Not long after the building of the Nantian temple, Thai Buddhists began the construction of
Sunnataram Forest Monastery, Bundanoon NSW
i like the south coast of nsw, i was even born there, its beautiful, but "spiritual ?
" i never ever thought of the south coast as beau.
i've never ever thought of the south coast as beau.
Not long after the building of the Nantian temple, Thai Buddhists began the construction of
Sunnataram Forest Monastery, Bundanoon NSW
i like the south coast of nsw, i was even born there, its beautiful, but "spiritual ?
" i never ever thought of the south coast as beau.
i've never ever thought of the south coast as beau.
Its tolerant also. My Gay XJW friend went there with his new (male) partner about a year after the Jws kicked him out.
A Buddhist nun approached them and had a chat, asked about their relationship, and finding they were partners, gave them a blessing.
Not the only story like that. My friend, once introduced me to one of his friends who had lived a long time in Thailand. Beginning a relationship with a Thai man, they went to the guys home village. The local Buddhist Abbot spoke to them in the street and learning they were in a relationship, made arrangements for them to have a wedding ceremony in the temple.
i like the south coast of nsw, i was even born there, its beautiful, but "spiritual ?
" i never ever thought of the south coast as beau.
i've never ever thought of the south coast as beau.
I like the south coast of NSW, I was even born there, its beautiful, but "spiritual ?" I never ever thought of the south coast as beau
I've never ever thought of the south coast as beau
But, Buddhists somehow associate the area with "spirituality."
In Wollongong, not far south of Sydney, Taiwanese Buddhists built their Nantian (Southern heaven) Temple.
Its very popular, not only with the now large Asian Buddhist population that live in Sydney, but also with the locals who visit to see (I guess) something different to a humdrum church,
i accidentally came across this youtube video, "why the west fears putin.
" curious, i watched it.
you may find it interesting also.
DJS: But the 'little green men' firing high tech guided missiles and operating the other military equipment in E. Ukraine are not Ukrainians - they are a Russian trained and equipped assault force.
Not Ukrainians? May I ask who/what is a Ukrainian? You seem to be dismissive of the idea that a large proportion of the population may (most likely are) ethnic Russian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I note some thoughts emanating from the American elite, regarding the effectiveness of the sanctions on Russia. George Friedman, is reputed to be close to American intelligence sources (though, I can't be sure that there is ONLY one American intelligence source-grin).
So, here's the link: https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside
In this entry (dated December 2014) Friedman gives his impressions of a visit to Russia.
On the effect of sanctions, Friedman comments:
Russians' strength is that they can endure things that would break other nations. It was also pointed out that they tend to support the government regardless of competence when Russia feels threatened. Therefore, the Russians argued, no one should expect that sanctions, no matter how harsh, would cause Moscow to capitulate. Instead the Russians would respond with their own sanctions, which were not specified but which I assume would mean seizing the assets of Western companies in Russia and curtailing agricultural imports from Europe. There was no talk of cutting off natural gas supplies to Europe.
If this is so, then the Americans and Europeans are deluding themselves on the effects of sanctions. In general, I personally have little confidence in the use of sanctions. That being said, the Russians gave me another prism to look through. Sanctions reflect European and American thresholds of pain. They are designed to cause pain that the West could not withstand. Applied to others, the effects may vary.
On Ukraine he comments:
The Ukrainian Issue
There was much more toughness on Ukraine. There is acceptance that events in Ukraine were a reversal for Russia and resentment that the Obama administration mounted what Russians regard as a propaganda campaign to try to make it appear that Russia was the aggressor. Two points were regularly made. The first was that Crimea was historically part of Russia and that it was already dominated by the Russian military under treaty. There was no invasion but merely the assertion of reality. Second, there was heated insistence that eastern Ukraine is populated by Russians and that as in other countries, those Russians must be given a high degree of autonomy. One scholar pointed to the Canadian model and Quebec to show that the West normally has no problem with regional autonomy for ethnically different regions but is shocked that the Russians might want to practice a form of regionalism commonplace in the West.
The discussion was over lunch, but my time was spent explaining and arguing, not eating. I found that I could hold my own geopolitically but that they had mastered the intricacies of the Obama administration in ways I never will.
I came away with two senses. One was that Putin was more secure than I thought. In the scheme of things, that does not mean much. Presidents come and go. But it is a reminder that things that would bring down a Western leader may leave a Russian leader untouched.
Second, the Russians do not plan a campaign of aggression. Here I am more troubled — not because they want to invade anyone, but because nations frequently are not aware of what is about to happen, and they might react in ways that will surprise them. That is the most dangerous thing about the situation. It is not what is intended, which seems genuinely benign. What is dangerous is the action that is unanticipated, both by others and by Russia.
At the same time, my general analysis remains intact. Whatever Russia might do elsewhere, Ukraine is of fundamental strategic importance to Russia. Even if the east received a degree of autonomy, Russia would remain deeply concerned about the relationship of the rest of Ukraine to the West. As difficult as this is for Westerners to fathom, Russian history is a tale of buffers. Buffer states save Russia from Western invaders. Russia wants an arrangement that leaves Ukraine at least neutral.
overview of his life, from china central tv america:.
http://www.cctv-america.com/2015/03/22/singapores-founding-pm-lee-kuan-yew-dies-at-91.
The British occupation left the ordinary Singaporean as poor as they had been. Under Lee and his successors, his People's Action Party transformed Singapore by using a variety of state-owned enterprises to finance government services and to keep taxes low. The PAP has formed all governments in Singapore since independence.
During his long term in office Lee made 27 visits to China.
In 1978 Deng made a visit to Singapore
and met Lee, both apparently made a deep impression on each other.
and in 2010, Lee was present at the unveiling of a memorial to Deng
along with Xi Jinping, the current President of China.
i accidentally came across this youtube video, "why the west fears putin.
" curious, i watched it.
you may find it interesting also.
edmond dantes said: Gorbachev has said that it will take 10 to 15 years for Russia to gain full democracy .They should be assisted and encouraged.
Really? Only 15 years?
In the Anglosphere, many call the Magna Carta, the first step to democracy. That was 1215 - so if we count the years to something like our modern western 'democracy' it has taken 700 years.
i accidentally came across this youtube video, "why the west fears putin.
" curious, i watched it.
you may find it interesting also.
As for the religious aspect, how interesting that in the UK, an extreme right-winger has commented on Russia as the saviour of Christianity.
I do not neccessarily agree with any or all of these statements, I use them to challenge conventional wisdom about Russia.
Some people make all kinds of assertion, but often without much evidence for what they claim.
From today's, Independent
Ex-BNP leader Nick Griffin tells right-wing conference Russia will save Europe
Undeterred by his waning power over the extremist right-wing in the UK, Nick Griffin has kept with his cause by declaring that Russia will save “Christendom”.
The former BNP leader was expelled from the organisation last year, after members accused him of attempting to “destabilise” it and of “harassing” its membership.
Griffin responded by accusing the party leadership of playing “plastic gangster games”.
At the International Russian Conservative Forum in St Petersbury (they mean St. Petersburg) over the weekend, which was organised by a pro-Kremlin ultranationalist party, Griffin warned the audience that Christendom would succumb to “a terrible civil war”, become and Islamist caliphate “or perhaps both”, BuzzFeed reported.
He added that “the survival of Christendom” is “absolutely impossible without the rise of the Third Rome: Moscow.”
Roberto Fiore of Italy’s Forza Nuova, mirrored Griffin’s comments at the event, and claimed that Moscow is currently the only nation guarding what he regards to be Western values in the way Rome once did.
“It’s not me saying this—it’s God saying it,” he said, the Wall Street Journal reported.Chairman of Italy's party 'New Force' Roberto Fiore speaks during the International Russian Conservative Forum (OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images)
In an interview with the US newspaper, Griffin said Russia is “more free” than the West as a similar event would be banned in the US or the UK.
Other guests included Udo Voigt, a senior figure in Germany’s extreme-right National Democratic Party, and members of the ultra-right Greek party Golden Dawn.
Speakers at the event mirrored Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent message that the West is facing a “profound moral crisis, and argued that the region is also blighted by ill including abortion, atheism, Freemasonry, and unbridled immigration that, if unchecked, will wipe out the Caucasian race.
i accidentally came across this youtube video, "why the west fears putin.
" curious, i watched it.
you may find it interesting also.
kaik: FTS and many other Russian apologists think that it is OK, because everyone has done that.
Really? You think what I said makes me an apologist?
kaik: Putin is destroying Russia, but they do not care. They love him and adore him. And orthodox Christianity supports this status position.
So you agree that Putin has mass public support within Russia?
Kaik: Your FTS fascination that China and Russia would control the world and master of West and USA belongs to fairy tales.
Again, I don't ever think I've claimed that China + Russia wants to/will control the world. I can't/dont want to comment on Russia by itself. Looking at Russia, after the collapse of the old Soviet union and the demise of Yeltsin, Russia only seems to get involved in quarrels when there are populations with a Russian majority involved (Georgia and Ukraine) More, in fact, i think I've specifically said that China has a long way to go before it equals the wealth of the USA. And, there is also, a long way to go before all Chinese have a reasonable share of prosperity. I've also said that I see nothing in contemporary China that makes me think they want to take over other countries, like ( to illustrate what I mean) the Japanese attempted to make Korea a province of Japan between 1910 and 1945. And, if we get down to the nitty-gritty, perhaps the USA has more to fear from Japan than China. Why? For this reason, the USA humiliated the Japanese elite in WW2, but allowed them to continue ruling Japan. I think that they (the elite) may work with the USA, but may never forgive the USA for their defeat. If I was Uncle Sam, I'd walk with eyes in the back of my head.
Anyway back to the point, what I believe I do see in connection with Chinese foreign affairs, is an attempt to build prosperity in bordering nations, in the belief that prosperous people have less reason to want to wage wars. China has one of the longest borders in the world, with more unstable neighbours than anyone else (hence the reason they think they need a large army). The modern silkroad policy is an attempt to stabilise their neighbours by sharing some prosperity. Is that good?
i accidentally came across this youtube video, "why the west fears putin.
" curious, i watched it.
you may find it interesting also.
Interesting cross section of opinions, thank you all for your thoughts. My questions are these:
My questions are these:
1.What does the average Russian think of Putin?
2. Is the Russian Orthodox church supporting Putin? If yes!, then why?
Like Edmond Dantes, I neither admire or necessarily like Russia. But I would like to understand Russia, honestly and objectively, and not just succumb to undemonstrated assertions.
Two years ago, I enrolled in a study of the Byzantine empire, and the former convenor of the study unit (a Dr. Ken Parry) challenged us (his students) to attempt to understand how the Eastern Roman Empire's intellectual principles had survived in Eastern Europe and Russia. The messianic west believes its ideals are universal truths. But that's only the west's understanding. The rest of the word does not speak English or related latin/germanic based languages
Kaik thinks that, Russia "is driven by messianic complex to subject everyone. Dear me, couldn't such a statement equally describe the colonising powers of the nineteenth century, which includes the USA.
Kaik, also thinks that the Russian economy is about to collapse. It may, but I have my doubts, the sheer size of the energy contract between China and Russia could indicate the opposite. The very Fast Train line to be built between Beijing and Moscow will add another strand of connectivity between China and Europe, and it will likely be the nucleus of another belt of prosperity that China seems intent on building out from their borders. Will the Chinese succeed? We will have to wait and see.
Village Idiot thinks that he has heard Putin is the richest man in the world. Hmmm! I've heard it said (before) that the former Chinese premier, Wen Jiaobao was the richest man? Both statements are unverifiable.
However, it does seem that George Washington, was not only the richest man in the English colonies, but that he gained immeasurable additional wealth as a result of American Independence. (See Howard Zinn's," A People's History of the United States.") Does that item of information affect the American view of Washington?
i'm just wondering if the theocratic warfare doctrine is anywhere in writing or if it's a word-of-mouth kind of thing where it's mentioned at elder's school, but not put in writing.. anyone?.