Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 24 Apr 2014 13:16

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 953 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 24  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Non-Western Worldview
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2008 22:06 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
The format of previous thead was beyond repair. Lets start a fresh.

Last page of previous thread


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2008 23:08 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 15 Apr 2006 06:47
Posts: 96
Location: Banavasi
Quote:
The European civilisation may be likened to a piece of cloth, of which these are the materials: its loom is a vast temperate hilly country on the sea-shore; its cotton, a strong warlike mongrel race formed by the intermixture of various races; its warp is warfare in defence of one's self and one's religion. The one who wields the sword is great, and the one who cannot, gives up his independence and lines under the protection of some warrior's sword. Its woof is commerce. The means to this civilisation is the sword; its auxiliary — courage and strength; its aim enjoyment here and thereafter.


In the following paragraphs Aryan = Hindu

Quote:
The loom of the fabric of Aryan civilisation is a vast, warm, level country, interspersed with broad, navigable rivers. The cotton of this cloth is composed of highly civilised, semi-civilised, and barbarian tribes, mostly Aryan. Its warp is Varnâshramâchâra, (The old Aryan institution of the four castes and stages of life. The former comprise the Brâhmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, and the latter, Brahmacharya (student life), Gârhasthya (house-holder's life), Vânaprastha (hermit life), and Sannyâsa (life of renunciation).) and its woof, the conquest of strife and competition in nature.


Quote:
The object of the peoples of Europe is to exterminate all in order to live themselves. The aim of the Aryans is to raise all up to their own level, nay, even to a higher level than themselves. The means of European civilisation is the sword; of the Aryans, the division into different Varnas. This system of division into different Varnas is the stepping-stone to civilisation, making one rise higher and higher in proportion to one's learning and culture. In Europe, it is everywhere victory to the strong and death to the weak. In the land of Bhârata, every social rule is for the protection of the weak.


Edited: Oops! Link is here..

LINK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 10:10 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
map Of Roman Empire Invasions

Those Vandals from Carthage became Arabised and Islamized during the first 100 years of Islam. In a way Gaddafi is surely a Vandal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 10:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 638
Ramana, Romans used to call any non Romanised people barbarians. Goths etc were called barbarians by the Romans. So, Romans calling the Carthagians vandals should not be taken seriously. Calling them vandals would be conforming to the western view. JMT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 10:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Posts: 634
Location: USA
csharma wrote:
Ramana, Romans used to call any non Romanised people barbarians. Goths etc were called barbarians by the Romans. So, Romans calling the Carthagians vandals should not be taken seriously. Calling them vandals would be conforming to the western view. JMT.


What was the word the Romans used for "barbarians"? Did they have a "mleccha" equivalent?

And, it doesn't make sense that "Vandal" would be an insult unless it came to be an insult under Roman rule, otherwise calling someone a Vandal would be no different than calling them by any other ethnicity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 10:58 
Indian Chandal ~ Vandal

both words have same root.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 11:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 638
From Wikipedia. Interesting, note the Sanskrit connection.

[b]The word "barbarian" comes into English from Medieval Latin barbarinus, from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάÏ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 12:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Posts: 3179
Location: Loud, Proud American
csharma wrote:
Ramana, Romans used to call any non Romanised people barbarians. Goths etc were called barbarians by the Romans. So, Romans calling the Carthagians vandals should not be taken seriously. Calling them vandals would be conforming to the western view. JMT.

Vandals (note the capitalization) were a Germanic tribe that later moved around to Spain and later North Africa. Calling them Vandals is perfectly fine, because that was the name of their tribe and they even spoke a language called Vandalic. One of their kings later ended up sacking Rome.

In fact, I remember reading a theory somewhere that the Arabic word for Spain (Al Andalus) is derived from the way that the Arabs pronounced Vandal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 12:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 638
The capitalised version provides a different meaning, I agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 20:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 1569
This link revealing the ostensible alliance between the Sunnis and the protestants against common enemies was the rationale behind this thread.

Quote:
One notable example of such an alliance was Suleyman's outward support of Lutherans fighting the Pope in the Holy Roman Empire. Suleyman considered the Protestant rejection of icons and papal authority to be closer to Muslim belief than either Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, and his support of Protestantism was one of his key policies in Europe. By encouraging the disunity of Christianity, the Ottomans hoped to decrease the chances of Christian Europe uniting in a Crusade against the Muslim Ottomans. It has been suggested that Ottoman pressure played a decisive role in persuading the Habsburgs to grant several concessions to the Protestants. The Ottoman Empire was thus vital to maintaining the European balance of power in the 16th century.


http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/ ... eyman.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2008 22:25 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
ArmenT is right in his description. Thanks, ramana

Also interesting is that the Berbers are curly haired! And in US carpet stores there is form of carpet called berber that has short curled fibers. Wonder if all this is related.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2008 00:41 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
x-posted...

Quote:
dhu, was Arianism a midway point to Muhammed's Islam? In other words did Muhammed use the theories of Arianism while crafting his version of Islam for the Arabs? i was struck by the fact that many of Islam's practises are similar to pre-Reformation Christianity or hard line Old Testament.


Reply


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2008 22:30 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
peter wrote:
Once read "Races of Afghanistan" by Walther Belew who lived in NWFP and he says most afghan last names are of Hindu origin. Your point about wolves is interesting but I still do not follow that a singular defeat at Tours and multiple defeats in India of Arabs (Turks/Afghans etc) had different consequences. France was never attacked again but India was.



Peter, Charles Martel was able to stop the Moors/Berbers at Tours in 732 AD, when the leader Abdul Rehman Al Ghafi was killed in the fight. It took them another couple of generations to rid France upto the Pyrennes of Moorish outposts till Charlemagne.

Wiki on Charles Martel

and Charlemagne


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2008 23:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2014
ramana wrote:
x-posted...

Quote:
dhu, was Arianism a midway point to Muhammed's Islam? In other words did Muhammed use the theories of Arianism while crafting his version of Islam for the Arabs? i was struck by the fact that many of Islam's practises are similar to pre-Reformation Christianity or hard line Old Testament.


Reply


Christianity had two *huge* problems when Constantine chose to elevate it to state religion alongside Roman paganism.

- it was essentially apolitical and pacifist, which did not suit Roman state needs at all. State religion in Rome was intensely political in nature.

- it was divided in to a bewildering number of churches and doctrines, which did not suit Constantine's need for a single church and single doctrine that would serve the emperor.

Constantine not only militarises Christianity, but imposes conformity within Christianity through coerscion.

I find it interesting how few Christians realise that Constantine a pagan (until he was on his deathbed) soldier-politician made so many of the final decisions on what constituted 'true' (Nicene) Christian doctrine

Constantine's orthodox, conformist and militant church-state was the model for many elements of Mohammed's Islam, although many of the 'thou-shalt-nots' of Islam are borrowed from Rabbinic Judaism with which Mohammed had more direct contact.

But in general Mohammed, and the Arabian Peninsula were surrounded by manichean belief systems - Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 00:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22
Posts: 10437
'If India wants, it can sacrifice Tibet issue'
I post the above link because of the following lines in the linked article:
Quote:
That is true but money and trade is not the totality of life. Humanity needs money. Humanity needs facilities. But humanity needs satisfaction, peace of mind and self-respect.

The essence of modern Western views are: trade, trade and trade. Business houses first, then people. My take on eastern view point of life is well articulated by the monk and the Prime Minster of the Tibetan Diaspora - Samdhong Rinpoche.


Last edited by SwamyG on 20 Mar 2008 03:05, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 00:37 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
I cried when I read the dork's question to the Monk. What a 400% Macaulayite.

India cannot let go of Tibet issue. If it does so it will lose its civilizational basis.


SwamyG post in full and highlight his remarks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 00:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Posts: 756
Location: La La Land
ramana wrote:
I cried when I read the dork's question to the Monk. What a 400% Macaulayite.

India cannot let go of Tibet issue. If it does so it will lose its civilizational basis.


This lady Sheila Bhatt is a rabid Macaulayite and a part of the liberal / leftist mafia that infiltrated in large numbers in India's English media and academia during Nehru's and Indira's time. Look at the questions she asked. They are accusatory, insulting and pro-China, while the monk comes out full of wisdom and patience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 00:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
Exactly the reason for my discomfiture. Folks we ahve a very big job cut out for us but need to take it on one by one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 03:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22
Posts: 10437
Posting the interview in full. The highlighted sentences in Blue appealed to me looking at the recent troubling times in economy.

The Monk's amazing clarity of thoughts and his communication shows great deal of wisdom and understanding of the state of affairs. He is so clued in what is happening around the region.

It is little sad to note that he considers being a refugee in India being the same as being a refugee anywhere else. Well it could be owing to the love of his land.

Quote:
Tibetans living as refugees in India and elsewhere have a democratic system to govern community affairs outside their motherland. While spiritual leader Dalai Lama [Images] heads the government-in-exile from the headquarters in Mcleodganj near Dharamshala, it is 69-year-old Samdhong Rinpoche, who as prime minister heads the administration of the Tibetan Diaspora.

According to the Dalai Lama, Professor Rinpoche 'knows more about the Tibet issue' than he does. Rinpoche is considered reincarnation of the Samdhong lineage of Buddha. On matters related to diplomacy and politics of Tibet and China's control over it, Rinpoche's views are the most important after that of the Dalai Lama.

A renowned scholar of Sanskrit and Hindi, Rinpoche is fluent in English and heads a movement to preserve ancient Indian sciences and literature preserved in the Tibetan language but lost in the original. More than 100 precious Tibetan books have been translated in which the ancient Indian wisdom was buried or lost many centuries back. In 1959, when Tibetans took refugee in India, they brought many of those books with them.

Professor Rinpoche's mission to give back something to India when he was heading the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath near Varanasi has earned him respect amongst scholars in India. He was elected twice for the highest post in the exile government, garnering around 90 per cent votes of Tibetans. He is a popular monk; a simple man known for his sthitpragnya (unmoved by happiness or sorrow) attitude.

In an exclusive interview to rediff.com's Managing Editor Sheela Bhatt, Professor Rinpoche talked about the dynamics of the Tibet issue and about China and India's stand on his motherland.

Tell us something about yourself. What do you remember about Tibet?

I was born in a village in the south-east of Tibet, now called Tibet Autonomous Region, just behind Burma (now Myanmar). I spent 20 years in Tibet. At the age of 12, I left my village to join a monastery in Lhasa. It is not easy to describe what Tibet meant to us then.

Our life was governed by local traditions based on Buddhism. We were very happy people. We were self-sufficient. We had good food to eat and good clothes to wear. The best part of my life was in Drepung Monastery in Lhasa. I studied Buddhism till 1959. When I was a child, I liked monks. One of my uncles was a monk and lived in a native monastery. He insisted that I should live with him.

When I was four-and-a-half, he insisted I should be allowed to go with him. My family thought that next day, I would return home. My father came to pick me up. I refused. Since small children were not allowed inside a monastery, special permission was taken for me.

Few months later, I was recognised as the fifth Smadhong and then I went to another monastery. I never ever thought that one day we would be in India like this. Of course, we had a dream to visit India once in our lifetime to make a pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya and Sarnath. We never thought that we would flee to India.

Today, the protests in Lhasa is making news around the world. Was it a surprise to you?

Yes, absolutely. We were surprised.

The Chinese government thinks that the government-in-exile helped them in Lhasa.

There is no sense in their charge. Few months ago, one of my friends, Gagan Gill, visited Lhasa. After coming back, she told me people are so frustrated and discontent that they would speak out anytime.

What is the political message that you are getting from Tibet?

They have been under a very repressive regime for nearly 60 years. They are economically marginalised; politically absolutely marginalised. They have a no role to play in the current society. They are deprived of their culture and language. Most dear to their heart is His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The Chinese authorities even prohibit keeping the Dalai Lama's picture. It hurts them the most. Since May 2006 there has been a huge campaign going on against the Dalai Lama. It is considered a political crime to keep his picture. Monasteries have been asked to change their education system. The resentment was building up and there was no outlet.

Tibetans have welcomed development and prosperity that came with airports and railways provided by the Chinese. Obviously, with Chinese money came Chinese military, police and other things. When development comes, culture gets affected. You can't welcome one and reject the side effect. How can you pick and choose?

That is true but money and trade is not the totality of life. Humanity needs money. Humanity needs facilities. But humanity needs satisfaction, peace of mind and self-respect. The development of Tibet is not dependent on China. If Tibetans would have been separate from China, Tibet would have developed by much more than what Chinese have done now. That is because we have so many resources. See the huge development of Bhutan and Nepal in last 49 years. If Tibet had remained free, by now it would have been another Singapore.

The authorities of People's Republic of China are taking all the resources of Tibet away. Nothing is being given back. More than 100 gold mines are active and exploited by Chinese authorities. Copper, aluminium and uranium is taken out of Tibet. The PRC was able to pay back a huge loan taken from the USSR due to finds of high quality uranium deposits.

China is surviving on Tibet's water, timber and what not! Nothing is coming back. Although, they have given huge statistics of cost of railways and all that, but this infrastructure is for themselves and not for Tibetans, who are absolutely marginalised.

The beggars on the streets of Lhasa are all Tibetans not Han. It reflects the fact that Tibetans have not benefited by progress.

You have been living here since 49 years. You were given a refugee status with the condition that you will not indulge in any political activity. Why do we see so many political activities in Dharamshala?

You might be seeing it for the first time, but we are doing all kinds of politics.

Nobody has stopped us from doing politics. We are doing everything that Indians are doing. Only thing we are refraining from is that we should not use Indian soil for indulging in anti-China activities. We are not doing anything anti-China.

Asking for freedom for Tibet is considered by Chinese as the anti-China activity.

Asking for freedom is not an anti-China act. It's a pro-China activity. We are trying to have more freedom for the Chinese people. We are trying to have more respect for human rights and we want them to have more respect for different cultures. How does it become anti-China activity? We are not seeking separation. We are not seeking independence. We are only seeking freedom. And, freedom is a birthright of every human being.

Is it true that elderly Tibetans living in Dharamshala are not in sync with younger generation? Younger Tibetans disagree with the Dalai Lama's "middle path" approach as they want a free Tibet.

I don't think so. The 'middle path' also seeks freedom. Independent Tibet and free Tibet are two different things. We live in a democratic society. Everybody can have different political ideas, but that does not mean that we have serious differences.

In India too, you have political parties with different views. It does not mean that India does not have unity. If you have met young Tibetans who think that Dalai Lama is soft, it is perfectly alright. It is okay for them to have their views in a democratic society.

But here a leader is being questioned by the followers.

That is real democracy. If leaders are not questioned then how can you serve under democracy? The basic fact is that the 'middle path' approach was not decided by a single person or only by His Holiness.

It was decided through process of referendum in 1997, wherein 64 per cent people favoured the 'middle path'.

The Tibetan Parliament, which represents the whole of Tibet, has twice unanimously adopted the resolution supporting the 'middle path' approach. It is official and a majority agreement. If majority of the people want otherwise, they will have the right to change it. However, right now the majority have agreed to the 'middle path'.

India is in a difficult situation. India and China's relations are growing, but they are vulnerable due to the border issue. China's power in South Asia is growing. Then there are dynamics added to it due to America and Pakistan. The scenario is balanced precariously. When you get politically hyperactive in Dharamshala, don't you think you are harming India's interest?

I don't think so. India is not at all vulnerable. India is more powerful than China if she really realises her own strengths. The problem is India still suffers from the psychological defeat of 1962. India is unable to come out of it. That year is far behind. Now, China is much less powerful than India.

How? Just have a look at China's GDP.

Gross Domestic Production is not a reality. It is merely a figure cooked up in Beijing [Images]. If you go to the northern part of China, go to villages, you will know more about China. You have visited Shanghai and Beijing, but not my village in Tibet; not the remote areas of China.


How does that make India more powerful?


Why do you think India is so weak? When you say China has better focus than India in other words it means that it is the totalitarian regime. In India, diversity ensures that it remains a free and democratic country. Of course,
Western people, who are only concerned with economic development, invest in China and not in India because India is a free country; India has a free press; India has democracy; India has an independent judiciary.

Therefore, they cannot do whatever they want to, but in China they can by meeting just one powerful party member. You have visited China but not met the real people, who are poor and suffering. No Tibetan is willing to take Chinese money, but they have no option. Chinese money is thrust on them. Development is thrust on them. People have not participated in the development of Tibet.

I asked you about India's position on the issue. Many people think Tibetan refugees should keep quiet and silently go on living here. When you raise the political pitch on Indian soil, it creates tension in the region.

I have never heard such a comment from anyone here. I and His Holiness Dalai Lama have made it clear several times that if India thinks that Tibet issue is a hindrance or an irritant for the normalisation of Sino-Indian relations, India must sacrifice the Tibet issue and ask His Holiness to shift somewhere else.

Let Tibetan refugees migrate to West or send them back to Tibet. In such case, can you guarantee that Sino-India relations will be perfectly okay? If that is so, then we are ready to obey. We are ready to go away from India.

In India, we are refugees, in London [Images] or in Washington, we will be refugees. It will make no difference to us because we are not living on our own soil. We can be refugees anywhere.

But, I don't think any Indian leader is thinking in this direction. If they are thinking in this direction, they should not have any hesitation in telling us. His Holiness and the Tibetan leadership never wants to cause any inconvenience to the Indian people or to the Indian government.

Secondly think about this: Unless you solve the Tibet issue how you will resolve your border issue? How will you grow your relationship with China? All these things will have to be thought out keeping in mind a long term solution and strategies. Therefore, many Indians think that free Tibet is India's real defence. This is not a hypocrite thinking.

Do you believe so?

It is not a question if I believe or not. Since time immemorial till 1951, did India spend a penny to secure its border? Was a single military man was ever deployed on the Tibet border? And, now, how much are you spending hourly to defend the Indo-Tibet border? How much problems are you facing on this border? What is the Sino-India border issue? This needs to be analysed.

As long as Tibet was a free and sovereign country, there was no border issue. In 1914, the Simla agreement was signed between Tibetan government and British government of India. The border issue was completely resolved. It was resolved in the manner that the Indian government of that time wanted. Tibet had agreed to it.

We had a trade agreement to be renewed after every 10 years as it was done by Tibet and India in 1924, 1934 and 1944. There was no trade issue. Then came 1954 when the trade agreement was duly renewed in Beijing instead of Lhasa. Then five very beautiful sentences called Pansheel were prefaced to it.

Panchsheel is not an agreement. Panchsheel is a renewed agreement of trade with Tibet and a new preface was put on this. It was decided that it will be renewed after every eight years and not ten years. The eight years were to be completed in 1962. The 1962 war was planned long back in 1950s. They had calculated that in 1962, they will be able to plan an aggression. All this was pre-planned and people know about it.

In some sections, it is perceived that the Dalai Lama himself diluted his demand for Tibet and agreed for autonomy. Second, on the issue of Tawang, political lines are quite blurred.

His Holiness' struggle is giving concrete results. The issue of Tibet has not disappeared from the world scenario. World-over people are supporting the cause of Tibet because of its right direction and commitment to non-violence.

Therefore, majority of people are looking at His Holiness as a great moral force and a spiritual leader. Tibet cause is a just cause and not a power struggle. It is neither a political struggle nor a battle against the system. It is the struggle between truth and falsehood; justice and injustice.

This is established in the world and this is the consistent policy of His Holiness of 'middle path' approach.

Coming to the question on Twang, who told you that His Holiness is not clear on the issue? His Holiness was the first person to say that McMahon Line is the border and we have treaty obligation to respect it. Most recently, he made a statement in Tripura and Kolkata. I have also said that we were party to the agreement on the Mcmahon line. Then how can we back off?

We have continued the legitimate government of the Dalai Lama, which is now 367 years old. That government has agreed to McMahon line and Tawang and other issues were agreed on basis of the watershed principles. The watershed principle said that whatever water comes to this side belongs to India. It was very clear demarcation. So, Indian people, at least people like you, should not show ignorance of actual position of Tawang.

Why should there be any tension on the Tawang issue between India and China? India should stand up and say that you (China) have no business to talk about it. Tawang belongs to India. Why is this issue lingering on?

If Chinese say that because the sixth Dalai Lama was born in Tawang, it belongs to Tibet then if one Dalai Lama was born in Mongolia can I say Mongolia is a part of Tibet?

When you look back, do you feel Tibetans had a good time in India?

Absolutely! All our children received a good education. Our monks and nuns have a good monastic life. Everyone has a good livelihood and enjoys freedom. All of us have tasted democracy in exile. We have complete freedom in our refugee status.

The attention of the world is on Olympics [Images] 2008. How important is the event for you? Has the turning point come for Tibet?

Year 2008 is the same for us. What's the difference? The Olympics are held every four years. This is not the first and last time the Olympics are being held. It was held during Adolf Hitler's [Images] rule too.

How long will the protests in Lhasa continue?

It will depend on the China's behaviour and their handling of the situation. The uprising will continue if their repressive policy goes on. If they deal with them with compassion and have a dialogue to find a permanent solution in accordance with people's aspirations, there will be no problem.

The Rediff Interviews


Last edited by SwamyG on 20 Mar 2008 03:17, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 03:12 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
Look at all the complex issues the monk deals with and look at the headline that B(u)hatt has put up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 05:20 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28
Posts: 49
ramana wrote:
Exactly the reason for my discomfiture. Folks we ahve a very big job cut out for us but need to take it on one by one.


hats off to you for still being able to retain some optimism about the future, especially considering you probably have seen much more than me. I view it as almost a lost cause, with nothing less then major catastrophe, world order collapse, break-up or collapse of current Indian political union giving any hope for rebuilding. The current ones are so firmly entrenched that simple individual efforts will do too little too late. There is only hope if a some organization with dedication works at it. Without organization and power group looking out for our interests we'll at best coast to mediocracy. Already changes are happening in the world at fast pace and it's accelerating. Humanity might change into next stage. And we lose more and ability to have our name in history or making some contribution, instead we can't even catch up. There has to be some focused Indian-centered & based group with clear goal, even for just increasing that group's own wealth and power, because this group will as sideffects atleast casuse some progress. Every successful civilization and country in past few centuries has had this (W. Europe is prime example, they had group of very smart group of elites guiding, engineering society and keeping their country's interests above those of others). Just having having good will is not enough.

Bottom line, when history is written and future generations look back, Western Europe's place is forever garunteed in human history and from now on in any changes that take place the East Asians are going to make sure they are a major part of it as well. What about India, will we be just another footnote, (we have been one for too many centuries now), which at best just got along and merely survived? Even if we manage to get prosperous, just being that isn't enough. We should be making contributions, can we produce anything with an effect coming anywhere clost to what Western Enlightenment did to the whole world and human species. Well I'm not sure if anyone can come close to that again but something atleast.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 06:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
Johann wrote:
ramana wrote:
x-posted...

Quote:
dhu, was Arianism a midway point to Muhammed's Islam? In other words did Muhammed use the theories of Arianism while crafting his version of Islam for the Arabs? i was struck by the fact that many of Islam's practises are similar to pre-Reformation Christianity or hard line Old Testament.


Reply


Christianity had two *huge* problems when Constantine chose to elevate it to state religion alongside Roman paganism.

- it was essentially apolitical and pacifist, which did not suit Roman state needs at all. State religion in Rome was intensely political in nature.

- it was divided in to a bewildering number of churches and doctrines, which did not suit Constantine's need for a single church and single doctrine that would serve the emperor.

Constantine not only militarises Christianity, but imposes conformity within Christianity through coerscion.

I find it interesting how few Christians realise that Constantine a pagan (until he was on his deathbed) soldier-politician made so many of the final decisions on what constituted 'true' (Nicene) Christian doctrine

Constantine's orthodox, conformist and militant church-state was the model for many elements of Mohammed's Islam, although many of the 'thou-shalt-nots' of Islam are borrowed from Rabbinic Judaism with which Mohammed had more direct contact.

But in general Mohammed, and the Arabian Peninsula were surrounded by manichean belief systems - Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism.


Johann, I beg to disagree
Intolerance is the keystone of the old testament and any religion derived from the old testament is by definition, intolerant, and Constantine is not the root of this

The old roman pagan religion was tolerant, hundreds of sects flourished in the roman empire, before Theodosius forcibly converted the roman empire

Another pointer that shows the intolerance of xtianity pre-constantine
In 304, Armenia was converted to xtianity by St.Gregorius, who promptly destroyed the local hindu temple


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 06:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43
Posts: 6691
ramana wrote:
Look at all the complex issues the monk deals with and look at the headline that B(u)hatt has put up.

Man WTF!! What is wrong with the press?

Jap and Indian experts reckon China has given up its support of Naxals as of 2006, and people who were on the task have been re-assigned. There may have been intelligence co-operation on the issue. Are we repaying a debt?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 08:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Posts: 762
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)
shyamd wrote:
ramana wrote:
Look at all the complex issues the monk deals with and look at the headline that B(u)hatt has put up.

Man WTF!! What is wrong with the press?

Jap and Indian experts reckon China has given up its support of Naxals as of 2006, and people who were on the task have been re-assigned. There may have been intelligence co-operation on the issue. Are we repaying a debt?


The other worthy, I've noticed is Indrani Bagchi [Times News Network].. in her recent article "Turkey offers alternative to Iran pipeline" sounds too patronizing.. and is making me believe only a true blue Foggy Bottom junkie could have written/shadow written it for her.

Quote:
Politically, the most important consideration here is it offers India a golden opportunity to significantly upgrade ties with a major Muslim country like Turkey. This could offset whatever ambivalence India might feel about Israel. India already has very deep relations with Israel, so this would not be a political challenge.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 12:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Posts: 756
Location: La La Land
Quote:
The old roman pagan religion was tolerant, hundreds of sects flourished in the roman empire, before Theodosius forcibly converted the roman empire

Another pointer that shows the intolerance of xtianity pre-constantine
In 304, Armenia was converted to xtianity by St.Gregorius, who promptly destroyed the local hindu temple


The Roman soldiers and traders used to worship the god Mithras. Many temples of Mithras have been found all over the Roman empire, including one in London. Mithras is nothing but the Vedic diety of Mitra (friendship).

Quote:
Vedic Mitra is the patron divinity of honesty, friendship, contracts and meetings. He is a prominent deity of the Rigveda distinguished by a relationship to Varuna, the protector of ṛtá. Together with Varuna, he counted among the Adityas, a group of solar deities. They are the supreme keepers of order and gods of the law.

Varuna and Mitra are the gods of the oath, often twinned or identified as Mitra-Varuna (a dvandva compound). In the Vedic hymns, Mitra is often invoked together with Varuna, so that the two are combined in a dvandva as Mitra-Varuna. Varuna is lord of the cosmic rhythm of the celestial spheres, while Mitra brings forth the light at dawn, which was covered by Varuna. Mitra together with Varuna is the most prominent Asura, and the chief of the Adityas, in the Rigveda. It should be noted, however, that Mitra and Varuna are also addressed as Devas in Rigveda (e.g., RV 7.60.12), and in the only hymn dedicated to Mitra, he is referred to as a Deva (mitrasya...devasya) in RV 3.59.6.

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

Ancient Druidic European culture was based on Hindu culture with similar dieities and rituals. Even the language borrowed heavily. The colonials invented the Aryan invasion theory to explain this linkage and claimed it was actually Europe which give India its culture. How can that be, when till 500 AD, most of Europe was living in caves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 12:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Posts: 704
Location: Our cultures are different and we cannot live together - who said that?
shyamd wrote:
ramana wrote:
Look at all the complex issues the monk deals with and look at the headline that B(u)hatt has put up.

Man WTF!! What is wrong with the press?

Jap and Indian experts reckon China has given up its support of Naxals as of 2006, and people who were on the task have been re-assigned. There may have been intelligence co-operation on the issue. Are we repaying a debt?


Hey bhagvan. The distinction between them is like between two species. One light years ahead of the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2008 21:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22
Posts: 10437
ramana wrote:
India cannot let go of Tibet issue. If it does so it will lose its civilizational basis.

Ramana: Can you elaborate on the losing civilizational basis? I did not understand. thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 06:53 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 21736
Location: I have principles, and if you don't like them, I have others
Keshav wrote:
And, it doesn't make sense that "Vandal" would be an insult unless it came to be an insult under Roman rule, otherwise calling someone a Vandal would be no different than calling them by any other ethnicity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism
Quote:
Vandalism is a conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure, a symbol or anything else that goes against the will of the owner/governing body, and usually constitutes a crime. Historically, it has been justified by painter Gustave Courbet as destruction of monuments symbolizing "war and conquest". Therefore, it is often done as an expression of contempt, creativity, or both. Vandalism is only a meaningful concept in a culture that recognizes history and archaeology. Like other similar terms (Barbarian/barbary, and Philistine), the term Vandal was originally an ethnic slur referring to the Vandals, who under Geiseric sacked Rome in 455. The Vandals, like the Philistines, no longer exist as an identifiable ethnic group.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals
Quote:
The verb vandalize is first recorded in 1800. The term "vandalism" has come to mean senseless destruction as a result of the Vandals' sack of Rome under King Geiseric in 455.


The term "Vandal" refers to an ethnic group that no longer exists, but the word itself is perjorative.

The Vandals, having been eliminated, are now commemorated in anglophone phraseology as an evil entity because of their destructive attacks on the cultural forbears of the people who now survive. What is interesting to me about this situation is that if you wipe out a culture entirely, the people who remain can refer to that culture in any which way without anyone seriously worrying about accuracy or history.

If Hindus get eliminated from this earth, all that remains of Hindus as a civilizational record is likely to be remembered as something evil - like Caste, Sati, Thuggee etc.

On the other hand, the Hindu civilizational memory of Islam as it stands is one of "vandalism"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 08:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2014
Christianity until Constantine was not much more than a splinter sect of Judaism.

As far as religion in pre-Constantine Pagan Rome went, religion was an intensely political matter, an indicator of loyalty to Rome.

Any conquered people who refused to worship Roman gods in addition to their own were treated as subversives.

Who do you think laid waste to the Druids? It was the *Pagan* Romans.

Julius Caesar *personally* cut down the sacred grove outside what is now Marseilles

In 39 AD Tiberius outlawed *all* Druidic practices.

Mithraism was not threatening to the Roman Empire because it allowed emperors to be worshipped as gods. Zero political threat, and plenty of political benefit there.

Druidism on the other hand was the nucleus of Celtic resistance to Roman political and cultural colonisation. It had to go as far as the Romans were concerned.

When you combined Imperial Rome's already restrictive and dominating concept of state religion with a manichean (absolute good and evil) belief system, then we are all in trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 09:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
Johann wrote:
Christianity until Constantine was not much more than a splinter sect of Judaism.

As far as religion in pre-Constantine Pagan Rome went, religion was an intensely political matter, an indicator of loyalty to Rome.

Any conquered people who refused to worship Roman gods in addition to their own were treated as subversives.


When you combined Imperial Rome's already restrictive and dominating concept of state religion with a manichean (absolute good and evil) belief system, then we are all in trouble.


For pagans in general, adding a few roman gods to the hundreds of other gods is no big takleef

The jews did not worship roman gods and yet except when they undertook open revolts as in 70Ad ANd 120AD were not persecuted

Emperor Julian the Apostate was in fact in the process of rebuilding the Jewish temple

Mainstream judaism had by 150AD turned bitterly anti-xtian
- Panthera in the Talmud

And as late as 125 AD, Justin martyr was importing the concept of the Virgin birth from greek mythology

Even Diocletian's wife and daughter were xtians

And as I wrote earlier, even before Constantine, when Saint Gregorius converted Armenia, his first act was to destroy the local hindu temple in 304AD ( xtian intolerance predating Constantine )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 10:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2014
GS,

- The original Christian movement as an apolitical, pacifist movement refused to join in the revolt of 70AD. Hellenised Jews (both in the diaspora and in Palestine) also refused to join in - they too, like the Christians were bitterly condemned by Orthodox Jews because of their lack of solidarity.

- The point is that religion was always first and foremost *political* in Roman conception.

Toleration was not a principle embraced for its own value - it was a function of whether a group accepted Roman power or resisted it.

That is why the Druids, who maintained continuous resistance were exterminated, and the Mithraists who enhanced imperial power were tolerated.

Sometimes too minority groups simply became useful scapegoats and object lessons.

Jews for example were twice banned from Pagan Rome before the revolt of 70 AD.

The *very same* Roman political thinking used to exterminate Druidism and persecute Jews and Christians in the Pagan era was used to supress Paganism and persecute Jews after Constantine.

Roman emperors often had short lives - the praetorian guard, popular discontent, family intrigue, senatorial/court intrigue meant that no individual could impose their will and make long lasting changes without deeper consensus.

The Christianisation of the Roman state was a drawn-out affair that ocurred because their was *consistant* support from the majority of the Roman elite.

That support was based largely on political calculations.

Interestingly, the Greeks who dominated the eastern Roman Empire (the centre of the empire from Constantine onwards) and Northern Africa, which had been in longer contact with Israel were far more enthusiastic and hardcore about Christianity than the Italian peninsula, Gaul, Britain, etc.

It is no accident that both the push for the dilution of bonds between church and state, intellectual freedom even when it clashed with religious belief, etc came from Western Europe rather than Greek-Orthodox Europe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 10:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
Johann wrote:
GS,

- The original Christian movement as an apolitical, pacifist movement refused to join in the revolt of 70AD. Hellenised Jews (both in the diaspora and in Palestine) also refused to join in - they too, like the Christians were bitterly condemned by Orthodox Jews because of their lack of solidarity.

-

The Christianisation of the Roman state was a drawn-out affair that ocurred because their was *consistant* support from the majority of the Roman elite.

That support was based largely on political calculations.

I.



The original Christian movement as an apolitical, pacifist movement refused to join in the revolt of 70AD


Josephus who wrote the definitive history of the Jewish revolt of 70AD, makes no mention of xtians ( except for the one paragraph which is a later interpolation )
He does write about John the baptist
The earliest official mention of xtianity is Pliny the younger in 114AD, where he decrees that they may be tolerated

The judaism of 70AD is remarkably similar to islam
religious fanatics etc

Celsus, Galen, and Porphyry mention xtianity as the religion of the underclass, - sailors, slaves, women etc

At the time of Constantine, xtianity was 4% of the roman empire
And Constantine himself was of lowly origins - son of a shepherd
The Roman senate was till a very late date a pagan stronghold

And finally the point I am trying to make is that any religion derived from the old testament has a very strong tendency to intolerance, without any Roman input


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 11:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2014
GS

- There is exclusivity in the Jewish Tanakh (what Christians call the 'old testament').

But if Judaism really was like Islam, they would have conquered the entire Middle East and kept going.

Christianity's most important divergence from Judaism didnt start until Constantine mixed a basically Jewish sect with Roman Imperialism.

Mohammed's model for expansion, dhimmitude, and combining religion with politics was not Jewish, but Roman. Mohammed's borrowings from Judaism were mostly in the realm of ritual, prayer, diet, etc.

- Until about 100-150 AD Christians were not commonly distinguished from Jews, Christianity being treated as a Jewish sect. But the emerging sense of distinction came very much as a result of the failure of the revolt - those Jews who refused to support the uprising were shunned. Josephus was a highly Hellenised, far more Roman than Jewish in his perspective.

- You are correct that the old Senatorial families, based around the city of Rome were the ones who slowed the transition from Constantine to Theodosius. However by that point the very definition of 'elite' had fundamentally changed

a) the elite were increasingly Greek and centred around Constantinople, not Latin around Rome.

b) In Casear's time the army emerged as a power base, but only men from the hereditary patrician families could command as officers. By 235 when Maximinus the Thracian becomes Emperor that bar no longer existed. The real elite were the families of the equestrian order (knights), the bureaucracy, etc.

c) the Senate was powerless - Diocletian (who preceded Constantine but had launched the most comprehensive suppression of christians in Roman history) in 293 had formalised the empire and ended the fiction of republic.

The story of Rome's Christianisation is really the story of the Christianisation of the Greeks, both diasporas within the Empire. The Jewish-Greek fascination went both ways. Just as many Jews were Hellenised, many Greeks were Judaised, and later Christianised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2008 20:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
So what exactly is at the core of the arguments between GS and Joahnn? Sorry I dont have the time to go thru all the posts but there seems to be an exchange of facts without a thesis. I think the forum would appreciate what is the thesis of the two series of psots. Thanks, ramana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2008 08:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
ramana wrote:
So what exactly is at the core of the arguments between GS and Joahnn? Sorry I dont have the time to go thru all the posts but there seems to be an exchange of facts without a thesis. I think the forum would appreciate what is the thesis of the two series of psots. Thanks, ramana


1. Johann's view is that the intolerance of xtianity is a result of Constantine's input at the Nicean creed
My view is that any religion derived from the old testament is inherently intolerant, case in point, in 304 AD, before Constantine, St.Gregorius converted the king of Armenia and pronto the local hindu temple was demolished

2. The next issue is that Johann dates xtianity to before the first jewish war of 70AD, my take is that Josephus the noted historian, died 95 AD, wrote in detail about every jewish sect in palestine. Josephus mentions in detail, John the baptist but has no mention of JC, nazereth or xtians

3. The next issue is Johann places the xtians inside the Roman elite
whereas I pointed out that the Roman senators were pagan till the end
Also the military caste were followers of Mithra.
Galen, Celsus and Porphry-( Roman critics of xtianity ), describe xtianity as the religion of the underclass,superstitious slaves, hysterical women
and note the frequent changes in the gospel which only an illiterate following could swallow. Emperor Julian the apostate 360AD, attempted to kick xtianity out of the elites and back onto the rabble by banning them from teaching anything except the gospels ( madrasa ) and banning the teaching of the greek and roman classics in xtian schools

4. What we can agree on is this
The Nicean creed was heavily influenced by Constantine for political purposes and Constantine was still a Mithraist

Archeology shows that most of early xtianity was gnostic
wherein JC had no earthly existence whatsoever


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2008 09:23 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 36644
G Subramaniam wrote:
ramana wrote:
So what exactly is at the core of the arguments between GS and Joahnn? Sorry I dont have the time to go thru all the posts but there seems to be an exchange of facts without a thesis. I think the forum would appreciate what is the thesis of the two series of psots. Thanks, ramana


1. Johann's view is that the intolerance of xtianity is a result of Constantine's input at the Nicean creed
My view is that any religion derived from the old testament is inherently intolerant, case in point, in 304 AD, before Constantine, St.Gregorius converted the king of Armenia and pronto the local hindu temple was demolished

2. The next issue is that Johann dates xtianity to before the first jewish war of 70AD, my take is that Josephus the noted historian, died 95 AD, wrote in detail about every jewish sect in palestine. Josephus mentions in detail, John the baptist but has no mention of JC, nazereth or xtians

3. The next issue is Johann places the xtians inside the Roman elite
whereas I pointed out that the Roman senators were pagan till the end
Also the military caste were followers of Mithra.
Galen, Celsus and Porphry-( Roman critics of xtianity ), describe xtianity as the religion of the underclass,superstitious slaves, hysterical women
and note the frequent changes in the gospel which only an illiterate following could swallow. Emperor Julian the apostate 360AD, attempted to kick xtianity out of the elites and back onto the rabble by banning them from teaching anything except the gospels ( madrasa ) and banning the teaching of the greek and roman classics in xtian schools

4. What we can agree on is this
The Nicean creed was heavily influenced by Constantine for political purposes and Constantine was still a Mithraist

Archeology shows that most of early xtianity was gnostic
wherein JC had no earthly existence whatsoever


Never mind Johann. Can you back up each of your points with quotes from the cited folks?
Thanks, ramana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2008 21:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
ramana wrote:
G Subramaniam wrote:
ramana wrote:
So what exactly is at the core of the arguments between GS and Joahnn? Sorry I dont have the time to go thru all the posts but there seems to be an exchange of facts without a thesis. I think the forum would appreciate what is the thesis of the two series of psots. Thanks, ramana


1. Johann's view is that the intolerance of xtianity is a result of Constantine's input at the Nicean creed
My view is that any religion derived from the old testament is inherently intolerant, case in point, in 304 AD, before Constantine, St.Gregorius converted the king of Armenia and pronto the local hindu temple was demolished

2. The next issue is that Johann dates xtianity to before the first jewish war of 70AD, my take is that Josephus the noted historian, died 95 AD, wrote in detail about every jewish sect in palestine. Josephus mentions in detail, John the baptist but has no mention of JC, nazereth or xtians

3. The next issue is Johann places the xtians inside the Roman elite
whereas I pointed out that the Roman senators were pagan till the end
Also the military caste were followers of Mithra.
Galen, Celsus and Porphry-( Roman critics of xtianity ), describe xtianity as the religion of the underclass,superstitious slaves, hysterical women
and note the frequent changes in the gospel which only an illiterate following could swallow. Emperor Julian the apostate 360AD, attempted to kick xtianity out of the elites and back onto the rabble by banning them from teaching anything except the gospels ( madrasa ) and banning the teaching of the greek and roman classics in xtian schools

4. What we can agree on is this
The Nicean creed was heavily influenced by Constantine for political purposes and Constantine was still a Mithraist

Archeology shows that most of early xtianity was gnostic
wherein JC had no earthly existence whatsoever


Never mind Johann. Can you back up each of your points with quotes from the cited folks?
Thanks, ramana


My personal anti-xtianity website
http://www.jesus-and-bible-debunked.freewebsitehosting.com/

also visit hamsa.org for online books by sita ram goel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2008 02:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40
Posts: 3529
I think this one is important and has to be retained for posterity, not to be lost.

A few days back, Beeb had come up with this.
The Conquistadors raped and pillaged America and took the women as slaves, and loads of them.

Here is the original paper from the source. Also look at other papers from here for more studies on population genetics of "Hispanic" communities.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2008 02:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Posts: 756
Location: La La Land
Quote:


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com is also good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Mar 2008 03:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57
Posts: 4915
Stan_Savljevic wrote:
I think this one is important and has to be retained for posterity, not to be lost.

A few days back, Beeb had come up with this.
The Conquistadors raped and pillaged America and took the women as slaves, and loads of them.

Here is the original paper from the source. Also look at other papers from here for more studies on population genetics of "Hispanic" communities.


That's why I think it's rational for Indians to support socialist movements in Latin America, as they are opposed to European-aligned forces on their continent, which owe their origin to colonialism

The Brzezinski types only worry about large Eurasian powers coming together to oppose the West (ie. Russia, China, India), but I think India could create viable alliances with Latin American countries, as they too are powers in their own right.

Indian ingenuity coupled with Latin American natural resources could achieve a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 953 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 24  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupmisra, Google Feedfetcher, Jayan Menon and 13 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