Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

India: Ancient Superpower

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Yet you fail to understand one.. ASIA I NOT INDIA is it?

Look.. be for you post me some more lame stuff please




Indian civilisation deserves its credit as being known amongst the most greatest civilisations of all time.


first line of the OP

then you have the balls to post this?

And, for your edification, here is an academic essay on the Asian Civilization:


LOL

sorry what part of ASIA is not india am i missing in your logic?

you do now asia is a contentent right and india is a name for a place that happens to be IN asia

you know like CHINA?

or shall i skool you in geogrophy?


Of course India is IN Asia... nobody said it wasn't. But look, in the United States there are 50 states, and yet it would not at all be wrong to talk about people living in California and saying "Well, the people in California have an American lifestyle." It is not wrong to use the larger global description when talking about a part of the bigger whole. You are mistaken if you think that ANYONE here, the OP included, meant that India was all that Asia was made up of. Nobody is that stupid mate, sorry.

You are trying to force things into being because you know you have been proven wrong here, and yet your pride will not allow you to admit it. It's quite obvious here that you have a limited, naive, uneducated, non-academic view of English words. You know enough to talk with your mates down at the pub, but listen, you don't know squat about these kinds of things, so why don't you just give up, and let's get back on topic.

OP, my apologies for keeping this going longer than it should have. I was just really annoyed to see you get accused of wrong usage, when in fact you were not. Can you please post more information on India so we can discuss the MEAT of the subject? I, for one, would love to see it




posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Anyhow, I very much appreciate your bringing this to our attention. I have always been amazed at the accurate descriptions in the Vedas concerning nuclear holocaust... it seems that much revision has occurred to the historical accounts of man's ancient civilization.


Yes, there are various descriptions of advanced technology in Indian texts. However, because these tend to be mixed up with mythology, it is hard to identiify how real those weapons are. Nonetheless, there is some actual evidence that ancient Indians used gunpoweder and explosives, which might explain the description of the advanced weapons in the texts.

What is really odd is how advanced India is in 3000BCE. The cities in terms of layout and planning and sophistication are comparable to modern day New York. We even know that they had plumbing, bathrooms, toilets. This is really odd for 3000BCE. Sanskrit itself, has a grammar which has the precision of machine language, again very odd for ancient times.

The more you look into the actual verfiable history of ancient India, the more you believe in the real possibility of the descriptions of the advanced stuff like flight, nuclear weapons. It is oddly advanced for its timeframe. I think Indian history is a goldmine waiting to be explored. It may force us to revise our views on ancient civilisation.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
That's quite enough with the personal attacks

Semper



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
What I was quite amazed by when I lived in India was how the ancient ways of civilization still persisted, and yet at the same time, you have a growing number of people who have advanced skills like software engineering, chemistry, etc.

Also, when I went to a doctor's office, the feeling was very different from western medical clinics, and yet, the particular medicine I took worked much better than anything I ever got from a western pharmacy.

So, you really have this very interesting mixture of the modern and the ancient. Both are permitted to coexist, which is certainly not the case in western civilization, where all too often you see the old being entirely replaced by the new.

This does indeed seem to be a feature of the Asian/Eastern civilization, since I saw some of this in Thailand and Cambodia also, but to a lesser degree.


[edit on 26-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


you are correct.. inida is a minefiled of information vahsnu!!! flying god i think "tho i could be mistaken" but anywayss

India has much to offer but saying that i do also think "personaly" that a lot of cultures that are older than india have much to offer also..

gun powder is not "indian" its chinise and the reason why i say that is marco polo "if yu know who he is".. but the fact INDIA and china and a good few other cultures live so close is very interesting and in many ways do share the "budda" theme in some aspects

Like i said.. I like this thread. and please do not think im attacking you.. just because others type that i am.

I know what im doing and i know very well what my OWN points are i dont need someone to assume my intentions

so keep it up and i hope to contribute to the thread without being called an arsehole or a mule



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Here is an informative except from the Wikipedia article on India:



Home to the Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.[17] Four major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's diverse culture. Gradually annexed by the British East India Company from the early eighteenth century and colonised by the United Kingdom from the mid-nineteenth century, India became an independent nation in 1947 after a struggle for independence that was marked by widespread non-violent resistance.[18]


Notice how the article confirms that both Hinduism and Buddhism originated in the Indus Vally Civilization.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Also, the following gives some background on this interesting civilization:



The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (mature period 2600–1900 BCE) which centred mostly in the western part[1] of the Indian Subcontinent[2][3] or South Asia and flourished around the Indus river basin. Historically part of Ancient India, it is one of the world's earliest urban civilizations along with Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt.[4] Primarily centered along the Indus and the Punjab region, the civilization extended into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[5] and the Ganges-Yamuna Doab,[6][7] encompassing most of what is now Pakistan, as well as extending into the westernmost states of India, southeastern Afghanistan and the easternmost part of Balochistan, Iran. The mature phase of this civilization is known as the Harappan Civilization as the first of its cities to be unearthed was the one at Harappa, excavated in the 1920s in what was at the time the Punjab province of British India (now in Pakistan).[8] Excavation of IVC sites have been ongoing since 1920, with important breakthroughs occurring as recently as 1999.[9]


Source



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


sure is LOl kinda "FAR" FROM ASIA right?

or am i missing something here? like



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Yep.. so let me point out some facts and dates,,,




This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the modern political state comprising Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, see People's Republic of China. For the modern political state comprising Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation).


In its context as i was correct.. regarding the USE of the term,.





Archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest hominids in China date from 250,000 to 2.24 million years ago.[15][16] A cave in Zhoukoudian (near present-day Beijing) has fossils dated at somewhere between 300,000 to 780,000 years.[17][18][19] The fossils are of Peking Man, an example of Homo erectus who used fire. The earliest evidence of a fully modern human in China comes from Liujiang County, Guangxi, where a cranium has been found and dated at approximately 67,000 years old. Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains,[20][21] a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa, Japan has been dated to 16,600 to 18,250 years old, so modern humans probably reached China before that time.[citation needed]


Pardon?

oh wait there is more!




Africa's written history starts with the rise of Egyptian civilization in the 4th millennium BC, and in succeeding centuries follows the development of the many diverse societies beyond the Nile Valley. From an early date this has involved critical interactions with non-African civilizations. These ranged from the Phoenicians, who established the merchant empire of Carthage, to the Romans, who colonised all of North Africa in the first century BC. Christianity began its spread through large areas of northern Africa at this time, reaching as far south as Kush and Ethiopia. In the late 7th century, North and East Africa were heavily influenced by the spread of Islam, which eventually led to the appearance of new cultures such as those of the Swahili people in East Africa, and powerful kingdoms including the Songhai Empire in the sub-saharan west. Farther south, Ghana, Oyo, and the Benin Empire developed with little influence from either Islam or Christianity. The rise of Islam led to an increase in the Arab slave trade that would culminate in the 19th century. This presaged the forced transport of African people and cultures to the New World in the Atlantic slave trade, and the beginning of the European scramble for Africa. The colonial period in much of Africa lasted from the late 1800s until the advent of African independence movements in 1951, when Libya became the first former colony to become independent. However Liberia can be considered the first post-colonial independent country, established 1847. Modern African history has been rife with revolutions as well as the growth of modern African economies and democratization across the continent.



what was that about india? hmm

or was a i being an arsehole? golly gosh blow me over.

just for you zazzzy



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Im sorry i do have to dissagree here..




In other words based on this data we can clearly see in terms of economy and production the Indians were the dominant civilisations of this planet in the ancient world, even at the height of the Roman and Islamic empire. It is Western-centric history that teaches us the Romans were the most powerful force on this planet in the past, but the evidence shows that Asia was the most powerful.


This is a basic flaw.. I guess your of indian desent? or something.. i dunno but hey if your not thats cool

The roman empire was only second to khan who did in fact have more land mass "powerfull" than the romans and he was not indian he was tho from the continant "land mass of" asia ..

You are trying to connect a group of people "indians" with a landmass?

i dont see how that works? if that was the case you could include china? as they are on the very same land mass as india

If you want to talk about a people PLEASE use the right way to go about it and dont use wiki to justify your own missunderstand of what it is your trying to say ?

yes the indian people were a supper "power" in there own right but do not confuse that with asia as a place.

Indians are a mix of people from all over asia not just "indian"..

were did gun powder come from? CHINA is that india? No its not but its sure as hell is in asia..

you see what im trying to say? im not saying that your "premiss" for making this thread is wrong nore do i want to butcher you about it.

But your telling me things that are not true in ways i dont feel happy reading because i like histroy its great and i love civiliastion. but when you confuse the word with the meaning or interpritation is as bad as saying

THE WHITE RACE

thats grammitcaly what you are saying and its wrong because there is no such thing as a WHITE race of humans OR black.

civiliations is the human progression of knowladge not some retarded way to lable a contentent..

culture is the word to describe how other people work

please understand that or this topic is pointless be for its got going and myself like to read what you are intrested in saying "or making a point of" its nice to remind others how other cultures have shaped "civiliation"...

one word, we both agreed on that being humble part remember in the other thread?

its ok to be wrong.. its how you accept it then it becomes a problem

I think I understand what 13579 is trying to say.
At least, in part, this post seems to be oversimplifying "India". What India is, what people make up Indian population, the incredible history of the Indian region.
It doesn't make India any less jaw-dropping. As a matter of fact, if you close your eyes and throw a dart at a map of Asia, almost anywhere it lands would have a rich, and OLD history of land changing hands, as culture overturns culture, overturns culture, and on and on.
Huge, sweeping armies crossed the gigantic continent, and held areas that were totally alien from the lands they originally inhabited.
Cultures and Religions and Governments exchanged ideas and information over and over.

The point is, that to tell this story, and speak of "India", the physical area, and the people that call it home, you would have to reach out and tell the stories of many other cultures and people in distant geographical locations.

The region of India has been a catch-pan for humanity for thousands and thousands of years. As the waves of foreign influences have passed over and through, new ingredients have added to the mix again and again.

And, if you can't keep the details accurate, it really doesn't do the place justice. But, no harm meant.

Handle with care.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LASTofTheV8s
 


wow thank you !!!! someone who can ready my crappy grammer and typing and at least understand what it was i was saying

!!!

for a minute i thought i was alone LOL


no but thank you
i do mean that..



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


once again!!!




You are trying to force things into being because you know you have been proven wrong here, and yet your pride will not allow you to admit it. It's quite obvious here that you have a limited, naive, uneducated, non-academic view of English words.





you have a limited, naive, uneducated, non-academic view of English words


wow...




[edit on 26-12-2009 by 13579]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
You have added 13579 to your Ignore List. Refresh the current page to remove their posts from the thread.

Now, I can read this thread in peace without some 14 year old newbie derailing a thread. Click ignore guys and he/she will disappear..

Indigo_Child, again, another fantastic thread. Prior to the Angloization of India and the creation of the British Raj, the early colonial rulers did not repress Hindu traditions and Indian culture. In fact, most of the aristocracy participated in the culture, took Indian wives and adopted non Anglo names.

The Ancient Indian civilization and historical records fascinated the British. For a period of time, the culture (as I said above) was not repressed, even the languages and religious traditions were openly allowed. The early rulers encouraged it.

Some argue this is why majority of the sacred texts still exists, unlike the Spanish in South America, the early Christian missionaries did not stamp out the religions. Most were surprised regarding the similarities and even seeing Churches. As Indigo_Child will no doubt point out, questions arise whether or not Jesus or even a disciple visited India. No one can explain why Christianity was already established, before colonialisation.

India was also referred to the "Second Empire" by the British. However, tragically, after the American war of Independence and the Napoleonic Wars, the British perceived ourselves as the "Third Rome" and thus the Angloization began on the sub-continent.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by infinite]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
wow i wish i could just read the info in this thread instead of sift through you morons fighting with eachother over the pettiest bullshjt, you are ruining indigo_child's thread and it's totally ******* rude.

please just delete your posts regarding semantics, i shouldn't have to click ignore. the OP had much more than syntax errors than you pointed out anyway, but i don't care because i'm not a douchebag.

extremely fascinating thread, indigo_child, i'm sorry these morons are ruining it.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


Pretty hard to take you seriously and watch you talk down to people as if you are the academic when you spell every other word incorrectly. Additionally, you criticize and then are very sensitive when criticized in return, which is hypocrisy.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
It would be nice to see some research on the Buddha, Panini, the Indian story of Jesus, Mohendjo-Daro, Shiva as Yogic deity relating to ancestral inhabitants, and various other contributions of Indian civilisation etc. I applaud the initiative.

Sadly, most of the three pages were taken up by a teenage mutant ninja turtle who decided to go nit-picking terminology at Christmastime - having quite a few Cheetios on his (or her, but I suspect his) shoulders.

I have an M.A, in English, specialising in early twentieth century theoretical linguistics and literature - and I have no trouble with the OP's wording and I consider myself allergic to unthinking wording...

Go on, OP, and others who can contribute in merito - and if I see one more of this high school debate style posts I will press the ignore button. I am more interested in the heritage of India (while lovng and respecting the English language as well.)





new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join