Some similarity's between India and China

[LURKER]

China was a political entity as successive dynasties claim the throne of the previous dynasty. When you said that whoever rule Dehli rule India, this is using today's political perspective to view history, which is none factual.

After China first unified, there were time of disunity. But those kingdoms are aware that they were not unified. For example, even after Han dynasty, when China was split into competing kingdoms. Each of the kingdoms know that the country is split and they just rule portions of an empire. Some of the kings would claim as being the emperor and regard the other kingdoms as in rebellion. Fast forward to today, both Taiwan and China claim to be the legitimate ruler of China. So China today, as well as two thousand years ago, have awareness that it's one country.

India nation is a new concept that existed after Britain created India. Did the Chola empire realized that it rule only part of India and ever claimed north India as being in rebellion? Did the Gupta rulers regard itself as the successor of the Mauryan rulers. Fast forward to today, if India regard itself as one nation before British conquered it, than it would never split into two based on religion. But because India was none existent prior to Britain created it, it make total sense to split into two to create a new nation that will bring the benefit to each individual new entities.

In ancient India upto 10th century only that ruler who ruled whole of the subcontinent was termed 'Chakravarti Samrat'. Mauryan rulers were referred so because they united all of India. From 10th century onwards Delhi was the seat of power. Whoever ruled Delhi was regarded as the ruler of Hindustan (India). Dynasties tried to expand their territory from their base at capital Delhi and to unite all of India. All dynasties From 11th century onwards strived for this as they wanted to be ruler of whole of India.

Indians had awareness of being culturally united since times immemorial. Ancient texts have referred to the extent of boundaries of India, refer to my previous post on the verse mentioned in Vishnu Purana.

Nation as such is a modern concept. A Tibetan dynasty didn't relate to China nor did it think of uniting all of it. Same with small dynasties of India. PRC is the outcome of this modern concept which evolved in the West so is India. Circumstances under which they evolved may differ. Split of India was based on ideology, same as China-Taiwan split.

 

[Gibbs]

In ancient India upto 10th century only that ruler who ruled whole of the subcontinent was termed 'Chakravarti Samrat'. Mauryan rulers were referred so because they united all of India. From 10th century onwards Delhi was the seat of power. Whoever ruled Delhi was regarded as the ruler of Hindustan (India). Dynasties tried to expand their territory from their base at capital Delhi and to unite all of India. All dynasties From 11th century onwards strived for this as they wanted to be ruler of whole of India.

Thats not entirely true, The Maurya were the only dynasty that ruled anything close to what now is considered India at the height of Chandra Gupta Mauya and Asoka, But even they did not hold any territory South of the Deccan plateau, Not to mention Eastern and North Eastern States that were never part of Hindustan

 

[faithfulguy]

In ancient India upto 10th century only that ruler who ruled whole of the subcontinent was termed 'Chakravarti Samrat'. Mauryan rulers were referred so because they united all of India. From 10th century onwards Delhi was the seat of power. Whoever ruled Delhi was regarded as the ruler of Hindustan (India). Dynasties tried to expand their territory from their base at capital Delhi and to unite all of India. All dynasties From 11th century onwards strived for this as they wanted to be ruler of whole of India.

Indians had awareness of being culturally united since times immemorial. Ancient texts have referred to the extent of boundaries of India, refer to my previous post on the verse mentioned in Vishnu Purana.

Nation as such is a modern concept. A Tibetan dynasty didn't relate to China nor did it think of uniting all of it. Same with small dynasties of India. PRC is the outcome of this modern concept which evolved in the West so is India. Circumstances under which they evolved may differ. Split of India was based on ideology, same as China-Taiwan split.

Split of British India was based on religion. India never existed and people of India subcontinent never regard itself as one country. And still have not. Where as both China and Taiwan claims that there is only one China, and the other in rebellion. As I mention, this practice was in effect since China was united in 221 BC. China was created in 221 BC. Prior to that China not united except the sense of unity as one civilization, but it has no sense as one country. There were dynasties prior to 221 BC. But people in the geographical China proper never see itself as one country and cannot be separated politically. Pretty much like how Indians view India before Republic of India was created.

I was going to say that British really created India. But that's not true as India was not created until British India split into India and Pakistan.

 

[ashok mourya]

Split of British India was based on religion. India never existed and people of India subcontinent never regard itself as one country. And still have not. Where as both China and Taiwan claims that there is only one China, and the other in rebellion. As
I mention, this practice was in effect since China was united in 221 BC. China was created in 221 BC. Prior to that China not united except the sense of unity as one civilization, but it has no sense as one country. There were dynasties prior to 221 BC. But people in the geographical China proper never see itself as one country and cannot be separated politically. Pretty much like how Indians view India before Republic of India was created.

I was going to say that British really created India. But that's not true as India was not created until British India split into India and Pakistan.

No India ,Bharat or Hindustan is long before bound by religion only.
Check Hindus 4 sacred places more or same significant as mecca for Muslims,Jerusalem n Rome for Christians.
Char Dham
Major Indian Hindu pilgrim sites
For denomination Himalayan pilgrimage sites, see Chota Char Dham.
Char Dham


Badrinath • Rameswaram
Dwarka • Puri
This box:

• view
  
• talk
  
• edit

Badrinath

Dwarka

Puri

Rameswaram
Char Dham
The char dham is defined by the Pandavas in Mahabharata as "Badrinath" , "Kedarnath" , "Gangotri" and "yamunotri" to get rid of their sins. Char Dham as defined in modern days (literally: 'the four abodes/seats') are the names of four pilgrimage sites in India that are widely revered by Hindus. It comprises Badrinath, Dwarka, Puri and Rameswaram. It is considered highly sacred by Hindus to visit Char Dham during one's lifetime. The Char Dham defined by Adi Shankaracharya consists of four Vaishnavite pilgrimages.[1][2]

The ancient pilgrimages sites in the Indian state of Uttarakhand viz. Yamunotri, Gangotri, Kedarnath, and Badrinath were known as Chota Char Dham to differentiate them from the bigger circuit of Char Dham sites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Dham

 

[ashok mourya]

Pilgrimage detailsEdit
1. PuriEdit

Jagannath Temple, Puri
Puri located at the east, is located in the state of Odisha, India. Puri is one of the oldest cities in the eastern part of the country. It is situated on the coast of the Bay of Bengal. The main deity is Shri Krishna, celebrated as Lord Jagannatha. It is the only shrine in India, where goddess, Subhadra, sister of Lord Krishna is worshipped along with her brothers, Lord Jagannatha and Lord Balabhadra. The main temple here is about 1000 years old and constructed by Raja Choda Ganga Deva and Raja Tritiya Ananga Bhima Deva. Puri is the site of the Govardhana Matha, one of the four cardinal institutions or Mathas established by Adi Shankaracharya. Brahma, Vishnu & Maheswara three are together in all-time every place. In Kali yuga Sreemandir as jagannath temple in Puri. Jagannath-Vishnu, Balabhadra-Maheswara & Subhadra-Brahma. This is the plume for Oriya people to celebrate a special day in this Dham which is known as Ratha Yatra("Chariot Festival").[10][11]

2. RameswaramEdit

Image of the east and west temple towers
Rameswaram located in the South is in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. It is situated in the Gulf of Mannar at the very tip of the Indian peninsula. According to legends, this is the place from where Lord Rama, built a bridge Ram Setu to Lanka. The Ramanatha Swamy Temple dedicated to Lord Shiva occupies a major area of Rameswaram. The temple is believed to have been consecrated by Shri Rama Chandra. Rameswaram is significant for the Hindus as a pilgrimage to Benaras is incomplete without a pilgrimage to Rameswaram. The presiding deity here is in the form of a Linga with the name Sri Ramanatha Swamy, it also is one of the twelve Jyotirlingas. Brahma, Vishnu & Maheswara three are together in all-time every place. Rama-Vishnu, Laxman-Brahma & Hanuman-Maheswara.[citation needed]

3. DwarkaEdit

Dwarakadheesh Temple, Dwarka
Dwarka located in the west is in the state of Gujarat, India. The city derives its name from the word "dvar" meaning door or gatein the Sanskrit language. It is located confluence to where the Gomti River merges into the Arabian Sea. However, this river Gomti is not the same Gomti River which is tributary of Ganga River The city lies in the westernmost part of India. The legendary city of Dwaraka was the dwelling place of Lord Krishna. It is believed[who?] that due to damage and destruction by the sea, Dvaraka has submerged six times and modern day Dwarka is the 7th such city to be built in the area.[citation needed]

4. BadrinathEdit

Badrinath Temple, Badrinath
Badrinath is located in the state of Uttarakhand. It is in the Garhwal hills, on the banks of the Alaknanda River. The town lies between the Nar and Narayana mountain ranges and in the shadow of Nilkantha peak (6,560m).
These 4 sites situated 4 corner s of India and are more than 1500 years old.

 

[LURKER]

Thats not entirely true, The Maurya were the only dynasty that ruled anything close to what now is considered India at the height of Chandra Gupta Mauya and Asoka, But even they did not hold any territory South of the Deccan plateau, Not to mention Eastern and North Eastern States that were never part of Hindustan

First of all Maurya are not the only dynasty that ruled most of modern day India. Starting from Tughlaq dynasty and then Mughals ruled most of modern day India and beyond. If not directly under them smaller kingdoms accepted their suzerainty.

Maurya at the time of Ashoka extended well beyond deccan. Ashoka made peace with Tamil kingdoms and it were these kingdoms he didn't annex.

Eastern states were very much part of Indian empires. Only frontier northeast states were never really part of any Indian empire.

Split of British India was based on religion. India never existed and people of India subcontinent never regard itself as one country. And still have not. Where as both China and Taiwan claims that there is only one China, and the other in rebellion. As
I mention, this practice was in effect since China was united in 221 BC. China was created in 221 BC. Prior to that China not united except the sense of unity as one civilization, but it has no sense as one country. There were dynasties prior to 221 BC. But people in the geographical China proper never see itself as one country and cannot be separated politically. Pretty much like how Indians view India before Republic of India was created.

I was going to say that British really created India. But that's not true as India was not created until British India split into India and Pakistan.

Split of India was based on ideology as split of China. PRC never existed before 1949 and people of modern day PRC didn't regard themselves Chinese and many like Tibetan and Uyghur still do not.

Concept of Bharata Varsha (India) is not from the days of British Raj. It is centuries old. Let me requote Vishnu Purana for you :

The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

British only partitioned India. Modern concept of sovereign nations that developed in western world created both India and PRC otherwise they would still be Mughals, Gupta, Qin, Yuan etc empires .

 

[faithfulguy]

First of all Maurya are not the only dynasty that ruled most of modern day India. Starting from Tughlaq dynasty and then Mughals ruled most of modern day India and beyond. If not directly under them smaller kingdoms accepted their suzerainty.

Maurya at the time of Ashoka extended well beyond deccan. Ashoka made peace with Tamil kingdoms and it were these kingdoms he didn't annex.

Eastern states were very much part of Indian empires. Only frontier northeast states were never really part of any Indian empire.


Split of India was based on ideology as split of China. PRC never existed before 1949 and people of modern day PRC didn't regard themselves Chinese and many like Tibetan and Uyghur still do not.

Concept of Bharata Varsha (India) is not from the days of British Raj. It is centuries old. Let me requote Vishnu Purana for you :

The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

British only partitioned India. Modern concept of sovereign nations that developed in western world created both India and PRC otherwise they would still be Mughals, Gupta, Qin, Yuan etc empires .

Chinese has a understanding of political unity since 221 BC when China was unified as a country. PRC is just a regime, that replaced ROC, which replaced the Qing, which replaced Ming and so on. There were time of division, but people know that the country was divided. Just like China is divided today.

India as a political unit didn't exist until British created India. As I said, the various India empires were self created empires for itself. Only modern day Indian revisionist tried to portray that India was created prior to the British. But that is a lie. India is as old as Pakistan. FACT.

 

[nang2]

• Tea cultivation -- both India and China have been doing it for so long, nobody has the slightest clue who had it first

Actually, tea is from China. Chai is a Mandarin Chinese term. The English term "tea" come from Minnan dialect. Except for Portuguese, most European language also use a variation of the word "tea"

Correct. In fact, it was British who brought tea cultivation, as well as tea consumption, to India.

 

[LURKER]

Chinese has a understanding of political unity since 221 BC when China was unified as a country. PRC is just a regime, that replaced ROC, which replaced the Qing, which replaced Ming and so on. There were time of division, but people know that the country was divided. Just like China is divided today.

India as a political unit didn't exist until British created India. As I said, the various India empires were self created empires for itself. Only modern day Indian revisionist tried to portray that India was created prior to the British. But that is a lie. India is as old as Pakistan. FACT.

First of all PRC of today is not China of 221 BC under Qin dynasty which formed only a fraction of PRC. Indians had an understanding of their their nation since centuries which has been stated in ancient Indian texts like Vishnu Purana. Please refer my previous post for more information.

India was as much a political entity under Mauryas and Mughals as PRC was under Yuan or Qing. These political entities cannot be compared to modern sovereign countries, a concept which developed in western world and whose results are sovereign nations of India and PRC. Communist propogandists can claim as much as they want that China is 4000 years old but that is a lie. PRC is not even as old as Union of India. FACT

 

[nang2]

Sun wukong's shifu （teacher） comes from Taoism

It is largely from Buddhism. The master's name is clearly from Buddhism. The story of initiation is clearly from Buddhism (6th zen patriarch master Huineng). Even Sun's name is from Chinese Buddhist tradition.

Chopsticks vs. hands for eating

That may be partially explained by the differences between cooked Chinese rice and cooked Indian rice. It would be a nightmare to use chopsticks to eat cooked Indian rice.

 

[faithfulguy]

First of all PRC of today is not China of 221 BC under Qin dynasty which formed only a fraction of PRC. Indians had an understanding of their their nation since centuries which has been stated in ancient Indian texts like Vishnu Purana. Please refer my previous post for more information.

India was as much a political entity under Mauryas and Mughals as PRC was under Yuan or Qing. These political entities cannot be compared to modern sovereign countries, a concept which developed in western world and whose results are sovereign nations of India and PRC. Communist propogandists can claim as much as they want that China is 4000 years old but that is a lie. PRC is not even as old as Union of India. FACT

You are talking about political entity. I'm talking about the existence of history. For example, do you accept that Turkey was created in 1923 or was it created when Ottoman was first formed. Was Russia created in 1991 or was Russia created from the Grand duchy of Moscow.

PRC was created in 1949. But the political unit called China was created in 221BC. Indian Republic was created in 1947, and the political unit known as India was created in 1947 as well. Same year as Pakistan.

 

[ahojunk]

The original poster tried to highlight the similarities between India and China.
While this is a noble thing to do, but it seems that Chinese members are not buying your arguments.
Let's agree to disagree. India is nowhere close to China and will never be, as the way things are going.

Heck, if I tried hard enough I can also put up a good case that Australia has many similarities to China.
If this makes you feel better, good.

Closing this thread as it not going anywhere.