Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 24 Oct 2014 15:02

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2394 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 60  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 05:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3841
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
China cites technical hitches for not supporting ban on Jaish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 05:59 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 09:46
Posts: 12
Location: Earth
RaviBg wrote:


No amount of technical glitches stops the Chicoms from executing thousands of their own every year. How come??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 06:16 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 09:46
Posts: 12
Location: Earth
VinodTK wrote:



Balochistan: Going! (2005) , Going! (2010), Gone! (2015).

Sorry! could not resist. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 08:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Posts: 6863
Location: University of Trantor
'em pvt news channels are breathlessly proclaiming calm-panic on Adm Sureesh Mehta's dark prognostications - scenes of superb PRC infra in transport logistics, headcount of PLA men and machines, string of pearls encirclemnt strategems etc etc.

Wondering of the media blitz is the precursor of a justified, nay public-demanded ramp-up in military spend, border infrastruc and perhaps, just perhaps, N bums and delivery systems serial production.

Lets hope so!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 08:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31
Posts: 7329
Well, it is certainly time for this to be raised in the public consciousness. Jingos don't count as a vote bank.
That "splitting India" article comes at the right time. Hopefully the Chinese can be counted on to make some insulting remark regarding Arunachal soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 10:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 4333
VinodTK wrote:


This could be another sleight of hand on the part of China.

It would be real surprising it they would give up on the Gwadar project. It is strategically important and is a key one in its strategy of String of Pearls, wherein it can monitor traffic in the Arabian Sea including the Strait of Hormz as also US military activities in the Gulf.

Gwadar is critical for China’s sustenance since it is the seaport from where the most critical oil pipeline to China is opened along the KKH as an alternate route in case the Indian Ocean route is blockaded!! This pipeline would also cut down the costs of transhipment compared to the long Indian Ocean route.

True, there has been security problems for the Chinese where there engineers have been killed and attacked, but then China has weathered greater storms. And anyway, Gwadar is not not dangerous for the Chinese but also for the Pakistanis, because of the Makranis (or Negro Pakistanis as they are called) who are lawless and are into the drug trade and other criminal activities, as is claimed!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 10:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Posts: 1166
Location: Chini clone of "Maltin Bakel" ejection seat
Deepel than mountain tallel than ocean fail weathel fliend just got sunk :wink:

RaviBg wrote:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 14:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:19
Posts: 139
The dragon’s rumble-Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Quote:
The level of vitriol in the public sphere in both countries is reaching unprecedented levels. In India great concern has been expressed about an editorial in the People’s Daily castigating India, and arguments emanating from a Chinese think tank about strategies to dismember it. The trust deficit seems to be widening.


Quote:
But there is also a perception in China that no Indian leadership will be able to politically deliver on a border settlement. The dominant narrative of China as an aggressor in 1962 is still so ingrained that when it comes down to the wire no Indian government will be able to make a credible offer.


Quote:
The second is that the Indo-US relationship is perceived to be explicitly some part of a design to contain China. India can argue with some justification that the China-US relationship is much closer and more consequential, that improving relations with the US and China is not a zero sum game, and the possibility of serious Sino-US conflict is remote. But this argument does not seem as compelling to many Chinese for two reasons. First, many of them rate the possibility of Sino-US tensions increasing higher than what Indians normally do. So whose side you are on matters to them. Second, while they are happy with bilateral relationships, placing the relationship with the US in a broader quadrilateral arrangement involving Japan and Australia has not exactly gone down well.It has fed into their encirclement syndrome.


Quote:
The message was more to throw cold water on the Indian model, than belligerence in a classical security sense. In a strange way this confirms what some Chinese academics have been saying informally: India may pose a threat to some sections of the regime, not by its power but by its success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
RayC wrote:
In 1786 the Gurkhas invaded Tibet. The cause for this invasion went back a few years before the Gurkhas had gained full control of Nepal. Nepal had started adding copper to the silver coins which they were supplying to Tibet. In 1751 the Seventh Dalai Lama had written to the three Newari Kings, who ruled over the principalities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhatgaon, to protest against this practice. When Prithvi Narayan, chief of the Gurkhas, overthrew the Newari rulers he was similarly apprised of the situation.

Another sore point in the relations between the Gurkhas and the Tibetans had been the intervention of Tibet in the Gurkha invasion of Sikkim. Tibet offered help to Sikkim and a treaty was concluded between Nepal and Sikkim in the presence of two

Tibetan representatives. The Gurkhas resented this interference and were looking for an excuse to attack Tibet. Such an opportunity arose in the controversy over the third Panchen Lama's personal property which was being claimed by the Panchen's two brothers, Drugpa Tulku and Shamar Tulku. The latter hoped to use the backing of the Gurkhas for his claim. The Gurkhas used the claim of Shamar Tulku and invaded Tibet.

The Eighth Dalai Lama, then 26 years old, requested the Manchu Emperor, Ch'ien Lung, for temporary military assistance. The Manchu army which entered Tibet in 1792 became more harmful to the Tibetans and they again tried to increase the power of the Manchu Resident. Further, Ch'ien Lung sent a golden urn from Peking and declared that future reincarnations of the Dalai Lama and other important lamas should be determined by putting the names of the candidates in it and extracting one at random in the presence of the Manchu Resident. This imperialist imposition was not adhered to by the Tibetans and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, whose own choice had not even been referred to the Manchus, publicly abolished this form.

During this period Tibet was invaded several times and the Manchu Resident at Lhasa engaged in nefarious intrigues and meddled in Tibetan state affairs. But Tibet never lost her sovereignty. The Tibetan people recognized the Central Tibetan Government, headed by the Dalai Lama, as the only legal Government of Tibet.

The sovereignty of Tibet was further shown in her dealings with Nepal in 1856 when a treaty was signed between the two countries without reference to China. In the internal affairs of Tibet, the sovereignty of the Central Government of Tibet at Lhasa was most clearly illustrated in the internal war which broke out during the middle of the nineteenth century between the chieftain of Nyarong on the one side and the King of Derge and the Horpa princes on the other. The Tibetan Government sent an army, crushed the Nyarong Chief, whose invasion of his neighbour was the cause of the trouble, and set up a Tibetan Governor in his place, charging him with the general supervision of the affairs of Derge and the Horpa principalities.

In 1876, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thupten Gyatso, at the age of 19, took charge of the duties of state from Regent Choekyi Gyaltsen Kundeling. He was an outstanding personality and helped Tibet to reassert her rightful sovereignty in international affairs.

At this period the British had close and profitable ties with China. The Chinese had persuaded the British that they exercise 'suzerainty' over Tibet. Therefore on September 13, 1876, the Sino-British Chefoo Convention, which granted Britain the 'right' of sending a mission of exploration into Tibet, was signed. The mission was abandoned when the Tibetans refused to allow them on the grounds that they did not recognise China's authority. Two more similar agreements, the Peking Convention of July 24, 1886 and the Calcutta Convention of March 17, 1890, were also repudiated by the Tibetans.

The Tibetan Government refused to have anything to do with the British who were dealing over their heads with the Chinese. This coincided with new contacts between Russia and Tibet around 1900-1.

There followed an interchange of letters and presents between the Dalai Lama and the Russian Czar. This strengthened British fears about Russian involvement in Tibetan affairs. As the Russian power in Asia was growing, the British Government felt that their interest was at stake. Tibet was invaded by a British expeditionary force under Colonel Younghusband, which entered Lhasa on August 3, 1904.

A treaty was signed between Tibet and Great Britain on September 7, 1904. During the British invasion Tibet conducted her affairs as an independent country. Peking did not so much as protest against the British invasion of Tibet.

When the British invaded Tibet, the 13th Dalai Lama went to Mongolia. The Manchus, who were then ruling China, made one last attempt to interfere in Tibet through the military campaigns of the infamous Chao Erhfeng. Mhen the Dalai Lama was in Kumbum monastery in the province of Amdo, he received two messages - one from Lhasa, urging him to return with all speed as they feared for his safety and could not oppose the intruding troops of Chao Erhfeng, and the other from Peking, requesting him to visit the Chinese capital. The Dalai Lama chose to go to Peking with the hope of prevailing upon the Chinese Emperor to stop the military agression against Tibet and to withdraw his troops.

When the Dalai Lama finally returned to Lhasa in 1909, he found that, contrary to all the promises he had received in Peking, Chao Erhfeng's troops were at his heels. During the annual Monlam festival of 1910, some 2,000 Manchu and Chinese soldiers under the command of General Chung Ying entered Lhasa and indulged in carnage, rape, murder, plunder, and wanton destruction. Once again the Dalai Lama was forced to leave Lhasa. He appointed a Regent to rule in his absence and left for the southern town of Dromo with the intention to go to British India if necessary. Events in Lhasa and the pursuing Chinese troops forced him to leave his country once again.

In India the Dalai Lama and his ministers appealed to the British Government to help Tibet. Meanwhile the Manchu occupation force tried to subvert the Tibetan Government and to divide Tibet into Chinese provinces - exactly what, not half a century later, the Communist Chinese would do.

But, when the news of the 1911 Revolution in China reached Lhasa, the Chinese troops mutinied against their Manchu officers and attacked the Amban's residence. Fighting broke out between rival Manchu and Chinese generals. Then, in a desperate attempt to regain their dwindling hold in Lhasa, the Chinese attacked the Tibetans. By then, however, the Tibetans had reorganised themselves with orders coming from the Dalai Lama in India. Chinese troops in Lhasa, and elsewhere in Tibet were overcome by the Tibetans and finally expelled in 1912. During this period of fighting and confusion the new ruler of China, President Yuan Shih-kai, tried to send military reinforcements to the beleagured troops while at the same time trying to placate the Tibetans. He apologised for the excesses and

said that he had restored the Dalai Lama who wrote back saying that he was not asking the Chinese Government for any rank as he intended to ezercise both spiritual and temporal rule in Tibet and declared Tibet's independence.

A treaty was signed between Tibet and Great Britain on September 7, 1904. During the British invasion Tibet conducted her affairs as an independent country. Peking did not so much as protest against the British invasion of Tibet.

When the British invaded Tibet, the 13th Dalai Lama went to Mongolia. The Manchus, who were then ruling China, made one last attempt to interfere in Tibet through the military campaigns of the infamous Chao Erhfeng. Mhen the Dalai Lama was in Kumbum monastery in the province of Amdo, he received two messages - one from Lhasa, urging him to return with all speed as they feared for his safety and could not oppose the intruding troops of Chao Erhfeng, and the other from Peking, requesting him to visit the Chinese capital. The Dalai Lama chose to go to Peking with the hope of prevailing upon the Chinese Emperor to stop the military agression against Tibet and to withdraw his troops.

When the Dalai Lama finally returned to Lhasa in 1909, he found that, contrary to all the promises he had received in Peking, Chao Erhfeng's troops were at his heels. During the annual Monlam festival of 1910, some 2,000 Manchu and Chinese soldiers under the command of General Chung Ying entered Lhasa and indulged in carnage, rape, murder, plunder, and wanton destruction. Once again the Dalai Lama was forced to leave Lhasa. He appointed a Regent to rule in his absence and left for the southern town of Dromo with the intention to go to British India if necessary. Events in Lhasa and the pursuing Chinese troops forced him to leave his country once again.

In India the Dalai Lama and his ministers appealed to the British Government to help Tibet. Meanwhile the Manchu occupation force tried to subvert the Tibetan Government and to divide Tibet into Chinese provinces - exactly what, not half a century later, the Communist Chinese would do.

In January 1913 a bilateral treaty was signed between Tibet and Mongolia at Urga. In that treaty both countries declared themselves free and separate from China.

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, having returned from India i.n January 1913, issued a formal declaration of the complete independence of Tibet, dated the eighth day of the first month of the Water-Ox year (March 1913). The document also clarified:

"Now the Chinese intention of colonising Tibet under the patron-priest relationship has faded like a rainbow in the sky".

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama started international relations, introduced modern postal and telegraph services and, despite the turbulent period in which he ruled, introduced measures to modernise Tibet. On December 17, 1933 he passed away.

The following year a Chinese mission arrived in Lhasa to offer condolences, but in fact they tried to settle the Sino-Tibetan border issue. After the chief delegate left, another Chinese delegate remained to continue discussions. The Chinese delegation was permitted to remain in Lhasa on the same footing as the Nepalese and Indian representatives until he was expelled in 1949.

In September 1949, Communist China, without any provocation, invaded Eastern Tibet and captured Chamdo, the headquarters of the Governor of Eastern Tibet. On November 11, 1950, the Tibetan Government protested to the United Nations Organisation against the Chinese aggression. Although El Salvador raised the question, the Steering Committee of the General Assembly moved to postpone the issue.

On November 17, 1950, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama assumed full spiritual and temporal powers as the Head of State because of the grave crisis facing the country, although he was barely sixteen years old. On May 23, 1951 a Tibetan delegation, which had gone to Peking to hold talks on the invasion, was forced to sign the so-called "17-point Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet", with threats of more military action in Tibet and by forging the official seals of Tibet.

The Chinese then used this document to carry out their plans to turn Tibet into a colony of China disregarding the strong resistance by the Tibetan people. What is more, the Chinese violated every article of this unequal 'treaty' which they had imposed on the Tibetans.

On September 9, 1951 thousands of Chinese troops marched into Lhasa. The forcible occupation of Tibet was marked by systematic destruction of monasteries, suppression of religion, denial of political freedom, widespread arrests and imprisonment and massacre of innocent men, women and children.

On March 10, 1959 the nation-wide Tibetan resistance culminated in the Tibetan National Uprising against the Chinese in Lhasa. The Chinese retaliated with a ruthlessness unknown to the Tibetans. Thousands of men, women and children were massacred in the streets and many more imprisoned and deported. Monks and nuns were a prime target. Monasteries and temples were shelled.

On March 17, 1959 the Dalai Lama left Lhasa and escaped from the pursuing Chinese to seek political asylum in India. He was followed by unprecedented exodus of Tibetans into exile. Never before in their history had so many Tibetans been forced to leave their homeland under such difficult circumstances. There are now more than one hundred thousand Tibetan refugees all over the world.

It has been almost 40 years since Chinese occupied Tibet and the destruction of a unique

Culture is still going on Tibet, yet the world has not come in aid of Tibet, only lip service.


what a great wonderful one-side article on the Tibetan history written by tibet-independence advocators !

however, no matter long it is , it is still a one-side articles.

I don't want to repeat "tibetan histroy" in chinese view,but I just give some attention to you:


1. During premodern era, the concept of "sovereignty " doesn't exist at all .
how could Chinese Ming dynastry recognize the Sovereignty" of tibet when the concept didn't exist at all?

2. During premodern era, it was widely accepted in the china-centered world( today PRC,mongolia,Korea, Japan,south east Asia) that chinese emperors were " the Son of GOD" and the top rulers in the part of the world.
All lords besides china all were eager to get the recognization from " the Son of GOD",if they wanted to make their rules "more legitimate",just as european lords were always eager to get the recognization from "Pope" in mid age.
In 17-18th century, Dalai and Panchan went to Beijing for recognization from CHinese emperors were just two of lots of such "recognizations from Son of God".


3. Tibet ,two Mongolias and Xinjiang were looked on "inner vassals" while Korea,Vietnam and Burma were looked on as "outer vassals" by Chinese empires.
Now,outer Mongolia ,Korea,Vietnam and Burman are independent countries while inner mongolia, Xinjiang,Tibet are parts of PRC,although Korea and Vietnam are much more close to Han culturally and ethnicly than Xinjiang and Tibet.
why so? purely because China was too weak to hold Korea, Vietnam and outer mongolia any more while still powerful enough to hold Xinjiang,tibet and inner mongolia . it is completely a game of power and has nothing with ethnic or morality. if you are power enough, then you take it. if you are not powerful enough, you have to let them go.

the history and status quo fully prove that the borders are painted according to power balance ,instead of morality or ethnic.


Last edited by Liu on 14 Aug 2009 17:12, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:11 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14074
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Quote:
the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.

so I'm sure you and chinese people who think like you have absolutely no problem with the colonialist powers of europe and japan and how they treated china ?
right ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14079
Liu wrote:
It is completely a game of power and has nothing with ethnic or morality. if you are power enough, then you take it. if you are not powerful enough, you have to let them go.

the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.


Exactly Liu ji.

PRC's hold over Tibet and Xinjiang is ONLY based on power, not on historical legitimacy, not on morality, not on ethnicity. Whereas historical legitimacy, morality and ethnicity may have a longer shelf-life, power is indeed fickle. Now you have it, now you don't, as history teaches us.

That is all India and the world needs to know about China. Thank you!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
Rahul M wrote:
Quote:
the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.

so I'm sure you and chinese people who think like you have absolutely no problem with the colonialist powers of europe and japan and how they treated china ?
right ?


welcome to the earth.

the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14079
Rahul M wrote:
Quote:
the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.

so I'm sure you and chinese people who think like you have absolutely no problem with the colonialist powers of europe and japan and how they treated china ?
right ?

All their crying and whining is just for show! If a bully comes and rapes their moms and sisters, such people would simply say, "Aw well, they were more powerful!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
RajeshA wrote:
Liu wrote:
It is completely a game of power and has nothing with ethnic or morality. if you are power enough, then you take it. if you are not powerful enough, you have to let them go.

the history and status quo fully proves that the political map is written by force ,instead of morality or ethnic.


Exactly Liu ji.

PRC's hold over Tibet and Xinjiang is ONLY based on power, not on historical legitimacy, not on morality, not on ethnicity. Whereas historical legitimacy, morality and ethnicity may have a longer shelf-life, power is indeed fickle. Now you have it, now you don't, as history teaches us.

That is all India and the world needs to know about China. Thank you!


not only chinese borders ,but aslo all borders on the earth tody, are based on power balance,not on historical legitimacy.

otherwise, there would not be so many "man-made" borders and " man-made " countries.
India would still consists of dozens of small independent states.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14074
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Liu wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
so I'm sure you and chinese people who think like you have absolutely no problem with the colonialist powers of europe and japan and how they treated china ?
right ?


welcome to the earth.

the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.

thanks for your welcome, I feel quite comfortable here even without it !

but you didn't answer my question. or didn't you understand it ?
or perhaps unable to answer because of the inherent hypocrisy it'll inevitably display?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14079
Liu ji,

You should come to India and teach our politicians a few things on international power politics and Chinese thinking. You see, we Indians have become too nice, too nice for our own good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
the history and status quo fully prove that the borders are painted according to power balance ,instead of morality or ethnic.

And this is what no one likes about China. Civilization ultimately is not about brute power. It is about Truth. The Chinese htough in the past have learnt many things from India, would do well to look at India's national motto: Satyameva Jayate. The truth alone triumphs.

The Truth that ultimately will win is not one that is based on the logic you state of brute power and no ethics. Truth will give power to those that follow the correct morality, Dharma. Knowledge and power will flow their to kick the butt of the adharmic/ evil. And what does the adharmic believe in? Will repeat it:

the history and status quo fully prove that the borders are painted according to power balance ,instead of morality or ethnic.

So remember: In the short term you may believe your adharma is taking a big lead. But in the long term, that lead will be null. Truth and Dharma shall always win. That is the law. India believes in it. And China has to humbly once again learn that from India in modern times.

With totalitarianism and abuse of human rights you have alread begun losing the battle for hearts and minds in Asia and the world. You're already playing the losers game. China has already backed the wrong horse by it's backing of totaliarianism. Sorry it ain't gonna win with that credo.


Last edited by harbans on 14 Aug 2009 21:09, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
Rahul M wrote:
Liu wrote:

welcome to the earth.

the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.

thanks for your welcome, I feel quite comfortable here even without it !

but you didn't answer my question. or didn't you understand it ?
or perhaps unable to answer because of the inherent hypocrisy it'll inevitably display?


ok, let's talk in a more simple way:

before WW II, it was "colonialism 1.0" . powerful states could be robbers without any disguise ;
After WW II, it is "conialism 2.0". powerufl states are still robbers,but they just disguise themselve as " gentalmen"


Last edited by Liu on 14 Aug 2009 17:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:28 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14074
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Quote:
India would still consists of dozens of small independent states.

as I said earlier,

Quote:
"A dog can think of god only as a bigger dog."


just because your obviously limited comprehension can't understand it does not mean that things like historical legitimacy, morality etc don't exist.

FYI, the very forum you're discussing this on has representatives from virtually every one of the communities you and you're ilk believe to be part of smaller states which shouldn't form an unified India. and that participation is completely voluntary, unlike how things happen at your end.

Quote:
before WW II, it was "colonialism 1.0" . powerful states could be robbers without any disguise ;
After WW II, it is "conialism 2.0". powerufl states are still robbers,but they just disguise themselve as " human righter keepers"

and china is one of these states ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.


Thats not correct. Wars will be fought yes. But there will be one side supporting Ethics and Rights. Thats Dharma. Thats truth. The might have setbacks. But the are the ones that deserve to win. And they do. So while you may wallow in pride at subjagating populations for a period of time, remember, their cause is not forgotten ever.

Liu, Chinese must read ancient Indian literature and understand Dharma. You are on the wrong side. You have time to correct yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14079
Liu wrote:
not only chinese borders ,but aslo all borders on the earth tody, are based on power balance,not on historical legitimacy.

otherwise, there would not be so many "man-made" borders and " man-made " countries.
India would still consists of dozens of small independent states.


India is together because the Indians decided to live together, despite our differences in language, ethnicity, religion, caste, political persuasion. Except for some small minorities who have still not adjusted well and where there have been external interventions, 99% Indians are together of their own free will.

It was power politics by the useless princes, and foreign powers which were keeping Indians from living together in a single country, but it was not power politics that brought our people together. Otherwise our democracy would not work!

Just for your information!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
Rahul M wrote:

Quote:
before WW II, it was "colonialism 1.0" . powerful states could be robbers without any disguise ;
After WW II, it is "conialism 2.0". powerufl states are still robbers,but they just disguise themselve as " human righter keepers"

and china is one of these states ?



China just is trying to become one of them,but still has not mananged it yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
RajeshA wrote:
Liu wrote:
not only chinese borders ,but aslo all borders on the earth tody, are based on power balance,not on historical legitimacy.

otherwise, there would not be so many "man-made" borders and " man-made " countries.
India would still consists of dozens of small independent states.


India is together because the Indians decided to live together, despite our differences in language, ethnicity, religion, caste, political persuasion. Except for some small minorities who have still not adjusted well and where there have been external interventions, 99% Indians are together of their own free will.

It was power politics by the useless princes, and foreign powers which were keeping Indians from living together in a single country, but it was not power politics that brought our people together. Otherwise our democracy would not work!

Just for your information!


Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontient would still fight their ways to massacre each others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontient would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

Incorrect. The Mauryan Empire was bigger than the British Indian Empire and lasted much longer. Wars in ancient India were quite sparse compared to the rest of the world. Remember what Kalinga did to Ashoka (depicts exception, not the rule). Where Dharma spread, despite the many identities and forms it spawned, peace also spread. Where ideologies of excluvism came in, War in the present context came in. Where Dharma was vanquished in favor of Communism, Totalitarianism violence and killing followed. Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Japan..


Last edited by harbans on 14 Aug 2009 17:41, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12494
Location: In a sad place
Well lets give Liu some credit, unlike many western hypocrites he is quite willing to accept that the basis of China is not a idea, civilization, shared culture or geographic unity, he is pretty clear that the only thing holding China together is pure force of the basest kind.

Contrast this with the foolish British or Americans who feel compelled to tie themselves in knots trying to find a moral high ground while bombing the crap out of the Chinese/Afganis whatever.

The Chinese have totally dispensed with such artificial requirements like humanity, culture etc. They are clear that they are not any more evolved than the omnivores mammals and will use precisely thos, eat all you can see, philosophy towards life.

I find such honesty refreshing.

Of course we being Indian and considering a unbroken history of 10000 years and more with India and all of it as your punyabhoomi will not understand what he is saying, neither can I fully grasp such concepts frankly, having learnt the celebration of my mother land from the Sindhu to the Sindhu in my grandmothers lap along with my many siblings in the cool breezes to the fertile gangetic plains.

But we must as Dharmic people appreciate his honesty -- he is being upright -- the only other thing we have to ensure is that all our country men also understand that Liu and his country men are being 100% honest, they are still in the phase of "koi asia hoi nahee sakta hai" (no one can be like this only) unfortunately our upbringing creates a mindset where we cant really fathom that what Liu is saying is 100% true. Its our own mental restriction based on the sashya shyamala motherland.


Last edited by Sanku on 14 Aug 2009 18:07, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:45 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14074
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
Liu wrote:
Rahul M wrote:

and china is one of these states ?



China just is trying to become one of them,but still has not mananged it yet.

wow !

If that is indeed how PRC leadership thinks I'm happy with my politicians !! ( :eek: :eek: )
that's a surefire way to accumulate staunch enemies if there ever was.

Quote:
Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

if my aunt had a moustache, you know the rest............

you don't know alright ? stop pretending like predicting a society is like a theoretical classical mechanics problem. It is NOT. (btw, when the british left India they had left 500 independent states and we hear all the time how the britishers 'unified' India !! :roll: )

for all we know, it verily might have, India has been politically united for long stretches in the past and it might have happened again without the british.

anyway, just so you know, the Indian people have always considered themselves as one nation irrespective of who was governing them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14079
Liu wrote:
Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontinent would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

British intervention was simply the catalyst, which provided Indians the opportunity to reclaim their land from the power-hungry princes and rajahs. Had the British not done it, the normal Indians would have thrown the rajahs themselves out. There comes a time, when a idea becomes ripe. India's unity was one such idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
I think Liu is a girl IIRC from the tech thread. But Liu does not realize Indians travelled the length and breadth, including Kailash and Mansarover, Tibet..no one stopped them. Pilgimages to Dharma were encouraged and honored. No matter where you came from. There were Brahmin scholars from Kerala who taught in China and Myanmar, meditated in Tibet. There were Chinese travellers honored, welcomed and given loads of knowledge and reated with honor because they seeked knowledge. Excluvist doctrines which have been the bane of modern wars never existed in India ancient times. They came in with invaders.

btw, when the british left India they had left 500 independent states and we hear all the time how the britishers 'unified' India !! :roll: )

Ooh!! Nice one Rahul ji! :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Posts: 188
Location: around
Liu wrote:

China just is trying to become one of them,but still has not mananged it yet.


A nation with intentions of ill doing and colonialism WILL NOT survive for too long. If that is indeed what the political elite of China thinks, then China is certainly on a path of self destruction.

SATYAMEV JAYATE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 17:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Posts: 666
Location: Texas
harbans wrote:
the history and status quo fully prove that the borders are painted according to power balance ,instead of morality or ethnic.

And this is what no one likes about China. Civilization ultimately is not about brute power. It is about Truth. The Chinese htough in the past have learnt many things from India, would do well to look at India's national motto: Satyameva Jayate. The truth alone triumphs.

.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Sorry... That was just too funny if not tragic. I couldn't resist! Are we this Naive? Are the Politicians in India this Naive too? I would think so. Bloody shame,....Isn't it! Dang!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 18:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
Manny, can you explain why you consider it so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 18:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 14079
Manny ji,

One can build an empire, a nation on the basis of power, and that is the way empires and nations are usually built, but a civilization is the content of such an empire, of such a nation, and that has to have something more than power as its basis. Ultimately civilizational development is what maintains an empire, and a nation. Power alone is not sufficient. Had there been no civilization, we would not have come to where we are now.

What does Truth imply? In the Dharmic sense it has much deeper meaning than in the conventional Western sense. It also involves finding the Truth about oneself, or as Western thought says - "self-realization". It involves realizing the Truth about one's potential. It involves being True to one's conscience.

Without Truth there is no justice, something fundamental to the life expectancy of a nation. Without Truth there is no accountability of government, no meaning of promises of leaders, no confidence in the system.

Let's not be too hasty in belittling the relevance of someone else's words!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 18:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
Thank you Rajesh ji for putting it so well. Also i did mention, knowledge so critical to power also comes to those who seek truly. It is not for no reason India was a knowledge power in the past, and is emerging as one today. And knowledge as we know is power, even in the civilizaional context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 18:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23
Posts: 535
harbans wrote:
Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontient would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

Incorrect. The Mauryan Empire was bigger than the British Indian Empire and lasted much longer.



how about south India penisular and northeast ? they were always left outside any big empires in india subcontinent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 18:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12494
Location: In a sad place
Liu wrote:
harbans wrote:
Had britishmen not united India with iron and blood, dozens small states in India subcontient would still fight their ways to massacre each others.

Incorrect. The Mauryan Empire was bigger than the British Indian Empire and lasted much longer.



how about south India penisular and northeast ? they were always left outside any big empires in india subcontinent.


Well no no previous border was exactly like the current India if that is your point. The question is not only of any one given border -- the question is of total Nation of India, that is defined in the veda's already and at the time of Bharata.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 19:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51
Posts: 232
What about the influence the empire had during Mauryan and Gupta times.
In ancient time influence is as good as direct rule. Even if some kingdoms were not part of the empire they still paid tribute and maintained ties.
Even the british did not rule whole of India directly. You had lot of princely states.

British simply have to prove some how that their rule over India was good. They are just trying to justify the unjustifiable
What is the guarantee that India would not have remained united if british had not been there.?
Who knows what kind of leader might have emerged.?
Even if India was not united till 1900 it might have got united later with the spread of railways and motor vehicles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 19:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4753
Location: Dehradun
Liu, realize for example...the Sikh Empire (from 1801-1849) extended from Khyber Pass in the west, to Kashmir in the north, to Sindh in the south, and Tibet in the east. British were not in control that region till less than a 100 years before independence. Only 1839 started the anglo-sikh wars. Just an example. British consolidated the region very late. It's not that the British Empire ruled the entire reggion for 200 years or whatever. Even the Marathas had large independent swathes. Delhi only became British India's capital in 1912. Calcutta was the Capital. So some parts of peninsular or NE India that you did'nt find on Wiki don't really matter much in the Mauryan Empire.

I gave that earlier example to show that India was a large entity for a long time at many points of time. And yes they lasted longer than the British empire, much unlike what Islamist and PRC propagandists would like you to believe..

What about the influence the empire had during Mauryan and Gupta times.
In ancient time influence is as good as direct rule. Even if some kingdoms were not part of the empire they still paid tribute and maintained ties.
Even the british did not rule whole of India directly. You had lot of princely states.


Good point. Like what Porus was to Chandragupta for example. It was pretty free. But the Major Kings were satisfied with allied Cheftain Type rulers at their peripheries, much like the British were satisfied with the Princes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 21:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 4333
Liu wrote:


welcome to the earth.

the geopolitics and international politics today have no difference with those in colonist era.
but dut to the exsitence of WMD, main powers had to limit their ambitions for their survivals.

Had there been no WMD, WW III would have happened decades ago.


Actually, you should welcome Rahul M to the Middle Kingdom Zhōngguó (中國) not to the Earth.

To you, the history of Tibet maybe one sided, but have you anything to refute it or is it the Han arrogance that makes you feel that everyone else is wrong, but you alone are right!

This is what Liang Jing wrote in China Digital Times[Monday, March 31, 2008 14:59]:

Quote:
On March 28 the 14th Dalai Lama appealed personally to Chinese people everywhere, especially to those in the PRC, hoping that they understand his sincere wishes for Tibetan autonomy and cultural rights only, without seeking independence for Tibet. This was to my knowledge the first time the Dalai Lama has gone over the heads of the Chinese government and leaders to engage the Han people’s understanding directly; its significance is far-reaching. No one, of course, imagines that this appeal will have a positive impact on Hu Jintao and the Chinese leadership as a whole. On the contrary, I believe that it can only further shame them into anger. If Hu Jintao has recently relaxed at all on the issue of dialogue with the Dalai Lama, it would not be due to this appeal, but more likely the result of pressure exerted by Western communities, in particular the United States. The only language understood by China’s mediocre rulers is that of power and interest........

The ill-informed responses to western media reports of some overseas Chinese youth are most thought-provoking in this connection. They immediately relay these false reports back to China as ironclad proof of Western ill will, and gain a strong response among domestic internet users..............

The ignorance of many Han lies in the fact that devotion to power and interest has rendered them incapable of understanding this reasoning: that when the Han deprived Tibetans of their autonomy, they deprive themselves of their own rights to democratic self-government, and thereby to give up their dignity in the face of all humanity



Check this on Han arrogance:

Quote:
Just as indigenous cultures are represented as ideologically deficient in the PRC, the dominant Han are represented as agents of civilisation. Like many modern colonisers, the Han legitimate their control by conceiving themselves as uniquely burden with a civilising mission to help indigenous peoples progress and overcome cultural and linguistic deficits ……

Such deeply embedded ethnic arrogance and colonial paternalism arise from a unique combination of Han chauvinism and Marxist modernism. Han chauvinism arises from an historical belief in Han racial and cultural superiority which even Mao identified as a potential threat to national unity. This ethnic arrogance……

Han Chinese ARROGANCE



As far as WW III, and as per your postualtion, don't you think because the US invented the Atomic bomb, you are safe?

I am sure you thank the US and their 'running dogs' and 'capitalist roaders' every morning as you rise from your bed!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 21:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 4333
The Indian connection to Tibet.

Image

Image

This vibrant painting depicts Chakrasamvara and his consort, Vajravarahi, together with the deities who form their sacred assembly (mandala). The fourheaded, twelve-armed Chakrasamvara embraces Vajravarahi as he clasps the thunderbolt scepter (vajra) and the ritual bell (ghanta); his other arms hold the skin of an elephant, hand drum, ritual chopper, three ceremonial staffs, skull
cup, noose, and head of the Hindu god Brahma. Kalaratri and Bhairava are trampled underfoot. Both central figures are adorned with the white bone ornaments and the necklaces of skulls and severed heads traditionally worn by wrathful Esoteric Buddhist deities. just outside Chakrasamvara's fiery halo are scenes associated with the eight cremation grounds (smashanas); these abbreviated scenes provide an interesting comparison with the more fully developed narrative in the earlier Chakrasamvara Mandala (cat. no. 2).

Observing iconographic prescriptions for this deity, the artist included five groups of deities meant to form five concentric circles, but here they are arranged in registers. Within the main rectangle of the painting, resting on lotuses associated with the four cardinal points of the compass, are: Dakini (east, blue), Lama (north, green), Khandaroha (west, red), and Rupini (south, yellow). At the intermediate points of the compass are four skull cups (kapalas) that rest on vases supported by lotuses and
that contain "the thought of enlightenment," blood, the five ambrosias, and "the five awakenings."' The second circle is called "the circle of thought" (chittachakra); it is represented by the eight blue male and female couples in the top register. The third circle, "the circle of speech" (vakchakra), is represented by the eight red male and female couples in the top and upper side registers. The
fourth circle, "the circle of body" (kayachakra), can be seen in the white male and female couples in the side registers. And the fifth circle, "the circle of intuition" (samayachakra), appears in the lower register in the form of eight deities; the bicolored figures bear the colors associated with those quadrants of the mandala they are meant to bisect. Of considerable interest are the sixteen goddesses in the bottom register who appear in front of a red curtain. Each bears an offering, such as dance, song, incense, food, or garlands, which they present to the main figures in the mandala.

The style of this painting may be compared with that of the late-thirteenth- or early-fourteenth century painting of Scenes from the Life of the Historical Buddha (cat. no.27). Like that work, this painting is bordered by red, green, and white rectangles surrounded by gold, a motif that suggests colored gems with gold settings. Both paintings also rely on a similar motif to distinguish registers within the painting (here, seen above the bottom register). The lotus petals in the two paintings are similar, as are the figures rendered by broad color fields with only occasional attempts at modeling. Costumes are also closely related, most especially those of the sixteen offering goddesses in this work and those of Sujata and the female attendants of the bodhisattva prince in the earlier work (cat. no. 27). It is also interesting to compare this work with the slightly later mandala seen here (cat. no. 43). The paintings differ chiefly in composition. Chakrasamvara and his consort dominate the later composition, as they are larger in height and width than in this work; they are also proportionally larger than their attendant deities, who are almost uniformly diminutive. The dominance of Chakrasamvara and Vajravarahi in the later work contrasts with that in the work under consideration, wherein less of the composition's area is given to Chakrasamvara and Vajravarahi, and the size of the attendant figures increases as one moves toward the bottom of the painting. Thus, while both paintings fulfill essentially the same iconographic requirement, differences in composition, color tone, and the artist's technical virtuosity all contribute to the different aesthetics seen in the two paintings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2009 21:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31
Posts: 4333
Atisha- the Bengali saint who arrived in Tiber in 1042.

Persecution and Revival
The foundations of the Buddhist religion had now been laid in Tibet. However, the new religion was to suffer one serious setback before it finally took root. The last king of Tibet, Lang Darma, was totally opposed to Buddhism. During his reign (835-843) a period of persecution began. The great Buddhist temples were closed, and pictures of drunken monks were painted on their walls. Monks were forced to marry, become huntsmen, or return to the Bon religion. Those who refused were executed…

The story goes that three Buddhists monks, living in the wilderness south of Lhasa, were unaware of the persecution of their religion. One day, they were astonished to see a number of monks armed with bows and arrows hunting a deer. Learning that these monks were being forced to kill animals, contrary to the Buddha’s teachings, the three monks hurriedly strapped their sacred scriptures to their mules and fled. They eventually settled in the Amdo district near the Chinese border.

While Buddhism was being destroyed in central Tibet, this small group kept it alive in the east. They ordained a new monk called Gongpa Rabsal, and slowly, the news of their activities began to spread. When the original three monks were very old, a group of ten volunteers set out from Samye to receive teachings from them. Their return to Samya as fully ordained monks marks the first step in the revival of Buddhism in central Tibet. They were the first monks seen at Samye for seventy years.



The story goes that when Atish first arrived in Tibet, he was met by a great many Lama-chieftains. When he was all these Lamas, he asked why he was needy when there were already so many holy men in Tibet. But when the Lamas frew closer, and Atisha was all the fine cloths they were wearing, their magnificent horses and proud escots, he realized he was not part of the Buddha’s teaching.
Meanwhile, one of the heroes of the Buddhist revival in western Tibet was a monk of royal blood called Yeshe Od. He arranged for twenty-one young boys to go to Kashmir to learn Sanskrit and study Buddhism. Only two survived- Rinchen Zampo and Legpe Sherab- but they lived to become famous translators, and eventually returned to Tibet in 978, accompanied by a number of Indian teachers. The enormous number of sacred scriptures they translated did more than anything else to ensure the return of Buddhism to Tibet.

Yeshe Od also tried to persuade the foremost Buddhist teacher in India, Atisha, to come to Tibet. It was while raising gold for Atisha’s journey that he was captured by the Garlog king and thrown into prison. There he died of starvation and ill-treatment- a true martyr to his religion. But he did not die in vain, for Atisha came to Tibet.

The great Indian teacher arrived in Tibet in 1042. Although he was a master of all the great tantric teachings, he did not choose to emphasize this path of Buddhism. He was a gentle, saintly man, full of compassion and dedicated to learning. During his years in Tibet, Atisha established many new monasteries throughout the country, and insisted that the monks follow stricter rules of discipline. He worked on many sacred books in Lhasa and Samye, and still found time to travel among the country people, bringing the word of Buddha to their homes. Atisha told them that above all, a true Buddhist must love all living things. During his seventeen years in Tibet, more people turned to Buddhism than ever before. His compassion and gentleness have left their mark on Tibetan Buddhism to this day.

Mongols and Lamas

The Sakya Lama - popularly known as Sakya Pandita.
The Sakya Lama and the Mongols
For four hundred years after the death of the last king, Lang Darma, in 843, Tibet was divided into many little states, each ruled by a prince or a lama. Sometimes these states would be friendly with their neighbors; at other times they would make war with them. The only thing uniting the country during these years was the spread of Buddhism. As a result the monasteries became more powerful. These were often built like castles, with great thick stone walls to protect the monks from raiders. The monasteries began to acquire wealth and land, and the abbot, or head lama, might well rule over much of the surrounding countryside.

Then, in 1207, news reached Tibet that stuck fear into many people’s hearts. Rumors came out of the north of a man called Genghis Khan and the deeds of his fierce Mongolian soldiers. There were tales of deserted cities, of the massacre of men, women and children in cold blood, and of burned and empty villages. Nothing survived that lay in the path of the Mongol hordes, whispered the rumors.


A Mongol horseman at the time of Genghis Khan.
The Tibetan chieftains and lamas decided to hold an emergency meeting in Lhasa. It was agreed to send messengers to the Mongol camp to beg that Tibet might be spared. In return they would pay the Mongols Emperor an annual tribute. Pleased by such a humble submission to his greatness, Genghis Khan agreed, and his terrible armies did not invade Tibet.

But after the death of Genghis Khan, the Tibetans ceased to pay tribute. Angered by this breach of faith, Genghis Khan’s grandson, Prince Godan, ordered his generals to invade Tibet with 30,000 troops. His fierce horsemen raided as far south as Lhasa, killing and looting as they went. But Price Godan was not just a harsh warrior. He was greatly interested in the Buddhist religion. On hearing that the Lama of the Sakya monastery was the holiest in Tibet, he sent him a letter. ’We need a lama’, he wrote, ’to advise my ignorant people on how to conduct themselves morally and spiritually’. But the Price made it clear that he was making the Sakya Lama an order, not a request, ’ I will accept no excuses on account of your age or the rigors of the journey!’ he wrote sternly.



The Sakya Lama is received by Prince Godan at the Mongol court.
So, the Sakya Lama set out for the Mongol court. There, his wisdom and teachings deeply impressed Price Godan. It is said that he cured the Prince of a serious illness. He even managed to persuade the Mongolian chieftains to stop throwing large numbers of Chinese into the nearby river. This was most certainly against the Buddhist faith, he said, even if it did help to reduce the population. Together with his nephew, Dogon Choegyal Phagpa,

The Sakya Lama is received by Prince Godan at the Mongol court.
So, the Sakya Lama set out for the Mongol court. There, his wisdom and teachings deeply impressed Price Godan. It is said that he cured the Prince of a serious illness. He even managed to persuade the Mongolian chieftains to stop throwing large numbers of Chinese into the nearby river. This was most certainly against the Buddhist faith, he said, even if it did help to reduce the population. Together with his nephew, Dogon Choegyal Phagpa, the Sakya Lama began a translation of Buddhist scriptures into Mongolian, which at that time, was still an unwritten language.

In return for acting as his religious tutor, Prince Godan made the Sakya Lama the supreme ruler of all the little states of central ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urnchemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />Tibet. The Sakya Lama did not exercise this authority himself, as he never left the Mongols court, but it was later exercised by his nephew Phagpa. This was the start of a unique relationship between the Tibetan lamas and the Mongol leaders. It was an arrangement between two equal, but very different countries. The Tibetans would help and guide the Mongols in matters of religion, while the Mongols would protect and support Tibet in more worldly affairs. The same sort of relationship was later to develop between the Tibetans and Chinese Emperors.


Kublai Khan - the great Mongol chieftain who evenyually became Emperor of China.
On the banks of the Yellow River in China, a great array of horsemen was slowly moving. Clouds of dust rose from the column and the sun flashed on the glittering armour and bright swords of the Mongol horsemen. In the center of the column, mounted on magnificent white horses, rode two men. One was dressed in gorgeous robes studded with gold and pearls, and had the proud look of a fierce warrior. The other was dressed in the red and white robes of a monk, but his hat and staff proclaimed him to be a high lama from Tibet. The two men were deep in conversation. Their heads were bent earnestly together as they discussed a difficult question about the Buddha’s teachings. The man in the gorgeous robes scowled in concentration as he struggled to grasp the meaning of the scriptures. The other answered him with gentle words and explanations. For these two men were the great Kublai Khan, Mongolian leader and later Emperor of all China, and his Buddhist tutor and ruler of Tibet, Phagpa.

Phagpa had succeeded his uncle both as Lama of Sakya, and as the high lama at the Mongol court in 1251. The young man’s learning made a deep impression on Kublai Khan. The Mongol leader made Phagpa his tutor and showered honours on him. In 1254, Kublai sent his tutor a letter granting him full political power in Tibet. He wrote, "This letter grants you authority over all Tibet, enabling you to protect the religious institutions and faith of your people and to propagate the Lord Buddha’s teachings.

As the sun sank, the horsemen stopped in a meadow by the river. Fair pavilions and tents had been set up, awaiting their arrival. That night, a great feast was held, for tomorrow Phagpa would journey on to Tibet and Kublai Khan would return to Mongolia. Magnificent gifts were exchanged – precious stones, gold, and silver. All wondered at the great friendship between these two men – one the great warrior leader of the Mongols, the other the gentle monk from Tibet. In the morning they bowed and parted, one heading north, the other west.


The Sakya Monastery was said to have a golden statues of the Buddha over 35 feet high.
Although Phagpa spent much of his time at the Mongol court, Tibet was now ruled in his name from the Monastery at Sakya. His minister there was known as Ponchen, and under him were thirteen governors who ruled the provinces. The Sakya Monastery benefited greatly from these days of power. It is said that the main temple contained a golden statue of the Buddha over thirty-five feet high. When Kublai Khan increased his power by becoming Emperor of China in 1280, the power and prestige of the Sakya Lamas also increased.

The rule of the Sakya Lamas lasted until the middle of the fourteenth century. During this time, Tibet was once again loosely united under a single political and religious leadership.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2394 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 60  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, sam witte, Vriksh and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group