Hinduphobic Bollywood

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

You brought about the false equivalence of comparing majority being silent among Hindus and Muslims. What will happen when they are silent? In case of Hindus a few babas will get rich, while in case of Muslims, people die. So, no comparison there. Plus, Hindus are not silent, they are producing lists of fake babas. So, another myth falsified. 

No there is no false equivalence. The equivalence IS that a tiny minority of nutters go off the deep end and vast majority of people stay silent. 
In the case of Hindus, a few babas get rich AND propagate a system of discrimination (caste). In case of muslims, people die. 
One being worse than the other does not change the fact that BOTH are bad. 
Hindus are silent, because fake babas does NOT change the fact that babas still talk about caste - the fake AND the non-fake ones. 

Also, the fake-baba list is to do with ONLY the rich A-listers. Nobody cares to police the random babas walking around cities and towns that we run into. 

 

The equivalence is in the fact that minority of vocal idiots propagate nonsense and vast majority stay silent. Whether one is advocating mass genocide and the other is advocating throwing eggs at someone's house, it does not change the fact that BOTH are bad - one being way worse than other does not make the former 'good'.

As i said, hindus need to grow a pair and face criticism for their ills, instead of hiding behind the relativism of 'our ills are not the worst ills, therefore no ills'.

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

They are not the same. Regarding other views on ill-wills of Hinduism, Communists have used useful idiots aka Atheists to beat up religion.

This makes no sense...can you rephrase it ? 

[cricketrulez]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Manu-Smriti does justify it openly. There are several other literature in Hinduism that make references to it. 
You may argue that Manu-smriti is not absolute like the Koran is to Muslims, but its still part of Hindu literature, much like many lesser hadiths are to Islam. 

No, but plenty of sadhu-babas go around re-enforcing the purity of brahmins and impurity of lower castes all the time. 

They were given Rishi status by society. Not by the Vedics/hindus of ancient times. They were called immoral heretics, much like how Buddha himself is maligned in several puranas. 

 

Hindu reformation regarding caste system is incomplete and needs to be completed. Whether one calls it caste/jati/varna - all these systems are counter-productive and irrelevant today for ANY purpose. Even if you want to make a case for it existing to prevent inbreeding, its still not required anymore today, where simple genetic test determines who is related and who isn't.

Really looking forward to your proof instead of an assertion that Manu smiriti dictates classification based on birth

 

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/manusmriti-and-cast-system

 

1. Manu Smriti hails from an era when even the concept of birth-based caste system did not exist. Thus Manu Smriti nowhere supports a social system based on birth. Maharshi Manu took inspiration from Vedas (refer Rigveda 10.10.11-12, Yajurveda 31.10-11, Atharvaveda 19.6.5-6) and proposed a social system based on qualities, actions and nature of the individual.

 
 
2. This is called Varna System. Now the very word Varna derived from root word “Vrinja” means “Choice“. A similar usage happens in common used word “Varan” meaning “choosing” or “Var” meaning a husband chosen by the girl. This also shows that in Vedic system the girl had complete rights to choose her husband.

 

The biggest proof of Manu Smriti proposing Varna System and NOT Caste System is that in the first Chapter of Manu Smriti, there is mention of origin of 4 Varnas and no mention of castes or gotras. Had caste or gotra been important, Manu would have mentioned which castes belong to Brahmins, which to Kshatriyas, which to Vaishyas and which to Shudras.

4. In fact Manu Smriti 3.109 clearly states that one who eats by glorifying his Gotra or Family is considered an eater of his own vomit. Thus, as per the Manu Smriti that the self-proclaimed birth-based Brahmins or upper-castes believe in, the very act of glorifying their lineage or gotra to demand special privileges makes them deserving of condemnation.
 
5. Manu Smriti 2.136 states that one earns respect due to wealth, company, age, actions and knowledge in increasing order. There is no mention of family, gotra, caste, lineage and other non-factors to demand or earn respect.

Migration within Varnas
 
6. Manu Smriti 10.65 asserts that Brahmin can become Shudra and Shudra can become Brahmin. Similarly Kshtariyas and Vaishyas can also change their Varnas.
 
 
 
7. Manu Smriti 9.335: If a Shudra (uneducated) serves the educated ones, is polite, devoid of ego and stays in respectful company of knowledgeable ones, he/ she is considered as having a noble birth and stature.
 
 
 
8. There are several shlokas in Manusmriti that state that a person belonging to high Varna falls down to level of a Shudra (uneducated) if he does not conduct noble deeds. For example,
 
2.104: A person who does not worship the Supreme Lord twice daily should be considered a Shudra.
 

 

2.172. He who has not been initiated with teaching of the Vedas is a Sudra.
 
4.245: A Brahmin acquires brilliance through company of noble persons and avoiding bad company. On contrary, if he indulges in bad company, he becomes a Shudra.
 
Thus clearly, Brahmin refers to a scholarly person who conducts noble deeds. And Shudra refers to an uneducated person. This has nothing to do with birth in any manner.

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by cricketrulez

[coffee_rules]

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No there is no false equivalence. The equivalence IS that a tiny minority of nutters go off the deep end and vast majority of people stay silent. 
In the case of Hindus, a few babas get rich AND propagate a system of discrimination (caste). In case of muslims, people die. 
One being worse than the other does not change the fact that BOTH are bad. 
Hindus are silent, because fake babas does NOT change the fact that babas still talk about caste - the fake AND the non-fake ones. 

Also, the fake-baba list is to do with ONLY the rich A-listers. Nobody cares to police the random babas walking around cities and towns that we run into. 

 

The equivalence is in the fact that minority of vocal idiots propagate nonsense and vast majority stay silent. Whether one is advocating mass genocide and the other is advocating throwing eggs at someone's house, it does not change the fact that BOTH are bad - one being way worse than other does not make the former 'good'.

As i said, hindus need to grow a pair and face criticism for their ills, instead of hiding behind the relativism of 'our ills are not the worst ills, therefore no ills'.

This makes no sense...can you rephrase it ? 

Show me evidence there are sadhus preaching discrimination among castes.? There are laws against discrimination. Even SC wanted to relax some of anti-SC anti-discriminatory laws, there was no political part for it and parliament overturned the SC judgement. Media will go gung-ho about it as well. 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Show me evidence there are sadhus preaching discrimination among castes.?

Plenty of Sadhus do. There are statements all the time from them when they talk to people, that is casual caste-ism. 

7 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

There are laws against discrimination. Even SC wanted to relax some of anti-SC anti-discriminatory laws, there was no political part for it and parliament overturned the SC judgement. Media will go gung-ho about it as well. 

Laws against discrimination relates to actual jobs and such. It doesnt stop people from killing each other, throwing acid on each other, pressure against marriage or just being plain old disparaging. Do you wish to see articles on how caste system still negatively affects hundreds of millions of people today ?

Because i know your hindu-denial routine - the moment i will post articles, you will claim they are western psy-op jobs and there is no casteism in India anymore. 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

Really looking forward to your proof instead of an assertion that Manu smiriti dictates classification based on birth

 

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/manusmriti-and-cast-system

 

1. Manu Smriti hails from an era when even the concept of birth-based caste system did not exist. Thus Manu Smriti nowhere supports a social system based on birth. Maharshi Manu took inspiration from Vedas (refer Rigveda 10.10.11-12, Yajurveda 31.10-11, Atharvaveda 19.6.5-6) and proposed a social system based on qualities, actions and nature of the individual.

 
 
2. This is called Varna System. Now the very word Varna derived from root word “Vrinja” means “Choice“. A similar usage happens in common used word “Varan” meaning “choosing” or “Var” meaning a husband chosen by the girl. This also shows that in Vedic system the girl had complete rights to choose her husband.

 

The biggest proof of Manu Smriti proposing Varna System and NOT Caste System is that in the first Chapter of Manu Smriti, there is mention of origin of 4 Varnas and no mention of castes or gotras. Had caste or gotra been important, Manu would have mentioned which castes belong to Brahmins, which to Kshatriyas, which to Vaishyas and which to Shudras.

4. In fact Manu Smriti 3.109 clearly states that one who eats by glorifying his Gotra or Family is considered an eater of his own vomit. Thus, as per the Manu Smriti that the self-proclaimed birth-based Brahmins or upper-castes believe in, the very act of glorifying their lineage or gotra to demand special privileges makes them deserving of condemnation.
 
5. Manu Smriti 2.136 states that one earns respect due to wealth, company, age, actions and knowledge in increasing order. There is no mention of family, gotra, caste, lineage and other non-factors to demand or earn respect.

Migration within Varnas
 
6. Manu Smriti 10.65 asserts that Brahmin can become Shudra and Shudra can become Brahmin. Similarly Kshtariyas and Vaishyas can also change their Varnas.
 
 
 
7. Manu Smriti 9.335: If a Shudra (uneducated) serves the educated ones, is polite, devoid of ego and stays in respectful company of knowledgeable ones, he/ she is considered as having a noble birth and stature.
 
 
 
8. There are several shlokas in Manusmriti that state that a person belonging to high Varna falls down to level of a Shudra (uneducated) if he does not conduct noble deeds. For example,
 
2.104: A person who does not worship the Supreme Lord twice daily should be considered a Shudra.
 

 

2.172. He who has not been initiated with teaching of the Vedas is a Sudra.
 
4.245: A Brahmin acquires brilliance through company of noble persons and avoiding bad company. On contrary, if he indulges in bad company, he becomes a Shudra.
 
Thus clearly, Brahmin refers to a scholarly person who conducts noble deeds. And Shudra refers to an uneducated person. This has nothing to do with birth in any manner.

 

sophistry.

Manusmriti clearly talks about lower caste and upper caste stuff. It may not have been lineage solidified in its time of writing, but that is irrelevant - the manu smriti presents reasons to disparage people and think low of them, as shudras and such - which shortly after became solidified by birth. Serving the same purpose we are talking of. 

it is the direct inspiration of caste based discrimination in hinduism, serving as a template for it. Later hindus codified it by lineage and as such, manu smriti is culpable for the spread of discrimination. Only thing that changed, is the application by birth from by actions. 

 

[Alam_dar]

14 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

Really looking forward to your proof instead of an assertion that Manu smiriti dictates classification based on birth

 

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/manusmriti-and-cast-system

 

1. Manu Smriti hails from an era when even the concept of birth-based caste system did not exist. Thus Manu Smriti nowhere supports a social system based on birth. Maharshi Manu took inspiration from Vedas (refer Rigveda 10.10.11-12, Yajurveda 31.10-11, Atharvaveda 19.6.5-6) and proposed a social system based on qualities, actions and nature of the individual.

 

So, do you believe that Manusmriti is Divine? Please confirm. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

@cricketrulez

You made interesting claims. 

Let us look at your first proof that there is no Caste System By Birth in Manusmriti:

14 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

 5. Manu Smriti 2.136 states that one earns respect due to wealth, company, age, actions and knowledge in increasing order. There is no mention of family, gotra, caste, lineage and other non-factors to demand or earn respect.

 

Don't you think that it is out of context conclusion? Let us read this verse along with the next verse. 

Verse 2.136 + Verse 2.137

Wealth, Relation, Age, Action and Learning, as the fifth,—these are the grounds of respect; (among them) that which follows is weightier (than that which goes before it).—(136) Among the three (higher) castes, he, in whom there are present most of these five, and of high degree, deserves (greater) respect; as also the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage (of life).—(137)

 

But do you know what does this 10th stage of life of Sudra means?

 

Let us see the commentary of verse 2.137:

//

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

... The ‘tenth’ stands for the last stage of life, and indicates extreme old age. Thus then, in case of the Śūdra, ‘wealth’ and ‘relations’ do not constitute grounds of respect, in relation to tho three higher castes. This is clear from the fact, that the Text specifies the ‘tenth stage.’ ‘Action’ and ‘Learning’ are not possible in the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he is not entitled to these.

//

Would you please mind and tell us:

* Question 1: Why Sudras not allowed to LEARN the sacred texts and do the Action? 

* Question 2: Please tell us in which of the sacred Hindu texts, it has been written that Sudras are not allowed to learn and act? 

* Question 3: Don't you think without Learning, a Sudra will again turn to Sudra while according to your own conclusion an uneducated person is a Sudra. 
 

It is difficult to consider that creature to be Divine who wants to keep a person uneducated, while he was born in a lower caste. 

14 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

Migration within Varnas
 
6. Manu Smriti 10.65 asserts that Brahmin can become Shudra and Shudra can become Brahmin. Similarly Kshtariyas and Vaishyas can also change their Varnas.
 
 

Don't you think once again there is some deception and distortion here and things are put against the context?

 

Let us make things clear here first by reading this Verse 10.65 along with the preceding verse 10.64 in order to see the proper context:

//

Verse 10.64 + Verse 10.65

If the child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person,—the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(64) The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

—‘A maiden born from a Śūdrawoman to a Brāhmaṇa father,—if she is ‘wedded to’—acquires the capacity for bearing children, by becoming conjoined in wedlock to—a person of a superior caste i.e., the Brāhmaṇa,—and the girl born of this maiden is again married to a Brāhmaṇa,—and this goes on for seven generations, then in the seventh generation, the child that is born becomes a regular Brāhmaṇa.’

//

 

Therefore:

* Change of the Varna is happening here only through (1) Marriage in higher caste and (2) then again marriage in the higher caste for 7 consequent generations. 

Is it not totally against your claim that there is no Caste System by Birth in Hindu Sacred Texts?

 

14 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

 
7. Manu Smriti 9.335: If a Shudra (uneducated) serves the educated ones, is polite, devoid of ego and stays in respectful company of knowledgeable ones, he/ she is considered as having a noble birth and stature.
 

Here the change of Varna is taking place through "servitude" of Brahmans, but it has nothing to do with the learning, which was banned upon them as Sudras. 

Actual translation is: 

Verse 9:335: If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.—(335)

 

14 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

8. There are several shlokas in Manusmriti that state that a person belonging to high Varna falls down to level of a Shudra (uneducated) if he does not conduct noble deeds. For example,
 
2.104: A person who does not worship the Supreme Lord twice daily should be considered a Shudra.

 
4.245: A Brahmin acquires brilliance through company of noble persons and avoiding bad company. On contrary, if he indulges in bad company, he becomes a Shudra.
 
Thus clearly, Brahmin refers to a scholarly person who conducts noble deeds. And Shudra refers to an uneducated person. This has nothing to do with birth in any manner.

 

I am afraid that you presented only one side of the Manusmriti, while hid the other side, which is as under:

 

1. For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. (Manu’s code I-31,)

2. God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91) Manu is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudras to be expressed in the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says:

3. Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaishyas with wealth but a Shudra’s express something contemptible. (Manu II.31)

4. The second part of a Brahmin’s name shall be a word implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s (a word) implying protection, of a Vaishya’s a term expressive of thriving and of a Shudra’s an expression denoting service. (Manu II. 32.)

5. A hundred year old Kshatriya must treat a ten year old Brahmin boy as his father. (Manu 11-135)

6. The Brahmin should never invite persons of other varnas for food. In case, the latter begs the Brahmin for food, the Brahmin may give them some left-over. Even these left-over must be served not by the Brahmin but by his servants outside the house. (Manu II2).

7. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha. (Manu III. 156.)

8. A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra.It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81)

9. “Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudras.” (Manu IV. 61)

10. He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras. (Manu IV. 99.)

11. Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed. (Manu VIII-20 to 22)

12. A Brahmana who is only a Brahman by decent i.e., one who has neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may, at the king’s pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e., act as the judge, but never a Shudra (however learned he may be). (Manu VIII.20.)

13. The Kingdom of that monarch, who looks on while a Shudra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in the morass. (Manu VIII. 21.)

14. Any Brahmin, who enslaves or tries to enslave a Brahmin, is liable for a penalty of no less than 600 PANAS. A Brahmin can order a Shudra to serve him without any remuneration because the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins. Even if a Brahmin frees a Shudra from slavery the Shudra continue to be a slave as he is created for slavery. Nobody has the right to free him. (Manu VIII-50,56 and 59)

15. A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII. 270.)

16. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth. (Manu VIII. 271.)

17. If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears. Manu VIII. 272.)

18. A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher caste guarded or unguarded shall be punished in the following manner; if she was unguarded, he loses the offending part; if she was guarded then he should be put to death and his property confiscated.” (Manu VIII. 374.)

19. A Brahman may compel a Shudra, whether bought or unbought, to do servile work for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a Brahmana. (Manu VIII. 413.)

20. No Shudra should have property of his own, He should have nothing of his own. The existence of a wealthy Shudra is bad for the Brahmins. A Brahman may take possession of the goods of a Shudra. (ManuVIII-417 & X129)

21. A Brahman may seize without hesitation, if he be in distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one occupation. This is one of the inexorable laws of Manu. says Manu. (Manu VIII. 417)

22. A Shudra who wants to just fill his stomach may serve a Vaishya. If he wants a permanent means of living he can serve a Kshatriya. But if he wants to go to heaven or wants higher or superior birth in the next generation he must serve a Brahmin. (ManuIX334 & 335)

23. The most sacred duty of a Shudra is to serve the Brahmins, always, reciting the words “Brahman” with utmost devotion. Such a Shudra will get salvation. Otherwise he will die a worst death and will go to the worst hell. (Manu X-121)

24. But let a (Shudra) serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next) for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends. (Manu X. 122.)

25. The service of Brahmans alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Shudra for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (Manu X. 123.)

26. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support. (Manu X. 124.)

 

All these hated teachings, all these contradiction, all these insane punishments of Sudras ... all this is implying only one thing i.e. the "human nature". This has nothing to do with teachings of any divine creature. 

 

Every religion put a lot of stress upon "knowledge/(useless knowledge) of the religion" and "worship" of the creator. 

 

There are about 100 Verses in Quran which are talking about the "ILM" i.e. knowledge. But all this knowledge is practically useless are it has mostly to do with the religion and there are less of the morals, and then sharia laws which are against the humanity. 

[cricketrulez]

6 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

So, do you believe that Manusmriti is Divine? Please confirm. 

Nothing is divine. Period

[cricketrulez]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

@cricketrulez

You made interesting claims. 

Let us look at your first proof that there is no Caste System By Birth in Manusmriti:

Don't you think that it is out of context conclusion? Let us read this verse along with the next verse. 

Verse 2.136 + Verse 2.137

Wealth, Relation, Age, Action and Learning, as the fifth,—these are the grounds of respect; (among them) that which follows is weightier (than that which goes before it).—(136) Among the three (higher) castes, he, in whom there are present most of these five, and of high degree, deserves (greater) respect; as also the Śūdra who has reached the tenth stage (of life).—(137)

 

But do you know what does this 10th stage of life of Sudra means?

 

Let us see the commentary of verse 2.137:

//

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

... The ‘tenth’ stands for the last stage of life, and indicates extreme old age. Thus then, in case of the Śūdra, ‘wealth’ and ‘relations’ do not constitute grounds of respect, in relation to tho three higher castes. This is clear from the fact, that the Text specifies the ‘tenth stage.’ ‘Action’ and ‘Learning’ are not possible in the Śūdra; for the simple reason that he is not entitled to these.

//

Would you please mind and tell us:

* Question 1: Why Sudras not allowed to LEARN the sacred texts and do the Action? 

* Question 2: Please tell us in which of the sacred Hindu texts, it has been written that Sudras are not allowed to learn and act? 

* Question 3: Don't you think without Learning, a Sudra will again turn to Sudra while according to your own conclusion an uneducated person is a Sudra. 
 

It is difficult to consider that creature to be Divine who wants to keep a person uneducated, while he was born in a lower caste. 

Don't you think once again there is some deception and distortion here and things are put against the context?

 

Let us make things clear here first by reading this Verse 10.65 along with the preceding verse 10.64 in order to see the proper context:

//

Verse 10.64 + Verse 10.65

If the child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person,—the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(64) The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(65)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

—‘A maiden born from a Śūdrawoman to a Brāhmaṇa father,—if she is ‘wedded to’—acquires the capacity for bearing children, by becoming conjoined in wedlock to—a person of a superior caste i.e., the Brāhmaṇa,—and the girl born of this maiden is again married to a Brāhmaṇa,—and this goes on for seven generations, then in the seventh generation, the child that is born becomes a regular Brāhmaṇa.’

//

 

Therefore:

* Change of the Varna is happening here only through (1) Marriage in higher caste and (2) then again marriage in the higher caste for 7 consequent generations. 

Is it not totally against your claim that there is no Caste System by Birth in Hindu Sacred Texts?

 

Here the change of Varna is taking place through "servitude" of Brahmans, but it has nothing to do with the learning, which was banned upon them as Sudras. 

Actual translation is: 

Verse 9:335: If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.—(335)

 

 

I am afraid that you presented only one side of the Manusmriti, while hid the other side, which is as under:

 

1. For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. (Manu’s code I-31,)

2. God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91) Manu is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudras to be expressed in the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says:

3. Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaishyas with wealth but a Shudra’s express something contemptible. (Manu II.31)

4. The second part of a Brahmin’s name shall be a word implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s (a word) implying protection, of a Vaishya’s a term expressive of thriving and of a Shudra’s an expression denoting service. (Manu II. 32.)

5. A hundred year old Kshatriya must treat a ten year old Brahmin boy as his father. (Manu 11-135)

6. The Brahmin should never invite persons of other varnas for food. In case, the latter begs the Brahmin for food, the Brahmin may give them some left-over. Even these left-over must be served not by the Brahmin but by his servants outside the house. (Manu II2).

7. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha. (Manu III. 156.)

8. A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra.It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81)

9. “Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudras.” (Manu IV. 61)

10. He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras. (Manu IV. 99.)

11. Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed. (Manu VIII-20 to 22)

12. A Brahmana who is only a Brahman by decent i.e., one who has neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may, at the king’s pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e., act as the judge, but never a Shudra (however learned he may be). (Manu VIII.20.)

13. The Kingdom of that monarch, who looks on while a Shudra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in the morass. (Manu VIII. 21.)

14. Any Brahmin, who enslaves or tries to enslave a Brahmin, is liable for a penalty of no less than 600 PANAS. A Brahmin can order a Shudra to serve him without any remuneration because the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins. Even if a Brahmin frees a Shudra from slavery the Shudra continue to be a slave as he is created for slavery. Nobody has the right to free him. (Manu VIII-50,56 and 59)

15. A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII. 270.)

16. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth. (Manu VIII. 271.)

17. If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears. Manu VIII. 272.)

18. A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher caste guarded or unguarded shall be punished in the following manner; if she was unguarded, he loses the offending part; if she was guarded then he should be put to death and his property confiscated.” (Manu VIII. 374.)

19. A Brahman may compel a Shudra, whether bought or unbought, to do servile work for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a Brahmana. (Manu VIII. 413.)

20. No Shudra should have property of his own, He should have nothing of his own. The existence of a wealthy Shudra is bad for the Brahmins. A Brahman may take possession of the goods of a Shudra. (ManuVIII-417 & X129)

21. A Brahman may seize without hesitation, if he be in distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one occupation. This is one of the inexorable laws of Manu. says Manu. (Manu VIII. 417)

22. A Shudra who wants to just fill his stomach may serve a Vaishya. If he wants a permanent means of living he can serve a Kshatriya. But if he wants to go to heaven or wants higher or superior birth in the next generation he must serve a Brahmin. (ManuIX334 & 335)

23. The most sacred duty of a Shudra is to serve the Brahmins, always, reciting the words “Brahman” with utmost devotion. Such a Shudra will get salvation. Otherwise he will die a worst death and will go to the worst hell. (Manu X-121)

24. But let a (Shudra) serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next) for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends. (Manu X. 122.)

25. The service of Brahmans alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Shudra for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (Manu X. 123.)

26. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support. (Manu X. 124.)

 

All these hated teachings, all these contradiction, all these insane punishments of Sudras ... all this is implying only one thing i.e. the "human nature". This has nothing to do with teachings of any divine creature. 

 

Every religion put a lot of stress upon "knowledge/(useless knowledge) of the religion" and "worship" of the creator. 

 

There are about 100 Verses in Quran which are talking about the "ILM" i.e. knowledge. But all this knowledge is practically useless are it has mostly to do with the religion and there are less of the morals, and then sharia laws which are against the humanity. 

And it also specifies a Brahman doesn't remain a  Brahman if he doesn't do his job and shudra doesn't remain a shudra if he elevates himself by acquiring knowledge.

 

How is it different from today's world where CEO doesn't remain if he doesn't do his job and entry level worker becomes an executive through performance?

 

We can discuss barriers which prevent upward movement and preferential treatment which protects the elites. But that is diffenret topic.

 

 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

10 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

And it also specifies a Brahman doesn't remain a  Brahman if he doesn't do his job and shudra doesn't remain a shudra if he elevates himself by acquiring knowledge.

 

I believe my post was very long, and thus you didn't read it completely. If it is true, then I am sorry for such long post. 

 

Anyhow, thing is this that Shudra could never elevate himself by acquiring knowledge, as it is totally forbidden upon him to acquire knowledge. His only chance to elevate himself is through the "servitude" of the Brahmans. I provided all the related references for this above. 

 

The teachings in the Manu consists of hate and exploitation and extreme punishment of the Shudras, and also born caste system is still valid according to Manu. There is nothing divine in it. 

 

[cricketrulez]

59 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I believe my post was very long, and thus you didn't read it completely. If it is true, then I am sorry for such long post. 

 

Anyhow, thing is this that Shudra could never elevate himself by acquiring knowledge, as it is totally forbidden upon him to acquire knowledge. His only chance to elevate himself is through the "servitude" of the Brahmans. I provided all the related references for this above. 

 

The teachings in the Manu consists of hate and exploitation and extreme punishment of the Shudras, and also born caste system is still valid according to Manu. There is nothing divine in it. 

 

Guess you missed my post where he specifically talks about it. so it comes down to your source and my source.

 

Given the age of the manuscript (no pun intended) it comes down the accuracy of the translation and motives of the person doing the translation. One of the many reasons why I don't follow any divinity crap.

 

Off topic, if Manu's teachings are full of hate what does that make the Quran, which advocates, lying, murder and genocide. Remember you don't get to run away from old testament since pedophile prophet considered that the "good book"

 

And what does it say about the warlord who raped a 9 year old when he was in his 50's, to whom "alllah" spoke to deliver the message?

 

 

 

 

[cricketrulez]

13 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

sophistry.

Manusmriti clearly talks about lower caste and upper caste stuff. It may not have been lineage solidified in its time of writing, but that is irrelevant - the manu smriti presents reasons to disparage people and think low of them, as shudras and such - which shortly after became solidified by birth. Serving the same purpose we are talking of. 

it is the direct inspiration of caste based discrimination in hinduism, serving as a template for it. Later hindus codified it by lineage and as such, manu smriti is culpable for the spread of discrimination. Only thing that changed, is the application by birth from by actions. 

 

Sophistry when it specifically says you societal position is based on your actions and not your birth? i'm afraid we are at a dead end.

 

you also conveniently ignored the symptom definition? Let me remind you.

 

Symptom: systematic discrimination based on caste/jati at birth

 

You are running from it and I know why are you are running from it, becos the current governments, you know the secular ones haev codified it under the guise of minority protection.

 

eg. shah bono case. reservation system tamilnadu where majority of the seats including jobs employ caste based quotas..

 

 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, cricketrulez said:

Guess you missed my post where he specifically talks about it. so it comes down to your source and my source.

 

Given the age of the manuscript (no pun intended) it comes down the accuracy of the translation and motives of the person doing the translation. One of the many reasons why I don't follow any divinity crap.

 

Off topic, if Manu's teachings are full of hate what does that make the Quran, which advocates, lying, murder and genocide. Remember you don't get to run away from old testament since pedophile prophet considered that the "good book"

 

And what does it say about the warlord who raped a 9 year old when he was in his 50's, to whom "alllah" spoke to deliver the message?

 

So if you want to contend that Islam = Ted Bundy, Christianity = random murderer, Judaism = slaver and Hinduism = break & entry guy, sure. You can also argue that serial killer > random murderer > slaver > break & entry in terms of being worse. Also fine. 

It does not change the fact that break & entry is NOT fine and a crime, neither is your 'what-about the murderers and rapists' valid argument, when discussing Break & Entry. 

Nobody is arguing that Hinduism is as bad or the worst of all religions. The argument is, Hinduism has crap in it thats bad and Hindus should work up the cojones to confront it, not hide behind 'we are only a wee bit bad' justification of being bad !!

 

 

And if Bollywood chooses to show the crap in hinduism, hindus don't get to yell bloody murder over bias. It is not. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, cricketrulez said:

Sophistry when it specifically says you societal position is based on your actions and not your birth? i'm afraid we are at a dead end.

Losing social position due to action does not invalidate the concept of having social position from birth- the Manusmriti advocates both these positions. 

1 minute ago, cricketrulez said:

you also conveniently ignored the symptom definition? Let me remind you.

 

Symptom: systematic discrimination based on caste/jati at birth

 

You are running from it and I know why are you are running from it, becos the current governments, you know the secular ones haev codified it under the guise of minority protection.

 

eg. shah bono case. reservation system tamilnadu where majority of the seats including jobs employ caste based quotas..

 

I am not running from anything, i am talking about symptoms first. And as we can see, its pretty freaking hard to get hindus to agree on the symptoms without knee-jerk 'what about other evil crap of other evil religions out there'. Even atheistic 'cultural hindus' like yourself are guilty of it.

 

[Alam_dar]

11 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

Guess you missed my post where he specifically talks about it. so it comes down to your source and my source.

No, I absolutely not missed that part, but dealt with it in details and refuted it from multiple references from the Manusmriti itself. It is known as bringing the whole picture in light and making conclusions in proper context.  All these arguments are present in details in my above post. 

 

11 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

Given the age of the manuscript (no pun intended) it comes down the accuracy of the translation and motives of the person doing the translation. One of the many reasons why I don't follow any divinity crap.

You are totally free to point out where I presented the distorted translation, and then you could bring your correct translation. Similarly, if you question my intentions, then please bring correct translation according to your intention. 

 

And you say you don't follow any divinity crap. Unfortunately, you are doing exactly the same thing by defending the Manusmriti. 

 

11 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

Off topic, if Manu's teachings are full of hate what does that make the Quran, which advocates, lying, murder and genocide. Remember you don't get to run away from old testament since pedophile prophet considered that the "good book"

And what does it say about the warlord who raped a 9 year old when he was in his 50's, to whom "alllah" spoke to deliver the message?

I think you are now aiming at me, thinking that I am a Muslim. 

But I am an apostate i.e. Ex-Muslim. And I have been making  much more objections upon Quran and Bible than you ever did. 

[Stradlater]

Anyone checked out the trailer of Kedarnath starring Sushant and Saif's kid?

 

Classic case of Hinduphobia if there ever was one. Despicable industry.

[cricketrulez]

On 11/13/2018 at 1:44 PM, Muloghonto said:

Losing social position due to action does not invalidate the concept of having social position from birth- the Manusmriti advocates both these positions. 

I am not running from anything, i am talking about symptoms first. And as we can see, its pretty freaking hard to get hindus to agree on the symptoms without knee-jerk 'what about other evil crap of other evil religions out there'. Even atheistic 'cultural hindus' like yourself are guilty of it.

 

1) you are losing the plot. IF one can lose social position or gain social position by one's actions doesn't that invalidate the whole birth crap?

not unlike a CEO's son who has a head start but loses it if he doesn't perfprm and how an entry level worker elevates himself thro' performance and in turn his kid avoids being a entry level worker but would not progress if he doesn't perform

 

2) WTF is cultural hindu? I don't practice visit temples  to socialize, celebrate any "festivals". 

 

3) you are in fact running from the definition of symptom. not sure if you are too stupid to realize it or if there is cognitive dissonance.

 

You are stuck in the semantics of religion, while current secular governments in India practice the same exact crap as policy. Guys like you provide cover the governments hyprocrisy of controling temples and lettng churhces and mosques run loose and their policy of providen g reservations based on caste rather than resources

 

4) you also ran away from caste issues in pakistan by describing it a socio religious blah blah blah. does islam advocate caste system

 

If it doesn't, existence caste system as you describe seem to have little to do with religion

[cricketrulez]

On 11/14/2018 at 1:18 AM, Alam_dar said:

No, I absolutely not missed that part, but dealt with it in details and refuted it from multiple references from the Manusmriti itself. It is known as bringing the whole picture in light and making conclusions in proper context.  All these arguments are present in details in my above post. 

 

You are totally free to point out where I presented the distorted translation, and then you could bring your correct translation. Similarly, if you question my intentions, then please bring correct translation according to your intention. 

 

And you say you don't follow any divinity crap. Unfortunately, you are doing exactly the same thing by defending the Manusmriti. 

 

I think you are now aiming at me, thinking that I am a Muslim. 

But I am an apostate i.e. Ex-Muslim. And I have been making  much more objections upon Quran and Bible than you ever did. 

1) apologize for thinking you are muslim! Welcome to atheist club! 

 

2) I'm going based on whatever source of manusmirtiti i could find. Let me know how my source is incorrect.

 

Unless the source I've quoted is completely off base, the world has been going in that direction for a while.

 

people of knowledge are held in high regard and enjoy high social status. Often their kids enjoy the same until they are adults and if they continue in their parents tradition they maintain their social status. If they screw up they lose that status.

 

Similarly, kids born uneducated parents (BTW, i'm on of those, but born in to "upper caste", go figure) who pursue successfully  knowledge, often achieve a higher social status (as was the case with me).

 

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by cricketrulez

[cricketrulez]

On 11/13/2018 at 1:41 PM, Muloghonto said:

And if Bollywood chooses to show the crap in hinduism, hindus don't get to yell bloody murder over bias. It is not. 

If the purpose bollywood is social enigineering, hell yes we do. If they show a selective bias while claiming to be neutral, hell yes we do. 

 

When you have prime minister (MMS) announcing "minorities have first right to resources" to justify discrimination against hindus, hell yes we do.

Brahmins are 3% of the countries population, does it mean that they get to have first crack at resources?

 

you want evils of religion to go away, look to the examples of scandinavia. adopt their policies, religion wil rot away. Personally i can't wait

[Muloghonto]

On 11/14/2018 at 9:31 PM, cricketrulez said:

1) you are losing the plot. IF one can lose social position or gain social position by one's actions doesn't that invalidate the whole birth crap?

Nope. They are not mutually exclusive concepts either. You can have social position accorded due to birth and lose it due to your actions. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:31 PM, cricketrulez said:

not unlike a CEO's son who has a head start but loses it if he doesn't perfprm and how an entry level worker elevates himself thro' performance and in turn his kid avoids being a entry level worker but would not progress if he doesn't perform

Sure. Still your example is nepotism and not fit to be upheld as an ideal. Same with the jati/varna/caste system. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:31 PM, cricketrulez said:

2) WTF is cultural hindu? I don't practice visit temples  to socialize, celebrate any "festivals". 

 

3) you are in fact running from the definition of symptom. not sure if you are too stupid to realize it or if there is cognitive dissonance.

How am i running from definition of a symptom. I am not disputing what is a symptom or not- i am asking you to first discuss that the symptom exists. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:31 PM, cricketrulez said:

You are stuck in the semantics of religion, while current secular governments in India practice the same exact crap as policy. Guys like you provide cover the governments hyprocrisy of controling temples and lettng churhces and mosques run loose and their policy of providen g reservations based on caste rather than resources

I think churches and mosques should also be controlled by the government. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:31 PM, cricketrulez said:

4) you also ran away from caste issues in pakistan by describing it a socio religious blah blah blah. does islam advocate caste system

I didn't run away from anything. I said caste system is a socio-religious one. It has social AND religious component to it. Many things that are espoused by religions end up in social fabric of society - it does not take away from religious nature of it. Plenty of atheists celebrate Christmas - not in the 'lets sing hymns to Jesus' but get togethers, dinners, presents etc. Ie, that is a social aspect of Christmas, which has its roots in religion. Same with caste system. 

On 11/14/2018 at 9:31 PM, cricketrulez said:

If it doesn't, existence caste system as you describe seem to have little to do with religion

False. It has everything to do with religion. Hindu religion decisively advocates caste system. Plenty of texts of the religion i can quote that says so.