A couple of things about:
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Apr 19 2008, 11:47 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Apr 19 2008, 11:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hinduism Damned with Faint Praise </b>- Michael Wood's 'History of India'
By Kripamoya Das
I watched a television documentary on the ancient history of India today.
Presented by Michael Wood and made for British and American audiences, it was entitled *Beginnings* and is the first of a six-part series, itself part of a season celebrating the 60th anniversary of India's independence.
[...]
<b>Why? Because it explained that Indians came from Africa, the Vedas came from central Asia, the traditional Vedic fire sacrifices were conducted by intoxicated *shamans*, and that because Hinduism itself is in a constant state of flux, it is a belief system shaped only by the forces of climate, geography and history, rather than eternal verities. Oh yes, and while we're on the subject, that the speaker of the Bhagavad-gita - the Bible for all Hindus - was a Persian prince. Or perhaps from Kazakhstan. Or maybe Russia.</b>
[...]
*The documentary is shown on BBC / PBS and is produced by Maya Vision.
Indeed. *[right][snapback]80754[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So that explains why it is Persia/Kazakhstan/Russia that have the Mahabharatam and not us. Why Mathura is all of a sudden discovered right there in Moscow rather than in India <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Michael Wood must be of the line of those christoTerrorist Brits who destroyed our schools and thereafter point-blank refused to provide primary education for all. Because lying, destroying and thereafter more lying is what the christoterrorists and christoconditioned liars do. BBC and Please Be Silent (PBS) can stop talking/braying.
The geography of our Hindu Vedas and Epics like Mahabharatam match India. We have the Mahabharata, and India contains the places Mathura, Dwaraka and others associated with Krishna.
Whereas all the christos of the west have is their christomythological Japhetic-Hamitic (oryan-dravidioid) theory. Next to that, it is known for a fact that the whole arthurian romance of the British isles was put together based on Persian and Roman stuff with sprinklings of Celtic elements. <i>And</i> to top it all off their jeebus don't exist! So no wonder they're feeling sour and jealous.
(See also more on that news article posted by Dhu on the Giant Turtle of Vietnam that brought the Sword that saved the country to the Ruler and then at the end would take the Sword away. A very Asian narrative; the Iranians had an equivalent about a Lady in the waters bringing and taking the sword. Geebus-creepus - what's that very Asian motif doing in the British isles - where did the Romans get it before they ported it to Britain???? No, it wasn't them invisible, intangible, unmanifestible, unmanifested Oryans.)
http://beifanchina.com/hanoi/01hanoi-turtle.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Turtle Lake has its own legend of the sword. The legendary "Excalibur" given to King Arthur by the Lady Of The Lake, is similar to the legend of Turtle Lake, where the keeper of the sword is a Giant Turtle. It is said that when danger threatens the country the keeper will surface on the Turtle Lake bearing the sword on its shell.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And so the Turtle came back not many centuries ago:
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12052802
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A national legend tells of a giant golden turtle that <b>bestowed</b> upon the Vietnamese people a magic sword and victory over Chinese invaders in the 16th century. Whether that sacred turtle has materialized in the 21st century will be a matter of cultural debate among the Vietnamese. [...] Of the other three Swinhoe's soft-shell turtles in captivity, two are in Chinese zoos and the other is cared for in the Hoan Kiem ("Returned Sword") <b>Lake</b> in downtown Hanoi â the lake in which the legendary turtle appeared to <b>reclaim</b> the sword from the emperor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nevertheless, CNN will insist it does not predate Little Arthur's Adventures. (They can whine all they want, because in any case, the Welsh Arthurian romance is beaten by the older Iranian narrative.)
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/13/vietnam.turtles.ap/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stories about the mysterious creatures have been circulating for about 500 years, starting with the legend of King Le Loi and the giant turtle of Hoan Kiem Lake. According to legend, the gods gave Le Loi a magic sword, which helped him battle the Chinese invaders.
Having freed Vietnam, the king and his courtiers were boating on the lake when a giant turtle arose, took the magic sword, then plunged to the depths and returned the blade to its divine owners. Since that time the lake's name has been "Ho Hoan Kiem," which means "Lake of the Returned Sword."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->At least the Vietnamese have a lake they can point to and now they have the Turtle too. Meanwhile where is avalon? (No pointing to the many 'possible' locations or to JRR Tolkien's 'cute' renamings of Numenore - the star-shaped island of his oryans - into Avalone and Atalante. His attempts at being clever get tiring after a while.)
And more importantly, where is <i>jeebus</i>?
Going back to the description Kripamoya Das gives of Michael Wooden's mockumentary for the BBC/PBS.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I might also mention here that 'fire-worship' (which, of course, is nothing of the sort, except to the naked eye) and the stories of Vishnu and Krishna, are also found in Russia in the oldest language of that country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Where's their proof - <i>without</i> them resorting to their stilted techniques of linguistical acrobatics - that Russia used those names before India had them.
Russia's oldest language is older than Samskritam? Or are Michael Petrified Wood and his bosses at the Beeb/PBS dating Samskritam to Max Mueller's "I said so therefore it is" 1500 bce again and figuring that therefore (a more realistically-dated) Russian language must be older? Yeah, I can do that kind of pathological 'math' too.
The Vedas came from Central Asia? Where's the actual evidence? Meanwhile, the Siberian Buryats remember that they got their Hindu-Buddhism from India and not the other way around. (See Hinduwisdom.info)
Here's a thought (which does not use the colossal gaps of logic displayed by beebeeb and Wooddust, nor does it refer to their desperate deus-ex-machina of the Oryans): the Iranians of Persia could have got familiar with Krishna and Vishnu from the Hindus of greater India (upto Afghanistan). And everyone including the Russians know that Persians influenced Russia a lot, especially with their Zoroastrianism (see for instance the reference to fire worship in the quoteblock). So why not pockets of Iranians introducing Russia and Iranian Kazakhstan to both Zoroastrianism and Hinduism? Why not Hindus of India themselves (of the NW say) - who moved about a lot in that region anyway - having introduced the Russians and Kazakhstanis to Krishna and Vishnu like they also introduced the Siberians to Indra upto Buddha?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So when Michael Wood, in the final scene of his documentary, is speaking to camera in his conveniently white shirt and trousers in the middle of a happy throng of Hindus throwing multi-coloured powders, he speaks words of praise for the antiquity of India and her culture. But he has, albeit not with malice, just smilingly damned the very religious beliefs of millions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is an unacceptable argument.
The west means "blind faith" with it. It does not mean what we think it means. English is full of such loaded terms.
Religious beliefs? Religious faith? Blow that. I don't care about 'beliefs'.
What I do care about is facts. Michael Wood and BBC-PBS are lying and that's what they should be called out on, not on "offending the religious beliefs" of 1,000,000 or 1.000000 people.
I have a right to the truth and I have a right to utter it. I have a right to insist it being told and to be spared lies. "Freedom of speech" should not include freedom to lie with impunity. Because lying with impunity is christoterrorism's incorrigible way. And this christoislamicommunistic practise of lying is a culture that is alien to Zoroastrian and Dharmic traditions, Taoist and other E Asian traditions.
The right to truth means I have a right to say it whenever I see fit (apparently we are also duty-bound to do so, but I whince at heavy words like duty, so). And if the truth happens to offend? Well, boohoo - as long as what I say is not false, I have the right.
Therefore, I have the full right to say jeebus doesn't exist, regardless of whether 2+ billion people find it offensive to their (violent intolerant) religious beliefs or not. What do I care about their beliefs anymore? When did they care for the truth? They've trampled on my Hindu Dharma and our Dharmic traditions and on E Asian, America's native American and African traditions all the time.
But the christoislamicommunazis offend with their lying. <i>That</i> is the difference. They have to <i>make up</i> lies about the Natural Traditions in order to sell/shove their inferior/invisible garbage product onto us. Even today: the only way they are able to convert people is by lying and brainwashing people with their hateful Oryan Dravidioid fictions, or with their Hutus and Tutsis myths and with their caste fables or with their "The benign christobritish" falsities. And with their lies against our traditions and Gods.
Next to that, they kill people and destroy temples and civilisations. So if they feel pinched whenever someone tells them facts, well then, ain't it all a cryin' shame - they can go blubbing to their mummies and daddies/Il Papa all they want. Nothing frightens lying ideologies as much as the truth.
As I said, christoislamics offend others with their compulsive lying. Whereas they are so quickly stung by the truth that they fall over themselves trying to make laws against "blasphemy". But how can we help it that history and their cooked-up babble so clearly points to the non-historicity of the scary character of christ. Or that the koran describes mohammed's character so damningly as an utterly repellent monstrosity.
If they don't like it, they should quit reading the babble and koran.
Why are Hindus such great defenders of <i>others'</i> freedom of speech anyway? And at the same time so quick to stifle any amongst us who wish to state facts? (Facts that unmotivated historians at least do not dispute.) Why is psecularism a sword that only cuts one way?
Most Hindus these days wear their Badge of UltraPsecularism as if dhimmitude and the colonized mind is something to be proud of.
In Dharmic traditions there is the concept of freedom to truth and freedom from lies; whereas the trite western ideal of "freedom of speech" essentially grants everyone the freedom to lie without providing the checks-and-balances of having the liar's reliability revoked.
It takes energy to refute lies, and it requires wide publication to get truths re-established after lies have been propagated. And that is exactly what the western imposed 'Freedom of Speech' tries to do in India: antagonise truth and circumvent its dissemination. Just like secularism in India manifests as psecularism that only props up christoislamicommunism and regularly hits at Dharmic traditions, freedom of speech in India is no more than the freedom to lie about our Dharmic traditions, all while we are absolutely forbidden from telling the truth about the terrorist ideologies. It is "unsecular" and "anti-minorityism" and "communalist" to speak the truth about them.
They can keep whining. Because the first step to decolonization from christo-conditioning is to stop being respectful or tolerant of intolerant ideologies. The natural second step then is to stop self-censorship against uttering the unpleasant facts about christoislamism. Nothing scares them more. Why else did the church enforce illiteracy and keep the hideous horror stories in the bible in Latin-only throughout the middle ages? Because a free mind naturally rebels against the impositions of such evil thoughts as are contained therein (see Mark Twain's experience with the babble). Why do you think communists from China to Bengal clamp down on the media about their atrocities against The People they claim to stand for?
Because nothing is more damaging to them than disseminating the truth about terrorist ideologies.
What scares them is what should be our weapon of choice. By their reaction, they have themselves given away what will defeat them. Then <i>use</i> it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather, it may even show that such performances were exported outside what is now India. Of course, what is known as India today is a shrunken version of 'Hindustan' which incorporated even present day Afghanistan a few centuries ago. And Hindustan itself, according to the histories of India, is only a fraction of the kingdom of Bharata.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is true.
Edited: to undo some earlier edits (which, although it made the text flow better, changed the meanings).
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Apr 19 2008, 11:47 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Apr 19 2008, 11:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Hinduism Damned with Faint Praise </b>- Michael Wood's 'History of India'
By Kripamoya Das
I watched a television documentary on the ancient history of India today.
Presented by Michael Wood and made for British and American audiences, it was entitled *Beginnings* and is the first of a six-part series, itself part of a season celebrating the 60th anniversary of India's independence.
[...]
<b>Why? Because it explained that Indians came from Africa, the Vedas came from central Asia, the traditional Vedic fire sacrifices were conducted by intoxicated *shamans*, and that because Hinduism itself is in a constant state of flux, it is a belief system shaped only by the forces of climate, geography and history, rather than eternal verities. Oh yes, and while we're on the subject, that the speaker of the Bhagavad-gita - the Bible for all Hindus - was a Persian prince. Or perhaps from Kazakhstan. Or maybe Russia.</b>
[...]
*The documentary is shown on BBC / PBS and is produced by Maya Vision.
Indeed. *[right][snapback]80754[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So that explains why it is Persia/Kazakhstan/Russia that have the Mahabharatam and not us. Why Mathura is all of a sudden discovered right there in Moscow rather than in India <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Michael Wood must be of the line of those christoTerrorist Brits who destroyed our schools and thereafter point-blank refused to provide primary education for all. Because lying, destroying and thereafter more lying is what the christoterrorists and christoconditioned liars do. BBC and Please Be Silent (PBS) can stop talking/braying.
The geography of our Hindu Vedas and Epics like Mahabharatam match India. We have the Mahabharata, and India contains the places Mathura, Dwaraka and others associated with Krishna.
Whereas all the christos of the west have is their christomythological Japhetic-Hamitic (oryan-dravidioid) theory. Next to that, it is known for a fact that the whole arthurian romance of the British isles was put together based on Persian and Roman stuff with sprinklings of Celtic elements. <i>And</i> to top it all off their jeebus don't exist! So no wonder they're feeling sour and jealous.
(See also more on that news article posted by Dhu on the Giant Turtle of Vietnam that brought the Sword that saved the country to the Ruler and then at the end would take the Sword away. A very Asian narrative; the Iranians had an equivalent about a Lady in the waters bringing and taking the sword. Geebus-creepus - what's that very Asian motif doing in the British isles - where did the Romans get it before they ported it to Britain???? No, it wasn't them invisible, intangible, unmanifestible, unmanifested Oryans.)
http://beifanchina.com/hanoi/01hanoi-turtle.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Turtle Lake has its own legend of the sword. The legendary "Excalibur" given to King Arthur by the Lady Of The Lake, is similar to the legend of Turtle Lake, where the keeper of the sword is a Giant Turtle. It is said that when danger threatens the country the keeper will surface on the Turtle Lake bearing the sword on its shell.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And so the Turtle came back not many centuries ago:
http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12052802
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A national legend tells of a giant golden turtle that <b>bestowed</b> upon the Vietnamese people a magic sword and victory over Chinese invaders in the 16th century. Whether that sacred turtle has materialized in the 21st century will be a matter of cultural debate among the Vietnamese. [...] Of the other three Swinhoe's soft-shell turtles in captivity, two are in Chinese zoos and the other is cared for in the Hoan Kiem ("Returned Sword") <b>Lake</b> in downtown Hanoi â the lake in which the legendary turtle appeared to <b>reclaim</b> the sword from the emperor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nevertheless, CNN will insist it does not predate Little Arthur's Adventures. (They can whine all they want, because in any case, the Welsh Arthurian romance is beaten by the older Iranian narrative.)
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/13/vietnam.turtles.ap/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stories about the mysterious creatures have been circulating for about 500 years, starting with the legend of King Le Loi and the giant turtle of Hoan Kiem Lake. According to legend, the gods gave Le Loi a magic sword, which helped him battle the Chinese invaders.
Having freed Vietnam, the king and his courtiers were boating on the lake when a giant turtle arose, took the magic sword, then plunged to the depths and returned the blade to its divine owners. Since that time the lake's name has been "Ho Hoan Kiem," which means "Lake of the Returned Sword."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->At least the Vietnamese have a lake they can point to and now they have the Turtle too. Meanwhile where is avalon? (No pointing to the many 'possible' locations or to JRR Tolkien's 'cute' renamings of Numenore - the star-shaped island of his oryans - into Avalone and Atalante. His attempts at being clever get tiring after a while.)
And more importantly, where is <i>jeebus</i>?
Going back to the description Kripamoya Das gives of Michael Wooden's mockumentary for the BBC/PBS.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I might also mention here that 'fire-worship' (which, of course, is nothing of the sort, except to the naked eye) and the stories of Vishnu and Krishna, are also found in Russia in the oldest language of that country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Where's their proof - <i>without</i> them resorting to their stilted techniques of linguistical acrobatics - that Russia used those names before India had them.
Russia's oldest language is older than Samskritam? Or are Michael Petrified Wood and his bosses at the Beeb/PBS dating Samskritam to Max Mueller's "I said so therefore it is" 1500 bce again and figuring that therefore (a more realistically-dated) Russian language must be older? Yeah, I can do that kind of pathological 'math' too.
The Vedas came from Central Asia? Where's the actual evidence? Meanwhile, the Siberian Buryats remember that they got their Hindu-Buddhism from India and not the other way around. (See Hinduwisdom.info)
Here's a thought (which does not use the colossal gaps of logic displayed by beebeeb and Wooddust, nor does it refer to their desperate deus-ex-machina of the Oryans): the Iranians of Persia could have got familiar with Krishna and Vishnu from the Hindus of greater India (upto Afghanistan). And everyone including the Russians know that Persians influenced Russia a lot, especially with their Zoroastrianism (see for instance the reference to fire worship in the quoteblock). So why not pockets of Iranians introducing Russia and Iranian Kazakhstan to both Zoroastrianism and Hinduism? Why not Hindus of India themselves (of the NW say) - who moved about a lot in that region anyway - having introduced the Russians and Kazakhstanis to Krishna and Vishnu like they also introduced the Siberians to Indra upto Buddha?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So when Michael Wood, in the final scene of his documentary, is speaking to camera in his conveniently white shirt and trousers in the middle of a happy throng of Hindus throwing multi-coloured powders, he speaks words of praise for the antiquity of India and her culture. But he has, albeit not with malice, just smilingly damned the very religious beliefs of millions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is an unacceptable argument.
The west means "blind faith" with it. It does not mean what we think it means. English is full of such loaded terms.
Religious beliefs? Religious faith? Blow that. I don't care about 'beliefs'.
What I do care about is facts. Michael Wood and BBC-PBS are lying and that's what they should be called out on, not on "offending the religious beliefs" of 1,000,000 or 1.000000 people.
I have a right to the truth and I have a right to utter it. I have a right to insist it being told and to be spared lies. "Freedom of speech" should not include freedom to lie with impunity. Because lying with impunity is christoterrorism's incorrigible way. And this christoislamicommunistic practise of lying is a culture that is alien to Zoroastrian and Dharmic traditions, Taoist and other E Asian traditions.
The right to truth means I have a right to say it whenever I see fit (apparently we are also duty-bound to do so, but I whince at heavy words like duty, so). And if the truth happens to offend? Well, boohoo - as long as what I say is not false, I have the right.
Therefore, I have the full right to say jeebus doesn't exist, regardless of whether 2+ billion people find it offensive to their (violent intolerant) religious beliefs or not. What do I care about their beliefs anymore? When did they care for the truth? They've trampled on my Hindu Dharma and our Dharmic traditions and on E Asian, America's native American and African traditions all the time.
But the christoislamicommunazis offend with their lying. <i>That</i> is the difference. They have to <i>make up</i> lies about the Natural Traditions in order to sell/shove their inferior/invisible garbage product onto us. Even today: the only way they are able to convert people is by lying and brainwashing people with their hateful Oryan Dravidioid fictions, or with their Hutus and Tutsis myths and with their caste fables or with their "The benign christobritish" falsities. And with their lies against our traditions and Gods.
Next to that, they kill people and destroy temples and civilisations. So if they feel pinched whenever someone tells them facts, well then, ain't it all a cryin' shame - they can go blubbing to their mummies and daddies/Il Papa all they want. Nothing frightens lying ideologies as much as the truth.
As I said, christoislamics offend others with their compulsive lying. Whereas they are so quickly stung by the truth that they fall over themselves trying to make laws against "blasphemy". But how can we help it that history and their cooked-up babble so clearly points to the non-historicity of the scary character of christ. Or that the koran describes mohammed's character so damningly as an utterly repellent monstrosity.
If they don't like it, they should quit reading the babble and koran.
Why are Hindus such great defenders of <i>others'</i> freedom of speech anyway? And at the same time so quick to stifle any amongst us who wish to state facts? (Facts that unmotivated historians at least do not dispute.) Why is psecularism a sword that only cuts one way?
Most Hindus these days wear their Badge of UltraPsecularism as if dhimmitude and the colonized mind is something to be proud of.
In Dharmic traditions there is the concept of freedom to truth and freedom from lies; whereas the trite western ideal of "freedom of speech" essentially grants everyone the freedom to lie without providing the checks-and-balances of having the liar's reliability revoked.
It takes energy to refute lies, and it requires wide publication to get truths re-established after lies have been propagated. And that is exactly what the western imposed 'Freedom of Speech' tries to do in India: antagonise truth and circumvent its dissemination. Just like secularism in India manifests as psecularism that only props up christoislamicommunism and regularly hits at Dharmic traditions, freedom of speech in India is no more than the freedom to lie about our Dharmic traditions, all while we are absolutely forbidden from telling the truth about the terrorist ideologies. It is "unsecular" and "anti-minorityism" and "communalist" to speak the truth about them.
They can keep whining. Because the first step to decolonization from christo-conditioning is to stop being respectful or tolerant of intolerant ideologies. The natural second step then is to stop self-censorship against uttering the unpleasant facts about christoislamism. Nothing scares them more. Why else did the church enforce illiteracy and keep the hideous horror stories in the bible in Latin-only throughout the middle ages? Because a free mind naturally rebels against the impositions of such evil thoughts as are contained therein (see Mark Twain's experience with the babble). Why do you think communists from China to Bengal clamp down on the media about their atrocities against The People they claim to stand for?
Because nothing is more damaging to them than disseminating the truth about terrorist ideologies.
What scares them is what should be our weapon of choice. By their reaction, they have themselves given away what will defeat them. Then <i>use</i> it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather, it may even show that such performances were exported outside what is now India. Of course, what is known as India today is a shrunken version of 'Hindustan' which incorporated even present day Afghanistan a few centuries ago. And Hindustan itself, according to the histories of India, is only a fraction of the kingdom of Bharata.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is true.
Edited: to undo some earlier edits (which, although it made the text flow better, changed the meanings).