Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 [..] > Also, what of the genocide that came as a direct result of Gandhi's > " success " ? Which Genocide you are talking about and what makes you think that it was because of Gandhi's success? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [..] > > > Also, what of the genocide that came as a direct result of Gandhi's > > " success " ? > > Which Genocide you are talking about > and what makes you think that it was > because of Gandhi's success? You know, the internecine blood bath accompanying the mass migration with the religious partition of India. When the Brits pulled out. Till then, the violence is said to have been kept at bay. But really, I'm just being provocative because I don't believe people do anything. They're just manifestations of greater forces, ultimately, the universe just playing itself out. No biggie, ac. Just trying to pop your adoring bubbles. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > Also, what of the genocide that came as a direct result of Gandhi's > > > " success " ? > > > > Which Genocide you are talking about > > and what makes you think that it was > > because of Gandhi's success? > > > > You know, the internecine blood bath accompanying the mass migration > with the religious partition of India. > > When the Brits pulled out. Till then, the violence is said to have > been kept at bay. > > But really, I'm just being provocative because I don't believe people > do anything. They're just manifestations of greater forces, > ultimately, the universe just playing itself out. > > No biggie, ac. Just trying to pop your adoring bubbles. > > > > Oh yeah.........and he didn't like black people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > Also, what of the genocide that came as a direct result of Gandhi's > > > " success " ? > > > > Which Genocide you are talking about > > and what makes you think that it was > > because of Gandhi's success? > > > > You know, the internecine blood bath > accompanying the mass migration > with the religious partition of India. I read that it was due to the another " master move " that British rulers played. They said to have thought that united India might have potential to become too strong and a potential threat and saw that was in their benefit if India was divided and broken into pieces. It did result in massive migration and lot od deaths and loss. It was due to the British " move " and not because of Gandhi. Gandhi was strictly against partition on the lines of reliegon. According to what I have read, British not just acted to divide India but, it was their dream that India be divided into many more pieces. They asked every kingly estate in India to decide on their own - and, there were 600 of such estates! > > When the Brits pulled out. Till then, the violence is said to have > been kept at bay. In fact, there was violence before that and British used that as an 'excuse' to divide India. I have read that in order to break and weaken Indian resistance to British rule; British policy makers decided to work to divide Indians based on reliegon and that 'ploy' ultimately 'worked'. It did kill many more people but it weakened the movement and delayed the departure of British. > > But really, I'm just being provocative because I don't believe people do anything. They're just manifestations of greater forces, ultimately, the universe just playing itself out. If that theory is correct then, you are not being " provocative " , the 'Greater forces' are just acting out through you and I am not saying anything the " greater forces " are just expressing it through me. > No biggie, ac. Just trying to pop your adoring bubbles. I don't see as any 'adoration'. Gandhi was a Great [iMO Greatest in last century] Person. Yet, Gandhi was just a " human " ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 [...] > > Oh yeah.........and he didn't like black people. > Where did you get this information Toom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 From : < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi > .... He founded the Natal Indian Congress in 1894, with himself as the Secretary. Through this organization, he molded the Indian community of South Africa into a homogeneous political force, publishing documents detailing Indian grievances and evidence of British discrimination in South Africa. Gandhi returned briefly to India in 1896 to bring his wife and children to live with him in South Africa. When he returned in January 1897, a white mob attacked and tried to lynch him.[2] In an early indication of the personal values that would shape his later campaigns, he refused to press charges on any member of the mob, stating it was one of his principles not to seek redress for a personal wrong in a court of law. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: Namaste, Re Partition of India. I know most blame it on the Brits but it was really all down to Muhammed Ali Jinner, and the Muslim League refusing to go into India and insisting on a Pakistan State. If you study the work of Lord Mountbatten at this time you will see that the Brits were in the middle so to speak. Much the same as the US would be if Irak decided to partition itself. The UK Labour Party had promised India independence if they won the election in the UK, which they did. The Nationalists in India were insisting on a 1947 withdrawal of the Brits, even if the Muslims weren't ready for joining an Indian State. A perfect example is that Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and Muslim population and was forced into India, with no peace since and a complete division of the state between India and Pakistan. The Brits were actually quite helpless in this partition unless they were prepared to use massive military force to impose it...albeit temporarily. Many Indians blame the Brits because they don't want to blame themselves, unfortunately.Just like they still do for many reasons although India has been independent for 60 years and is now one of the most corrupt nations on the planet, in politics and judiciary..........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > Namaste, > > Re Partition of India. I know most blame it on the Brits but it was > really all down to Muhammed Ali Jinner, and the Muslim League > refusing to go into India and insisting on a Pakistan State. > > If you study the work of Lord Mountbatten at this time you will see > that the Brits were in the middle so to speak. Much the same as the > US would be if Irak decided to partition itself. The UK Labour Party > had promised India independence if they won the election in the UK, > which they did. The Nationalists in India were insisting on a 1947 > withdrawal of the Brits, even if the Muslims weren't ready for > joining an Indian State. > > A perfect example is that Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and Muslim > population and was forced into India, with no peace since and a > complete division of the state between India and Pakistan. > > The Brits were actually quite helpless in this partition unless they > were prepared to use massive military force to impose it...albeit > temporarily. Many Indians blame the Brits because they don't want to > blame themselves, unfortunately.Just like they still do for many > reasons although India has been independent for 60 years and is now > one of the most corrupt nations on the planet, in politics and > judiciary..........Tony. > I respect and welcome your views, and I do NOT consider India a " perfect " country. However, I don't consider " Lord Mountbatten " [the British Viceroy to India] " impartial " enough to write truthfully and objectively about it. He had BIG 'vested' interest in presenting the story that presented a favorable view of his policies and his decisions. I do think that there is a 'strength' and 'merit' in the " idea " that British would have thought that a divided [or broken into piece] India would be much easier to control than a India which was BIG and united. Just consider that they DECLARED that all 600 princely estates were INDEPENDENT and they are were FREE to determine their own fate! I also believe that once USA leaves Iraq, it might find it easier to CONTROL and manipulate a divided [broken into pieces] Iraq than to control Iraq which reaming big and united. Given that, I wouldn't be too suprised if it was later " revealed " that in fact, USA acted to encourage, provocate 'sectarian' violence possibly leading to inner division of Iraq without having to impose it from outside. Doing it this way might be quite clever and might save USA from lot of International criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Oh yeah.........and he didn't like black people. > > > > > > > Where did you get this information Toom? > > > You can Google it....... I did and so far I haven't found it. > and while you're there......get the low-down > on Mother T. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > Also, what of the genocide that came as a direct result of Gandhi's > > > > " success " ? > > > > > > Which Genocide you are talking about > > > and what makes you think that it was > > > because of Gandhi's success? > > > > > > > > You know, the internecine blood bath > > accompanying the mass migration > > with the religious partition of India. > > I read that it was due to the another > " master move " that British rulers played. > > They said to have thought that united > India might have potential to become > too strong and a potential threat and > saw that was in their benefit if India > was divided and broken into pieces. It > did result in massive migration and > lot od deaths and loss. > > It was due to the British " move " and not > because of Gandhi. Gandhi was strictly against > partition on the lines of reliegon. > > According to what I have read, > British not just acted to divide India > but, it was their dream that India be divided > into many more pieces. They asked every kingly > estate in India to decide on their own - and, > there were 600 of such estates! > > > > > > > When the Brits pulled out. Till then, the violence is said to have > > been kept at bay. > > In fact, there was violence before that > and British used that as an 'excuse' to > divide India. > > I have read that in order to break and > weaken Indian resistance to British rule; > British policy makers decided to work to > divide Indians based on reliegon and that > 'ploy' ultimately 'worked'. It did kill > many more people but it weakened the movement > and delayed the departure of British. > > > > > But really, I'm just being provocative because > I don't believe people do anything. They're just > manifestations of greater forces, > ultimately, the universe just playing itself out. > > > If that theory is correct > then, you are not being " provocative " , the 'Greater > forces' are just acting out through you and I am > not saying anything the " greater forces " are just > expressing it through me. > > > > > No biggie, ac. Just trying to pop your adoring bubbles. > > I don't see as any 'adoration'. > > Gandhi was a Great [iMO Greatest in last > century] Person. Yet, Gandhi was just a " human " ! > Yes, what you say about Brit motivation rings Right and True! That's how power works. Thugs on all sides. That word, " thug, " Indian origin. And yes, I am, You are, Being played out By the universe. Gandhi: Just like us: Universe @ Play Hey Toom!, How about this for a street sign: AWESOME UNIVERSE AT PLAY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > From : < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi > > > ... > > He founded the Natal Indian Congress in 1894, with himself as the > Secretary. Through this organization, he molded the Indian community > of South Africa into a homogeneous political force, publishing > documents detailing Indian grievances and evidence of British > discrimination in South Africa. Gandhi returned briefly to India in > 1896 to bring his wife and children to live with him in South Africa. > > When he returned in January 1897, a white mob attacked and tried to > lynch him.[2] In an early indication of the personal values that would > shape his later campaigns, he refused to press charges on any member > of the mob, stating it was one of his principles not to seek redress > for a personal wrong in a court of law. > > ... > So what? We all have our reasons! What I'd like to know is: What's in it for you to admire Him or anyone? There's ALWAYS A payoff! ALWAYS! What IS yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 [...] > > So what? We all have our reasons! > > What I'd like to know is: > > > What's in it for you to admire > > Him or anyone? > > > > There's ALWAYS > > A payoff! > > > > ALWAYS! > > > > What IS yours? > This is part of " learning " ! I am learning and usually I [we] admire those who I [we] find " good enough " to learn from! Regards, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > I respect and welcome your views, > and I do NOT consider India a " perfect " > country. > > However, I don't consider " Lord Mountbatten " > [the British Viceroy to India] " impartial " enough to > write truthfully and objectively about it. > > He had BIG 'vested' interest in presenting > the story that presented a favorable view of > his policies and his decisions. > > > > I do think that there is a 'strength' > and 'merit' in the " idea " that British > would have thought that a divided [or > broken into piece] India would be much > easier to control than a India which was > BIG and united. > > Just consider that they DECLARED that all > 600 princely estates were INDEPENDENT and > they are were FREE to determine their own > fate! > > > I also believe that once USA leaves > Iraq, it might find it easier to CONTROL > and manipulate a divided [broken into pieces] > Iraq than to control Iraq which reaming big > and united. > > Given that, I wouldn't be too > suprised if it was later " revealed " that in > fact, USA acted to encourage, provocate > 'sectarian' violence possibly leading > to inner division of Iraq without having > to impose it from outside. Doing it this > way might be quite clever and might save > USA from lot of International criticism. > Namaste, The Brits weren't trying to control or rule, they were giving independence! The Princely States were always semi independent and were really protectorates only. Churchill said the British Empire was run on philanthropy and 4%, and the Brits had found out it was cheaper to leave colonies and not have to pay for their infrastructure and upkeep, but at the same time lend money, as the City of London and New York do to this day. Take Mountbatten out of the equation and one is left with Ali Jinner and the Muslim League, and they wouldn't settle for anything less than partition and a Pakistan. Most Muslim countries are hardly democratic either. Their invasion of Kashmir is indicative of this. People like Bal Thackery, the RSS, BJP and their Anti-Muslim, and Hindu Nationalist position, indicate that Ali Jinner was probably right, even though partition was regrettable.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > Namaste, > > Re Partition of India. I know most blame it on the Brits but it was > really all down to Muhammed Ali Jinner, and the Muslim League > refusing to go into India and insisting on a Pakistan State. > > If you study the work of Lord Mountbatten at this time you will see > that the Brits were in the middle so to speak. Much the same as the > US would be if Irak decided to partition itself. The UK Labour Party > had promised India independence if they won the election in the UK, > which they did. The Nationalists in India were insisting on a 1947 > withdrawal of the Brits, even if the Muslims weren't ready for > joining an Indian State. > > A perfect example is that Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and Muslim > population and was forced into India, with no peace since and a > complete division of the state between India and Pakistan. > > The Brits were actually quite helpless in this partition unless they > were prepared to use massive military force to impose it...albeit > temporarily. Many Indians blame the Brits because they don't want to > blame themselves, unfortunately.Just like they still do for many > reasons although India has been independent for 60 years and is now > one of the most corrupt nations on the planet, in politics and > judiciary..........Tony. > That's right, a perfectly reasonable and sympathetic argument can be made for any and all sides of any and all disputes. Blame is just an infantile form of stupefaction. From a meta view, it's all just part of the cosmic order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > So what? We all have our reasons! > > > > What I'd like to know is: > > > > > > What's in it for you to admire > > > > Him or anyone? > > > > > > > > There's ALWAYS > > > > A payoff! > > > > > > > > ALWAYS! > > > > > > > > What IS yours? > > > > > This is part of " learning " ! > > I am learning and usually I [we] > admire those who I [we] find " good enough " > to learn from! > > > Regards, > ac > Just learning? But why Gandhi? Why not Bush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > So what? We all have our reasons! > > > > > > What I'd like to know is: > > > > > > > > > What's in it for you to admire > > > > > > Him or anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > There's ALWAYS > > > > > > A payoff! > > > > > > > > > > > > ALWAYS! > > > > > > > > > > > > What IS yours? > > > > > > > > > This is part of " learning " ! > > > > I am learning and usually I [we] > > admire those who I [we] find " good enough " > > to learn from! > > > > > > Regards, > > ac > > > > > > Just learning? But why Gandhi? Why not Bush? > I learn from many others besides Gandhi. Some of them include Byron Katie, Tolle, David Hawkins... Bush so far hasn't appealed to me in that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what? We all have our reasons! > > > > > > > > What I'd like to know is: > > > > > > > > > > > > What's in it for you to admire > > > > > > > > Him or anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's ALWAYS > > > > > > > > A payoff! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ALWAYS! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What IS yours? > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is part of " learning " ! > > > > > > I am learning and usually I [we] > > > admire those who I [we] find " good enough " > > > to learn from! > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > ac > > > > > > > > > > > Just learning? But why Gandhi? Why not Bush? > > > > > I learn from many others besides Gandhi. > > Some of them include Byron Katie, > Tolle, David Hawkins... > > Bush so far hasn't appealed to me in > that way. > I very much appreciate your sincerity. It's rare. There's an incredible innocence about it. But, really, we MUST go deeper, don't you think? WHY doesn't Bush appeal to you in that way? Come on. You ARE a very intelligent and earnest person. Let's not settle for shallowness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Oh yeah.........and he didn't like black people. > > > > > > > Where did you get this information Toom? > > > You can Google it.......and while you're there......get the low-down > on Mother T. When the Pope or some Grand Mulla speak....watch for a 'hidden agenda'; When Baal or Yahweh speak though, hold on! ....the ground itself, quakes with fear. When friggin' GOOGLE speaketh!.It is the very WORD of GOD and IS GOD! I know...I was THERE, I SAW, and I got the 'REAL LOWDOWN' on ALL & EVERYTHING! And thus too, the knowers & prophets of the TRUTH & UNDERSTANDING, have recommended that all, each and every soul, make pilgrimage to GOOGLE yearly at the very minimum...for truth, knowledge and worship, you just can't get by the Great 'G'. .b (a pilgrim) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.