Family differences ended relationship with Indian girl: Shoaib Malik

[CC1981]

since as usual you insulted Indians by becoming "representative" of so called free-thinking western society and ridiculing Indians as inexperiences and "conservative".

Again i say- learn English properly. You ARE using a western language here to communicate. I have NEVER represented any group and it is MY opinion that i've potrayed. And yes, Indians are inexperienced and conservative when it comes to relationships.

Westren culture has NOTHING innovative which is not known to us Indians, of course some retarded, confused Macaulaylized dhimmi Indians like you will always remain in this illusion Western self-proclaimed "superiority" is Indian cultures "inferiority". It's not the problem of India or Indian culture.

Sorry but this makes no sense. You accuse me of potraying an 'inferiority vs superiority' perspective, when YOU on the other hand turn around in a snooty 'Western culture has nothing innovative which is not known to us Indians'. That in itself is a superiorist viewpoint and laughable at that. Have you lived in the west ? What do you know of the west ? I've said categorically that this is not about superiority or inferiority- this is about two cultures who can learn a LOT from each other.

So you need some simple lessons for Indian culture.

mate, do not patronize me in Indian culture. I come from a pucca Indian household, have lived in India for years and still visit India often. And i highly doubt you are as involved in Indian cultural scene as I or my family is.

We culturally "inferior" Indians than west even give so immense respect to a women who will arrive at her new home after marriage that we consider her as Godess Laxmi bringing loads of happiness to family....see the difference with West...eh??

Pffffft. In most cases- as NGOs in India will point out, the woman is treated as commodity and a worker for the man's family. It is also a fact that your 'amazing nari-respecting culture' has far more incidents of husbands beating the cr@p outta the wife than in the west and in this, you DO NOT have any authority to challenge me.

Anyway, so you in all your grand illusion of knowledge consider that origin of WRITTEN texts of Sanskrit (Lipi or alphabet) are only proof for superiority of your some middle-eastern languages......which I once agan say is FALSE.

You idiot, get out of this 'superiority vs inferiority' chip on shoulder you have. I did not say middle eastern culture is superior because they taught us how to write- i said that it is PROOF that their culture has also contributed to our culture in very categoric terms just like ours has in their's. We taught them logic and math- they gave us writing. THIS is PRECISELY the kind of inter-cultural contact i am alluding to where both cultures profit.

Although, western self proclaimed scholors claim that some written RigVedic richas are as old as 5000 years (which is obviously older than any known civilization), I still maintain that Vedas are much more older than just 5000 years.

You can maintain whatever you like- but that which has no proof does not belong to this discussion.

Reason being the Vedas are transmitted as "Shrutis"....so it is NOT necessary that one need to know alphbet and writing when things are remembered ORALLY.

Problem is, when things are recorded orally, there is no BENCHMARK for authenticity. If you are inheriting an oral tradition, you have no way of knowing if the oral tradition was the same 500 years ago or different for the particular text!

So SANSKRIT is the most ancient Known language to mankind and still remains the SAME -- ORALLY.

There is no proof that Sanskrit is the oldest language known to mankind- it is just a claim. Infact many linguistic scholars- western AND Indian have concluded that Sanskrit is an amazingly perfect language given that it is the ONLY human language that is object oriented like JAVA or C++ is. This leads to the conclusion that Sanskrit, despite its ancient age, CANNOT be the oldest language or the first language- that makes no sense whatsoever. Language development is a steady process, reflecting society's development. And its rather laughable and ridiculous to think that the very first language of mankind is going to be this amazingly complex and perfect language without first having a less precise and rudimentary language. Its just as illogical and ridiculous to say that the aeroplane existed before the wheel existed! Whatever the age of Sanskrit- it CANNOT be the oldest language of mankind!

India's contribution to the world in terms of great ancient wisdom is immense-- whole world's civilization put together cannot repay that debt of great ancient land of Bharat.

yet another 'Indian culture is superior, others are crap' kind of superiorist nonsense. Indian culture has contributed a LOT to the other cultures-western and eastern. But as i pointed out with alphabet, the western cultures have also contributed a LOT to indian cultures. And nomatter how much you'd like to deny, FACT is, devanagari, brahmi and all other Indian scripts known to man descends from western alphabets. Your problem is, you have not seen much of the world and you are too caught up in 'Indian culture is superior to any other/best culture' kind of egotistical narrowminded superiorist claptrap, when FACT is, Indian culture is no more superior or inferior to the entirity of middle eastern or Chinese or Egyptian culture.

[CC1981]

Those who assume that Vedas were written in Sanskrit since the beginning have flawed understanding of it like CC1981

Err i never said they were written in the beginning. I said that Indians were taught how to write alphabets by the middle easterns, after which, we wrote down the stuff. Its just that simple. And its fairly categoric too. If you want, i can supply you with university acclaimed links that'll show you all indic writing descending from Aramaic.

[Guest HariSampath]

I dont understand where Malik is coming from, as far as I know , as a 40 year never married single, I tell you that relationships are far easier to move in and out of, but abiding friendships over years is a rarity, and if this chap says he can be "friends" with that girl, I guess it must be a much simpler thing to marry her or in fact he doesnt even need to marry her ! Extending this logic, I do agree with some here that relationships cannot "become " friendships....and I dont know quite how they define this friendhips

[Guest HariSampath]

Err i never said they were written in the beginning. I said that Indians were taught how to write alphabets by the middle easterns, after which, we wrote down the stuff. Its just that simple. And its fairly categoric too. If you want, i can supply you with university acclaimed links that'll show you all indic writing descending from Aramaic.

Nonsense, writing in India existed much longer than you think. As to your ideas on Other cultures being superior to Indian culture, more nonsense....Indian ancient civilisations were among the most sophisticated in terms of knowledge , even science etc. Refer to even the latest theory of cosmic evolution by Dr Paul Srteinhardt which explains creation , all that has been mentioned to a remarkable accuracy in the Rig Veda and Western thought has only now arrived there. So are ancient astronomy and the likes of Aryabhatta, Bhaskara etc who wre all extremely superior in their thinking and advanced ideas.

[CC1981]

Nonsense, writing in India existed much longer than you think

There is no proof of that. The earliest Indian writing that has been found is Brahmi script- and it most definitely descends from Aramaic. Since all Indian script TODAY descends from Brahmi, it is clear that writing in India descends from middle eastern scripts. So someone with the usual ' we civilized the world but the evil middle easterners and their religion destroyed our culture' claptrap, please explain to us WHY in the glory days of Ashoka, Chandragupta, Vikramaditya, etc. were they writing stuff- in Sanskrit or Prakrit or Pali- using a middle eastern derived script and why there is NO EVIDENCE of a SINGLE indic script in use being developed indegenously ? Atmost, even if one considers the few limited symbols of Indus Valley to be 'writing', it still leads to the conclusion that Indians forgot how to write at one point and the middle easterners taught us how to write with the Aramaic script, which we modified and made into Brahmi- which got modified eventually to give us devanagari and all other Indic scripts in use TODAY.

As to your ideas on Other cultures being superior to Indian culture, more nonsense....Indian ancient civilisations were among the most sophisticated in terms of knowledge , even science etc. Refer to even the latest theory of cosmic evolution by Dr Paul Srteinhardt which explains creation , all that has been mentioned to a remarkable accuracy in the Rig Veda and Western thought has only now arrived there. So are ancient astronomy and the likes of Aryabhatta, Bhaskara etc who wre all extremely superior in their thinking and advanced ideas.

Again, get out of this childish 'superior vs inferior' mentality. Cultures arn't superior or inferior- they are a product of their circumstances and natural environment. If you read a work of anthropology like Jared Diamond's Guns,Germs & Steel, it will rectify you of such superiorist 'my culture is better than yours/superior than yours' nonsense. And if you want to compare cradles of civilization, you cannot make absurd claims like 'Indian culture better than Middle eastern/ Middle eastern culture better than Chinese, Chinese culture better than Indian' etc. All three (as well as Egypt) are cradles of civilization. They've all had unique achievements and developments that other cultures have profited from. As i said earlier, ancient Indians were awesome in scientific theory, medicine and linguistics. Yet, the ancient middle easterns (who wern't arabs by the way) gave us writing. We gave China the middle path philosophy, China gave us some sophisticated technological skills- like how to build pipelines out of bamboo(Chinese invention), how to make paper ( Chinese invention) and how to weave silk in a loom. They gave the same knowledge to Persians/Middle-easterns and got iron-working as a part of cultural exchange. As for rig veda and western thought 'just arriving there'- thats half the picture. The time until the fall of classical greece saw some extremely sophisticated philosophies and thoughts- akin to Rig veda- some more advanced- formulated there. Its only with the Christianization of the west did such thoughts get abandoned for a more archaic and narrowminded 'Christitian world view'. Indian culture and history has an extremely rich and sophisticated tradition, but it is utterly ridiculous and completely Nazi-esque 'superiority complex/superior culture/superior race' mentality that leads to it being annointed as 'THE civilizer of the world/the best culture there is' etc. type of nonsense. Like i said before, having lived for YEARS in India as well as the west, there are MANY THINGS that the west could teach India on a philosophical & cultural level- and there are MANY THINGS India could teach the west on same grounds.

[The Outsider]

Nonsense' date=' writing in India existed much longer than you think. As to your ideas on Other cultures being superior to Indian culture, more nonsense....Indian ancient civilisations were among the most sophisticated in terms of knowledge , even science etc. Refer to even the latest theory of cosmic evolution by Dr Paul Srteinhardt which explains creation , all that has been mentioned to a remarkable accuracy in the Rig Veda and Western thought has only now arrived there. So are ancient astronomy and the likes of Aryabhatta, Bhaskara etc who wre all extremely superior in their thinking and advanced ideas.[/quote'] I've already told you in an earlier thread Steinhardt's theory of a cyclic universe was never popular in the first place and has been debunked completely over the last few years for a universe which will keep on expanding for ever and end in a "Big Rip". Just because you will state something a thousand times won't make it true.

[The Outsider]

I suppose you can try to tell him what was wrong in his post instead of trolling like your beloved friend ?

I have my standards.

[Guest HariSampath]

I've already told you in an earlier thread Steinhardt's theory of a cyclic universe was never popular in the first place and has been debunked completely over the last few years for a universe which will keep on expanding for ever and end in a "Big Rip". Just because you will state something a thousand times won't make it true.

You got it wrong again , and Steinhardt's theory has never been debunked, the fundamental point itself being that the linear concept of the big bang model does not and cannot allow for begining of a "time" , which is explained by the Cyclic theory , which in turn is a very similar model of the Rig vedic idea. Steinhardt's theory could have never been debunked for "many years", as only in very recent times he had it proposed formally...see the Princeton Univ publications

[Guest dada_rocks]

Generally speaksing theories debunked by another set of theories both with very tenuous allegiance to the empirical proof. Well this keeps happening all the time.

[CC1981]

You got it wrong again , and Steinhardt's theory has never been debunked, the fundamental point itself being that the linear concept of the big bang model does not and cannot allow for begining of a "time" , which is explained by the Cyclic theory , which in turn is a very similar model of the Rig vedic idea

I suggest you know what you are doing if you wish to challenge an Astrophysics PhD in cosmology!

"many years"

he said 'few'. Not many. Btw, i don't agree that cyclic theory explains the beginning of time any better- the start of time and T-1 is always a dichotomy that cannot be converged with human perception of time, since we perceive time as a linear flow. As such, cyclic theory or big bang- they are both up in the air. And perhaps the biggest thing about cosmology that most Physicists and qusi-cosmologists forget is the 'searchlight effect'. To use a crude analogy, regardless of whatever data you bring on the table so far, FACT remains, we are essentially trying to speak of the ocean's entirity & beginning & composition, when we are a little ship on the ocean with a limited searchlight field of vision. From basic engineering modelling perspective, you CANNOT even begin to talk about the start of something or pre-starting conditions when you do not even know the entirity of the object(universe). Ie, until you can define the extent of the universe- or establish definitevely that it is boundless, there can be no credible discussion about its start. For how the fook can you talk about the start of something, when you do not even know what that 'something' is precisely ? height of preposterousness, really.

[The Outsider]

You got it wrong again ' date=' and Steinhardt's theory has never been debunked, the fundamental point itself being that the linear concept of the big bang model does not and cannot allow for begining of a "time" , which is explained by the Cyclic theory , which in turn is a very similar model of the Rig vedic idea. Steinhardt's theory could have never been debunked for "many years", as only in very recent times he had it proposed formally...see the Princeton Univ publications[/quote'] Steinhardt's work was published in 2001 with Neil Turok. The WMAP satellite results, along with Type 1A Supernovae results have clearly shown that the universe will keep on expanding forever, putting the cyclic universe completely out of the picture for at least 3-4 years.

[sandtest]

Advaita vedanta very well explains the universe as "perception" of Mind (an illusion called Maya) -- it sounds strange but has some very deep singnificance from hinduism point of view. READ ADI SANKARACHARYAS COMMENTARY ON ADVAITA VEDANTA.

[CC1981]

Advaita vedanta very well explains the universe as "perception" of Mind (an illusion called Maya) -- it sounds strange but has some very deep singnificance from hinduism point of view. READ ADI SANKARACHARYAS COMMENTARY ON ADVAITA VEDANTA.

Or better yet, read Nagarjuna's commentary on the universe- Buddhist cosmology is by far the most developed concept i've come across.

[sandtest]

Summary in one line -- Brahm satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naprah ---- Brahmn (The Self or Atman) is the supreme truth, the world is illusion and ultimately, there is No difference bewteen Brahm and Individual self. Self is simply projection of Brahmn thus one with Brahmn:dance: (aham Brahmosmi)