Indian economy registers a weaker growth at 4.4%

[INDIC]

Its Gupta empire. Gupta never succeeded another dynasty and no other dynasty succeeded Gupta. In another word, Gupta never claimed that its leader is a successor of a previous empire. It claims to be a conqueror of a previous empire, but never a successor.

For example, Indian union is a successor of British India.

A united China never existed before the Manchu united it from Beijing to Xinjiang in 17-18th Century.

So what he became Buddha in India? If you're born in India, but you earned your master degree in the US, does it make you an American?

Do Indians claim Shaolin Temple as Indian heritage because it was founded by an Indian monk Bodhidharma.

 

[INDIC]

China existed, Zhou Dynasty. Confucius was born around the same period as Buddha.

China didn't existed as a united entity before foreign invaders Manchus united it.

 

[walle]

China didn't existed as a united entity before foreign invaders Manchus united it.

Why do history only mention china under the unification of qinshihuangdi? Try harder.

 

[INDIC]

Why do history only mention china under the unification of qinshihuangdi? Try harder.

There are two possiblity, if you see history of China with Han chauvinism excluding ethnic minorities , then a united China existed but if you want to include ethnic minorities then united China never existed before Qing dynasty. For most of the history China was confined within Great Wall of China.

 

[Fattyacids]

Do Indians claim Shaolin Temple as Indian heritage because it was founded by an India monk Bodhidharma.

Of course you can't, Shaolin temple was authorized and built by the emperor. Without his permission, Bodhidharma even has to pack his bag. It is absurd even for you to bring it up.

China didn't existed as a united entity before foreign invaders Manchus united it.

China existed as one empire since 220 BC. To rule China, the Manchus had to claim the Mandate of Heaven in order to become the emperor of China. This is a han Chinese practice that stemmed from Confucius era. Manchu became Chinese from the start, they adopted Chinese writing. When Mughals and British owned the subcontinent, they certainly didn't need any mandate nor they adopt your language and culture.

 

[Fattyacids]

There are two possiblity, if you see history of China with Han chauvinism excluding ethnic minorities , then a united China existed but if you want to include ethnic minorities then united China never existed before Qing dynasty. For most of the history China was confined within Great Wall of China.

According to which historian was the great wall of china the definitive border and history of China? You?
Ethnic minorities existed since 2000 years when China was united. Nan Yue, which includes ancient Vietnam was part of China. Now are you going to argue vietnamese are chinese?

 

[INDIC]

Of course you can't, Shaolin temple was authorized and built by the emperor. Without his permission, Bodhidharma even has to pack his bag. It is absurd even for you to bring it up.

But he is associated with that monastary. Buddha's birthplace was the part of Kosala Mahajanpada remained the part of North Indian dynasty, it was in 18th century that Nepali Emperor Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered Kapilvastu. Buddha's teaching are mainly associated in North India.

China existed as one empire since 220 BC. To rule China, the Manchus had to claim the Mandate of Heaven in order to become the emperor of China. This is a han Chinese practice that stemmed from Confucius era. Manchu became Chinese from the start, they adopted Chinese writing. When Mughals and British owned the subcontinent, they certainly didn't need any mandate nor they adopt your language and culture.

Is territory of China of 220BC is of same size of modern China, i don't see Tibet as the part of China of Ming Dynasty. Manchus conquered your land against your wish.

 

[Fattyacids]

But he is associated with that monastary. Buddha's birthplace was the part of Kosala Mahajanpada remained the part of North Indian dynasty, it was in 18th century that Nepali Emperor Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered Kapilvastu. Buddha's teaching are mainly associated in North India.

So india make claims based on association? No wonder, all your neighbors have issues with you.
Neither India nor Nepal existed 2500 years ago. The fact is Buddha was born in present day Nepal and Buddhism spread across the subcontinent.

Is territory of China of 220BC is of same size of modern China, i don't see Tibet as the part of China of Ming Dynasty. Manchus conquered your land against your wish.

By which historian the size of the territory defines the existence of an empire? You love to come up with absurd qualifier, don't you?
Manchus succeed only because of Han Chinese general Wu Sangui colluded with them. But it doesn't matter, they became Chinese willingly.

 

[BigDaddyWatch]

What is going on here ? This is a economic thread why are there so many Indians talking about Buddha, prophecies and 5000 year civilization ?

 

[Splurgenxs]

Do you agree that India shares many British cultures and traditions since Gandhi's time?

no we dont. Our judiciary may be influence by British system but our cultures and traditions?lol no.

Heritage does not necessary includes genetics, but I'm glad that you dimwittedly mentioned it.
Nepalese have high percentage of Mongoloid gene, which northern or southern Indians do not have.

Heritage does not necessarily include genetics? idiot and an illiterate.and don't nit pic to satisfy ur idiotic logic, i mentioned Genetics,religion,Culture and tradition non individually and Buddha checks out on every front.Hence the unquestionable linkage.

And as to ur claim that Napales are mongoloid and by direct implication u want to make Sidhartha mongoloid? no Sidhartha wasn't mongoloid' If he was anything he was a Bihari.Like a brown Yindoo.

So you could use the "place of enlightenment" to qualify Buddha as indian, even though he was born in Nepal, and I can't use the "place of education" as a counter argument?
Why is it that the logic of reasoning does not apply to Indian?

U effing dimwit ,go read my earlier comment ,i dont even consider it a fking option u a$$, quit making $hit up , .I mention categorically that Gandhi being British educated doesn't mean he is British and hence proportionally same applies to Sidarth.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

There is a difference between capability and implementation.

And Buddha was born in Nepal, not India.

Buddha was born in India, Prince Siddharth was born in Nepal. Historical fact.

 

[Fattyacids]

no we dont. Our judiciary may be influence by British system but our cultures and traditions?lol no.

Really? English is one of your national languages.

Heritage does not necessarily include genetics? idiot and an illiterate.and don't nit pic to satisfy ur idiotic logic, i mentioned Genetics,religion,Culture and tradition non individually and Buddha checks out on every front.Hence the unquestionable linkage.
And as to ur claim that Napales are mongoloid and by direct implication u want to make Sidhartha mongoloid? no Sidhartha wasn't mongoloid' If he was anything he was a Bihari.Like a brown Yindoo.

I can't be an illiterate if I'm writing this sentence, can I? You may share the same culture, but no Nepalese called themselves Indian. You don't even look quite the same. As to Buddha, no one knows for sure.

U effing dimwit ,go read my earlier comment ,i dont even consider it a fking option u a$$, quit making $hit up , .I mention categorically that Gandhi being British educated doesn't mean he is British and hence proportionally same applies to Sidarth.

Good that you admit to this line of logic now. But why earlier you have to mention where Buddha gained enlightenment.

Buddha was firstly a Hindu like the majority in Nepal,second he gained enlightenment in the current Indian subcontinent

I hope your amnesia is not too serious.

 

[wolfschanzze]

India didn't exist in the time of the Buddha. There simply was no country or state of India back then. It's anachronistic to apply a modern concept to a historical period.

By the way, the Buddha came from modern day Nepal.

Just like China didnt exist during Buddha time right?

 

[faithfulguy]

Thats why columbus went out searching for india 1000's of years ago and native americans are still called red indians.

Columbus thought that he reached the East Indies, in another word, South East Asia islands. In the ancient times, anyone that practice Hinduism or Indian related culture is regarded as "Indian". Indonesia and Malaysia would qualified as Indians because Indians to the west does not meant a country, but a geographical expression and a civilization that encompasses South Asia and a great part of South East Asia. And again, India was not a country around 1500 as no such country, nation or empire existed.

What is going on here ? This is a economic thread why are there so many Indians talking about Buddha, prophecies and 5000 year civilization ?

Some Indians in here had successfully trolled and derailed the thread. They don't want to talk about their 4.4% growth.

 

[faithfulguy]

A united China never existed before the Manchu united it from Beijing to Xinjiang in 17-18th Century.

Roman empire was not at its greatest extend when Augustas create it. It was not until the time of Marcus Aurelius when it reached its largest size about 170AD. By your logic, then Roman empire was created around 170AD ?

Remember, Augustas was from the Julian dynasty and Marcus Aurelius was from the Antonine dynasty.