. If it continues, it will be through Kazakhstan and Baltistan.

China has always sought to consolidate its northern and western boundaries; its western boundaries were forcefully defined by the Arabs first, but subsequently and without let-up, China has challenged those frontiers, fought the Turks to a standstill at a huge distance from her own power centres, and then annexed Xinjiang. There are no explicit threats to the west any more; threats to the north have disappeared, with the crumbling of the Soviets; threats to the south were put on the shelf of history many centuries ago, and threats to the east are its primary concern today.

Note that there is no desire to 'expand' to the east, as Taiwan is already considered part of China, but being ruled by an adversarial political system, still Chinese in every respect.

In contrast, India has always had a defensive and inward-looking mindset; this is staple historical analysis, and is fed with the future history scholar's baby food. In an ironically mistaken posting by one of your good friends from Bangladesh, this was described by the Brookings Institute as a policy of strategic restraint.

A brilliant phrase, an epigram which sums up the whole situation.



Perhaps you should consider a look at the trade figures and the breakdown of those figures. It might help illuminate the matter.



No, China doesn't need India as an ally at all. China has a perfectly viable alternative; to lock herself into the same gangrened point of view as other, traditional rivals of India, in spite of the dreadful example of what results thereby. On the whole, she might prefer an alliance, or, properly speaking, friendly relations with mutual self-respect.

Why would she wantonly frighten India into building her arsenals to levels that will force the PRC to dedicate some effort to this front?

I do not vote in the "Indian restraint", in fact, India has a very aggressive, you know, "south" policy is a policy of aggressive enough, even now, India does not solve the problem any one country's borders, in Nepal, Bangladesh , Sri Lanka and even Pakistan, these smaller all countries than India, India has sufficient aggressive performance, which is ambitious, India is not a "restraint", simply because there is no ability, no major show.
 
Last edited:
.
If you say "strategic restraint" is also right, because there is no capacity, so a temporary restraint, in the strategy, but not peace and goodwill wishes.
 
Last edited:
.
This makes astonishing reading.

Do you have any further basis for this strange assertion?

Buddhism is not the basis of a shared culture between India and China. Certainly, there may be ancient historical sites of interest to Buddhists, as a sort of pilgrimage destination, but that's about it.

India has 0.8% Buddhists. USA has 1.7% Buddhists.
By that logic, USA shares more 'culture' with China than India does.

You are not being a party-pooper, merely ignorant. I say this not with rancor or to put you down, but as an assessment of fact. If you take the trouble to go through the responses to your several theses below, you will understand that my response to your post is that with sufficient information and knowledge, you might not have written that post; another of its sort, perhaps, that vents your spleen, but not that precise one.

Let's rock... :rofl:

There is no particular necessity for fraternal feeling to be based on shared (not mutual) enmity for the white man. In fact, this is hardly possible given the widespread occurrence of bananas and coconuts.

The only reason why the white man comes in again and again is because they have been the most recent oppressors in South Asia, and the most recent but one in China.

Except that the threat of the 'evil white man' v/s the Asian brothers is the most oft-quoted reason for India-China friendship. Take away the bogey of the 'evil white man' and the whole premise falls apart.

Finally, don't you feel silly quoting Asian disagreements as a reason for fraternal feeling not to be present, given that the example of the European Union stares you in the face?

Not at all.
This is precisely where the part about 'shared culture' comes in. Clearly you missed the connection between these two points, so I will explain below. Stay tuned...

Does this tell you where the focus of the Indian Army is? Does it tell you which potential hostile power it considers more dangerous and unpredictable, above all, unpredictable? Hint: it isn't PRC.

The Indian military, by its own account, has more than enough resources to deal with Pakistan. Its focus now is to handle both fronts simultaneously. This is not just me talking. This is the Indian military's official position, as reported in one of the Indian chest thumping threads on this very forum.

A superb argument. Worthy of your acumen and intellectual grasp of the matter.

Why, thank you. ;)

Arguing in reverse, therefore, we can re-write sub-continental history, as there is shared culture on the sub-continent, as well as being not only on the same continent, but within the rather narrow confines of the same sub-continent.

No need to go in reverse; let's stay in forward gear.
Coming back to your comparison to the EU, yes they fought mortal battles with each other over the centuries, yet they are now joined together. The reason for that union is shared culture. All the countries in the EU share (variants of) a common religion, culture and much history.

There is no such parallel when it comes to India and China. They have almost nothing in common in terms of history, culture, religion, language... Nothing. Zilch. Nada!

Except the bogey of the 'evil white man', of course.

The only reason that there hasn't been any significant clash of the two nations is because China's trajectory of expansion was by way of Qing Hai, Xijang and Xinjiang. If it continues, it will be through Kazakhstan and Baltistan.

As others have pointed out, it was mostly a geographical accident because of the Himalayas. There were some brief clashes, but neither side followed through.

India has always had a defensive and inward-looking mindset

Utter nonsense. Your Akhand Bharat friends will be happy to regale you with tales of Indian conquests spanning from Burma through the Middle East. The only reason India didn't invade China was, again, because of the Himalayas.

Perhaps you should consider a look at the trade figures and the breakdown of those figures. It might help illuminate the matter.

It certainly does. The bilateral trade stands at 60 billion. An insignificant pimple compared to the GDP of either country.

No, China doesn't need India as an ally at all. China has a perfectly viable alternative; to lock herself into the same gangrened point of view as other, traditional rivals of India, in spite of the dreadful example of what results thereby. On the whole, she might prefer an alliance, or, properly speaking, friendly relations with mutual self-respect.

China knows exactly what game India is playing. And so does everyone else.
 
Last edited:
.
Indeed.

Those parts of India that survived the social, economic and cultural pressure to convert to Islam were generally regions where Buddhism was never very strong: the extreme south, for instance, although there has been an Asokan pillar found even in Madurai. These parts later led a drive towards conflating the two religions. One visible, iconic sign of this assimilating tendency is the famous ten avatars of Vishnu: the last avatar but one, the last avatar that has arrived is the Buddha himself.

Shades of the Borgs.

I think the process of assimilation started much before the advent of Islam, many of the new ideas of Jainism and Buddhism were injected into mainstream Hinduism during Ashokan times.

In that sense Buddhism has not been wiped out, there is just too much shared culture !

Unfortunately our neighbors will view it through an Abrahamic prism and quote absolute numbers and percentages
 
.
I do not vote in the "Indian restraint", in fact, India has a very aggressive, you know, "south" policy is a policy of aggressive enough, even now, India does not solve the problem any one country's borders, in Nepal, Bangladesh , Sri Lanka and even Pakistan, these smaller all countries than India, India has sufficient aggressive performance, which is ambitious, India is not a "restraint", simply because there is no ability, no major show.

Isn't this hostile perception and simply that? There is no problem with Nepal's borders; there is no problem with Sri Lanka's borders; the problem with Bangladesh' borders amount to tiny handkerchief sized patches of land of a few acres each, which were not transferred during partition because they were owned by private owners and the transfer laws never transferred private title (as you can look up, Jinnah owned his own house in Bombay until the date he died). And the problem therefore boils down to the problems with Pakistan.

For the rest, there are tensions with Nepalese governments from time to time, as there have been in the past during their spasms of royal misrule, but seven regiments of infantry are still largely Nepali citizens, literally millions of Nepalis earn livings within India, and the bulk of her hydel power finds outlets in India. So too with Sri Lanka; other than the issues related to the Tamil minority, there has been no specific issue between the two countries. The only one that existed was resolved by India ceding the island in question to Sri Lanka.

I am afraid India's 'aggression' is a synthetic element, of doubtful or no value.
 
.
Isn't this hostile perception and simply that? There is no problem with Nepal's borders; there is no problem with Sri Lanka's borders; the problem with Bangladesh' borders amount to tiny handkerchief sized patches of land of a few acres each, which were not transferred during partition because they were owned by private owners and the transfer laws never transferred private title (as you can look up, Jinnah owned his own house in Bombay until the date he died). And the problem therefore boils down to the problems with Pakistan.

For the rest, there are tensions with Nepalese governments from time to time, as there have been in the past during their spasms of royal misrule, but seven regiments of infantry are still largely Nepali citizens, literally millions of Nepalis earn livings within India, and the bulk of her hydel power finds outlets in India. So too with Sri Lanka; other than the issues related to the Tamil minority, there has been no specific issue between the two countries. The only one that existed was resolved by India ceding the island in question to Sri Lanka.

I am afraid India's 'aggression' is a synthetic element, of doubtful or no value.
Can you provide a variety of reasons, but I just ask you one word, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and even Bhutan's people also can give the same answer? This is not a hostile, but a reason, if you, India is really sincere, please go to resolve all border issues, and then with the results, I certainly agree that India's "restraint", or I would doubt it. I always wonder, India inherited the British imperialist style, in the territorial ambition, dedication, and foreign relations. I admit this is not the conclusion, I still need to see more.
 
.
India is really sincere, please go to resolve all border issues,

What border issues are you talking about?

Do you know we have an open border policy with Nepal and Bhutan? Their citizens can freely move into India and get all economic privleges

Sri Lanka have resolved the maritime dispute long ago

Pakistan, of course we have major issues

China, yes we have issues

Bangladesh we have minor issues
 
.
What border issues are you talking about?

Do you know we have an open border policy with Nepal and Bhutan? Their citizens can freely move into India and get all economic privleges

Sri Lanka have resolved the maritime dispute long ago

Pakistan, of course we have major issues

China, yes we have issues

Bangladesh we have minor issues

You have answered some of your questions, big or small, India is likely that the small, but other countries may think that large, it is a symbol of national policy and even spiritual.

Also, I know that Bhutan and Nepal are not satisfied with the policy of India. Not to mention a number of unfriendly neighbors.

I did not say ordinary Indians, Indians are peace and optimism. I mean the elite of India by the British marks.
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom