Ayodhya : Supreme Court Orders Mediation to Settle Dispute, Panel of 3 Mediators Appointed

[Alam_dar]

@Tibarn

You claimed that you don't accept DN Jha, while he is a Marxist ideologist. 

I don't agree with it. You have to prove that the translations of the VERSES, he has used are all wrong about eating of beef.

You also denied to accept the article about history of eating beef in India, in the newspaper. 

 

What if I present the same history by non-Marxist and pure Hindu religious person? 

 

Swami Vivekananda's Quotes On Beef-eating And Cow Slaughter

Let me see what are you going to say about Swami Viveananda now (Link) :

 

• Buddha dealt a blow at animal sacrifice from which India has never recovered; and Buddha said, 'Kill no cows', and cow-killing is an impossibility with us.^[Source]
•  
• Every man, in every age, in every country is under peculiar circumstances. If the circumstances change, ideas also must change. Beef-eating was once moral. The climate was cold, and the cereals were not much known. Meat was the chief food available. So in that age and clime, beef was in a manner indispensable. But beef-eating is held to be immoral now.^[Source]
•  
• If we did not eat beef and mutton, there would be no butchers. Eating meat is only allowable for people who do very hard work, and who are not going to be Bhaktas; but if you are going to be Bhaktas, you should avoid meat.^[Source]
•  
• It is improper to hold many texts on the same subject to be contradicted by one or two. But why then are the long-continued customs of Madhuparka and the like repealed by one or two such texts as, "The horse sacrifice, the cow sacrifice, Sannyasa, meat-offerings in Shrâddha", etc.? If the Vedas are eternal, then what are the meaning and justification of such specifications as "this rule of Dharma is for the age of Dvâpara," "this for the age of Kali", and so forth?^[Source] (Note: Madhuparka was a Vedic ceremony, usually in honour of guest, in which a respectful offering was to be made consisting, among other dainties, of beef.)
• The Brahmins at one time ate beef and married Sudras. [A] calf was killed to please a guest. Sudras cooked for Brahmins.^[Source]
• There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows.^[Source]
• You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now. However they may differ from each other in India, in that they are all one — they never eat beef. The ancient sacrifices and the ancient gods, they are all gone; modern India belongs to the spiritual part of the Vedas.^[Source]

 

 

 

It was blamed upon Jha that he took the distorted English Translations, but surely Swami Vivekananda didn't use the English translations to come to these conclusions, but he read the Sanskrit Texts himself, and commentaries of earlier Scholars (and not the commentaries by present century Apologists). 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Alam_dar

[someone]

6 hours ago, Mariyam said:

You are going on a tangent here. This case is not of Muslim atrocities in the past. Nor is it about faith. The case is about land ownership. The ASI has done some work on the spot and the courts haven't yet been convinced that the Babri Masjid was built by entirely demolishing an existing temple or convinced enough to pass a judgement. What is worse is that instead of taking a stand on the issue, the courts are delaying a judgement. Probably status quo is good for all political parties involved.

 

I mention this in another thread too. The Muslim groups should have just given up any claims to the land in the 50s/60s. And built a masjid at some distance. That would have been a good move towards reconciliation. After the Babri masjid has been demolished, the Muslim groups will fight it out in the court. There is no choice. Anything else will be seen as a loss of face.

Actually, the most important thing in this case, is the time-frame. Are courts gonna look at all facts? Or just analyze it from 1947 afterwards? They have to look at every fact, which consists of it being Lord Ram's birthplace, and the Muslim atrocities. The Muslim invasion is the biggest whitewash in the entire history, so that represents the biggest challenge in this entire case.  There is Israel which restored properties, there is USA which demolished statues that represented oppression. But here, Muslim atrocities is the biggest taboo subject.

 

Next, the Muslim board told they would give up their claim if proven there was temple beneath. But they changed their mind, then they told they would accept the High court ruling, yet again they did otherwise. So there is one side which keeps changing, and really fooling everybody. They just want the status quo to be preserved.

[coffee_rules]

8 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Yes. 

Then he should one of three wise men SC has appointed, not SriSri.

[Moochad]

[Tibarn]

 

On 3/12/2019 at 1:38 AM, Muloghonto said:

 

 

It is BY FAR the most common phrase of annoyance Bengalis use ( or variations of it), when it comes to family:

 

1. Amar matha khaash na ---> don't eat my head ( meaning : dont bug me)

2. Oh hoo, amar mathata kheeye dilo era ! ---> Oh man, they ate my head ( meaning : i am now annoyed at being continuously bugged)

3. Ja giye tor baaper matha khaa..amar ta to puro puri kheye dili ! ---> go eat your father's head, you have already fully eaten mine ( meaning: go bug your dad, piss off and this is final warning)

4. amar matha ta chibiye chibiye kheye dili tui !! ---> you ate my head by chewing on it ( meaning: I am REALLY annoyed right now).

 

 

these phrases are called 'Idioms'. 

by far the most common idiom in bengali to signify a big fight ( words or fists but usually words) are:

 

1. Ram-Rabon-er juddho badhaloo era ( they are fighting the Ram-Ravan war !)

2. Bhitore jaash na, ora kurukkhetror juddho badhacche ( don't go inside, they are waging the kurukshetra war inside).

 

 

Good to know!

 

The most popular thing to say in Gujarati, at least from my experience, is one word: Nakamo/-a it translates to "of no use" ~ "useless".  It's why I say the word so much, but it seems to bother more people when written in English, than when someone says it in Gujarati. 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Tibarn

[Tibarn]

On 3/12/2019 at 10:01 AM, Moochad said:

Shamelessness!!!.

 

Addressing his attempts to slur me 

Spoiler

The desperate guy implies that I discredited DN Jha  simply because he is a Marxist. Unfortunately for him, I wasn't educated in some madrasa, unlike a lot of other people. I have shown multiple grounds of Jha and his book lacking credibility, none of which rely on him being a Marxist:

1) Jha himself doesn't know Sanskrit and he himself didn't translate the verses for his book.  

2) Jha relied on a "2nd degree" translation by a German Max Muller (languages are known to lose meaning when translated between each other).

3) Muller, who Jha relies on, and Muller's own publisher, themselves admitted his translation is conjectural (see the excerpt above).    

4) I showed an expose on this same "historian" Jha, where he was caught actively doctoring history before.  In a country with a reputable academic system, he would have been dismissed from any university affiliations. Unfortunately in India, we let these people carry-on endlessly. 

5) I show a page from the very book this clown is so reliant on where the "historian" blatantly lied. I show direct verses from the Rig and Yajur Veda which showed that he was lying . 

 

The above five points are sufficient to show that Jha isn't to be taken seriously. That Jha is a Marxist is tangential, but it also shows his own bias/agenda in writing such a shoddy book.

 

Of course, for this bigot, only Hindus can be biased, and Marxists, even when they lack any credibility, are to be taken at face value.  His lack of reading comprehension and lack of integrity tried to reduce my entire argument to "He is a Marxist", but, unfortunately, only his own lack of integrity and reading comprehension is exposed.  

 

Also note: this same mental-gymnast, in this very thread, said that "books aren't proof", yet his entire propaganda drive is reliant on a single pair of books, neither of which he has read, written by a single author. 

 

(Translation of this: books shift from haraam to halaal when convenient for me). 

Attempts to slur Hindus in general 

Spoiler

He then, again showing his bigotry, slurs any translations by Sanskrit-educated Hindus themselves, despite the peer-review by other people trained in Sanskrit, as the work of agenda-driven "Hindu apologists" (again take note that this bigot takes the Sanskrit-illiterate Jha at his word, but slurs everyone else as agenda-driven: this again shows his lack of even basic integrity. If he was truly neutral, he would be critical of Jha as well, but we all know he has an agenda).

 

(Of course this is the same guy who advocated for discrimination against Hindus in general (and Brahmins in particular) because of historical injustices done by the Brahmins to Dalits, all the while vomiting across multiple threads on "humanity"). (Also note: he simultaneously doesn't support discrimination against Muslims in India, despite the far greater level of genocide, murder, discrimination, slavery, rape et al done by his beloved quom in the sub-continent. It looks like to me, that the "Atheist" is an Islamist in disguise: modern day Brahmins should pay for discrimination done by their ancestors, but discrimination by Muslims should be forgiven, even if the later was to a far greater degree than the former).    

 

Unfortunately for him, any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit knowledge/Vedas aren't based on agreeing with him! Any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit usually involve studying under learned scholars themselves and usually encompasses multiple domains: 

 

It doesn't look like any of those fall under the category of agreeing with an Islam-apologist. 

 

Imagine being so blinded by hatred,  like this guy is, that he has the nerve to discredit numerous Hindu Sanskrit scholars by slurring them as "apologists", simply for being Hindu and not agreeing with his preconceived ideas.  I am sure that none of the Hindus, likely some of them trained in the above are not credible.  

 

I am sure the translation he relies upon, by a German Christian, was done by someone with training in the above. Oh wait, the same translator admitted himself his translation was conjectural.  

 

On the other hand, someone like K Lal, someone whose translations are used in the refutation, who is an actual Sanskrit professor, is an apologist. 

 

 

Addressing the next desperate attempt :

Spoiler

Again, desperate to protect his fragile ego, the other poster google-searches and finds that Vivekananda stated that Hindus ate beef before.  As noted above, the guy lacks even basic ability to follow his own argument.

 

Note: 

Sw. Vivekananda was not a historian nor did he make any translations of the Vedas himself. He is hardly qualified to speak on history, and his words regarding history aren't given weight as fact. He is also not the definitive voice on the Sanskrit language. 

Also Note:

Vivekananda isn't someone where what he says/his interpretations of issues are taken as word or fact by Hindus. He isn't above a Sw. Dayananda Saraswati or a Sw. Aurobindo Ghosh, or any other rishi/yogi/guru/swami.  Vivekananda has his adhikara to speak his mind, but there isn't any reason to think his words here hold any particular weight, especially considering he never actually got a Vedic education.  If one were to argue from a Vedic perspective, a swami/rishi/guru/yogi who was actually trained in the Vedic tradition is far more reputable than a Vivekananda, who was trained in a more heterodox pathway. 

   

Vivekananda had a number of statements which most Hindus wouldn't agree with such as his Hinduism was anti-idolatry phase or he supposedly believed Aryans came from the North into India and had "White complexion, straight nose, blue eyes, black or brown hair."  None of those statements are factual or supported (then again the poster in question told me I was an African because I am a "Shudra", so that shows a "different" level of critical thinking he has ).  

 

It's also strange that the same so-called "Atheist" thinks that Vivekananda is unbiased and not an apologist because he agrees with his preconceived opinion, but anyone who disagrees with Vivekananda, namely multiple swamis and Sanskrit scholars are Hindu "apologists" and must necessarily be wrong, lest this guy is wrong and his fragile ego is hurt.    

 

What's even more funny, if one was to take the other poster's nonsense seriously, and take Vivekananda's assertions at face value, his own original argument would be wrong: what Vivekananda actually said essentially refutes the original argument this other poster was trying to make. Unfortunately, the other poster is so desperate to save-face in the argument, he is using a quote which refutes what he was originally arguing. 

 

My quote, criticizing Islamic imperialism:

Quote

There isn't a religious duty of certain religions to eat beef per say, but rather beef is a manifestation of another religious duty of certain expansionist, death cults: Iconoclasm. 

 

In Europe, their version of expansionist cultos would destroy/cut down trees/sacred groves of the Pagans to satisfy their Iconoclastic impulse. Further west of India, this region's variant of expansionist cultos would actively murder/lynch dogs to satisfy their blood lust, simply because the Zoroastrians held dogs to be a sacred animal. 

which seemed to trigger this "Atheist" to engage in apologia. 

Quote

Eating beef or meat has not started as reaction to the Hindu sentiments, but it was the old culture and people's way of ending the life of old cows.

Therefore, I don't agree with your accusations here.

Now look at Vivekananda's quote:

Quote

And [instead] of preaching new doctrines and always thinking new thoughts and making sects, he brought back the Vedas to life: and modern Hinduism has thus an admixture of ancient Hinduism, over which the Vedantists predominate. But, you see, what once dies never comes back to life, and those ceremonials of [Hinduism] never came back to life. You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now. However they may differ from each other in India, in that they are all one — they never eat beef. The ancient sacrifices and the ancient gods, they are all gone; modern India belongs to the spiritual part of the Vedas.

...

The Smritis speak generally of local circumstances, of duties arising from different environments, and they change in the course of time. This you have always to remember that because a little social custom is going to be changed you are not going to lose your religion, not at all. Remember these customs have already been changed. There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed; how in time it was found that as we were an agricultural race, killing the best bulls meant annihilation of the race. Therefore the practice was stopped, and a voice was raised against the killing of cows. Sometimes we find existing then what we now consider the most horrible customs. In course of time other laws had to be made. These in turn will have to go, and other Smritis will come.  This is one fact we have to learn that the Vedas being eternal will be one and the same throughout all ages, but the Smritis will have an end.

Summary: Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, but that was stopped as it was wrong. 

 

If a someone wants to take Vivekananda at his word so much, then one will have to accept that Hindus only ate beef multiple millennia ago, and that his Islamic brethren, who he engaged in apologia for here, brought it back to India. 

 

His statements like "eating beef was old/common culture" stand exposed as farcical (not that there was any doubt of that).    

 

Wait for the mental gymnastics:
"the parts of Vivekananda's quote which support my preconceived notion are valid, but the parts which don't aren't because otherwise I would be wrong".   

 

Poor guy still thinks of Hinduism through his Islamic-jaundiced eyes where the ramblings of some desert dude are sacrosanct for all of mankind and for all of eternity, not realizing that Hindus don't view their "religion" that way. Even if it were the case that Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, and it's clear that this guy lacks any ability to show that this was the case, that has no bearing on the views of the Dharma today where it is roundly forbidden. Furthermore, even if all the Shankaracharyas in India tomorrow stated that eating beef was now okay in Hinduism, it doesn't change the fact that, despite his continued apologia for his Islamic brethren and continued obfuscation of their bigotry and genocide in the subcontinent, it was they who have created this issue. 

 

Next time I will post direct evidence that it was Islamic bigotry and imperialism which was the root cause of the whole beef-issue in the subcontinent!  

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Tibarn

[Moochad]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Shamelessness!!!.

 

Addressing his attempts to slur me 

  Reveal hidden contents

The desperate guy implies that I discredited DN Jha  simply because he is a Marxist. Unfortunately for him, I wasn't educated in some madrasa, unlike a lot of other people. I have shown multiple grounds of Jha and his book lacking credibility, none of which rely on him being a Marxist:

1) Jha himself doesn't know Sanskrit and he himself didn't translate the verses for his book.  

2) Jha relied on a "2nd degree" translation by a German Max Muller (languages are known to lose meaning when translated between each other).

3) Muller, who Jha relies on, and Muller's own publisher, themselves admitted his translation is conjectural (see the excerpt above).    

4) I showed an expose on this same "historian" Jha, where he was caught actively doctoring history before.  In a country with a reputable academic system, he would have been dismissed from any university affiliations. Unfortunately in India, we let these people carry-on endlessly. 

5) I show a page from the very book this clown is so reliant on where the "historian" blatantly lied. I show direct verses from the Rig and Yajur Veda which showed that he was lying . 

 

The above five points are sufficient to show that Jha isn't to be taken seriously. That Jha is a Marxist is tangential, but it also shows his own bias/agenda in writing such a shoddy book.

 

Of course, for this bigot, only Hindus can be biased, and Marxists, even when they lack any credibility, are to be taken at face value.  His lack of reading comprehension and lack of integrity tried to reduce my entire argument to "He is a Marxist", but, unfortunately, only his own lack of integrity and reading comprehension is exposed.  

 

Also note: this same mental-gymnast, in this very thread, said that "books aren't proof", yet his entire propaganda drive is reliant on a single pair of books, neither of which he has read, written by a single author. 

 

(Translation of this: books shift from haraam to halaal when convenient for me). 

Attempts to slur Hindus in general 

  Reveal hidden contents

He then, again showing his bigotry, slurs any translations by Sanskrit-educated Hindus themselves, despite the peer-review by other people trained in Sanskrit, as the work of agenda-driven "Hindu apologists" (again take note that this bigot takes the Sanskrit-illiterate Jha at his word, but slurs everyone else as agenda-driven: this again shows his lack of even basic integrity. If he was truly neutral, he would be critical of Jha as well, but we all know he has an agenda).

 

(Of course this is the same guy who advocated for discrimination against Hindus in general (and Brahmins in particular) because of historical injustices done by the Brahmins to Dalits, all the while vomiting across multiple threads on "humanity"). (Also note: he simultaneously doesn't support discrimination against Muslims in India, despite the far greater level of genocide, murder, discrimination, slavery, rape et al done by his beloved quom in the sub-continent. It looks like to me, that the "Atheist" is an Islamist in disguise: modern day Brahmins should pay for discrimination done by their ancestors, but discrimination by Muslims should be forgiven, even if the later was to a far greater degree than the former).    

 

Unfortunately for him, any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit knowledge/Vedas aren't based on agreeing with him! Any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit usually involve studying under learned scholars themselves and usually encompasses multiple domains: 

 

It doesn't look like any of those fall under the category of agreeing with an Islam-apologist. 

 

Imagine being so blinded by hatred,  like this guy is, that he has the nerve to discredit numerous Hindu Sanskrit scholars by slurring them as "apologists", simply for being Hindu and not agreeing with his preconceived ideas.  I am sure that none of the Hindus, likely some of them trained in the above are not credible.  

 

I am sure the translation he relies upon, by a German Christian, was done by someone with training in the above. Oh wait, the same translator admitted himself his translation was conjectural.  

 

On the other hand, someone like K Lal, someone whose translations are used in the refutation, who is an actual Sanskrit professor, is an apologist. 

 

 

Addressing the next desperate attempt :

  Reveal hidden contents

Again, desperate to protect his fragile ego, the other poster google-searches and finds that Vivekananda stated that Hindus ate beef before.  As noted above, the guy lacks even basic ability to follow his own argument.

 

Note: 

Sw. Vivekananda was not a historian nor did he make any translations of the Vedas himself. He is hardly qualified to speak on history, and his words regarding history aren't given weight as fact. He is also not the definitive voice on the Sanskrit language. 

Also Note:

Vivekananda isn't someone where what he says/his interpretations of issues are taken as word or fact by Hindus. He isn't above a Sw. Dayananda Saraswati or a Sw. Aurobindo Ghosh, or any other rishi/yogi/guru/swami.  Vivekananda has his adhikara to speak his mind, but there isn't any reason to think his words here hold any particular weight, especially considering he never actually got a Vedic education.  If one were to argue from a Vedic perspective, a swami/rishi/guru/yogi who was actually trained in the Vedic tradition is far more reputable than a Vivekananda, who was trained in a more heterodox pathway. 

   

Vivekananda had a number of statements which most Hindus wouldn't agree with such as his Hinduism was anti-idolatry phase or he supposedly believed Aryans came from the North into India and had "White complexion, straight nose, blue eyes, black or brown hair."  None of those statements are factual or supported (then again the poster in question told me I was an African because I am a "Shudra", so that shows a "different" level of critical thinking he has ).  

 

It's also strange that the same so-called "Atheist" thinks that Vivekananda is unbiased and not an apologist because he agrees with his preconceived opinion, but anyone who disagrees with Vivekananda, namely multiple swamis and Sanskrit scholars are Hindu "apologists" and must necessarily be wrong, lest this guy is wrong and his fragile ego is hurt.    

 

What's even more funny, if one was to take the other poster's nonsense seriously, and take Vivekananda's assertions at face value, his own original argument would be wrong: what Vivekananda actually said essentially refutes the original argument this other poster was trying to make. Unfortunately, the other poster is so desperate to save-face in the argument, he is using a quote which refutes what he was originally arguing. 

 

My quote, criticizing Islamic imperialism:

which seemed to trigger this "Atheist" to engage in apologia. 

Now look at Vivekananda's quote:

Summary: Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, but that was stopped as it was wrong. 

 

If a someone wants to take Vivekananda at his word so much, then one will have to accept that Hindus only ate beef multiple millennia ago, and that his Islamic brethren, who he engaged in apologia for here, brought it back to India. 

 

His statements like "eating beef was old/common culture" stand exposed as farcical (not that there was any doubt of that).    

 

Wait for the mental gymnastics:
"the parts of Vivekananda's quote which support my preconceived notion are valid, but the parts which don't aren't because otherwise I would be wrong".   

 

Poor guy still thinks of Hinduism through his Islamic-jaundiced eyes where the ramblings of some desert dude are sacrosanct for all of mankind and for all of eternity, not realizing that Hindus don't view their "religion" that way. Even if it were the case that Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, and it's clear that this guy lacks any ability to show that this was the case, that has no bearing on the views of the Dharma today where it is roundly forbidden. Furthermore, even if all the Shankaracharyas in India tomorrow stated that eating beef was now okay in Hinduism, it doesn't change the fact that, despite his continued apologia for his Islamic brethren and continued obfuscation of their bigotry and genocide in the subcontinent, it was they who have created this issue. 

 

Next time I will post direct evidence that it was Islamic bigotry and imperialism which was the root cause of the whole beef-issue in the subcontinent!  

 

 

 friendly suggestion, you are wasting your time with  the other guy...  

Don't punch down. 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Moochad

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Shamelessness!!!.

 

Addressing his attempts to slur me 

  Reveal hidden contents

The desperate guy implies that I discredited DN Jha  simply because he is a Marxist. Unfortunately for him, I wasn't educated in some madrasa, unlike a lot of other people. I have shown multiple grounds of Jha and his book lacking credibility, none of which rely on him being a Marxist:

1) Jha himself doesn't know Sanskrit and he himself didn't translate the verses for his book.  

2) Jha relied on a "2nd degree" translation by a German Max Muller (languages are known to lose meaning when translated between each other).

3) Muller, who Jha relies on, and Muller's own publisher, themselves admitted his translation is conjectural (see the excerpt above).    

4) I showed an expose on this same "historian" Jha, where he was caught actively doctoring history before.  In a country with a reputable academic system, he would have been dismissed from any university affiliations. Unfortunately in India, we let these people carry-on endlessly. 

5) I show a page from the very book this clown is so reliant on where the "historian" blatantly lied. I show direct verses from the Rig and Yajur Veda which showed that he was lying . 

 

The above five points are sufficient to show that Jha isn't to be taken seriously. That Jha is a Marxist is tangential, but it also shows his own bias/agenda in writing such a shoddy book.

 

Of course, for this bigot, only Hindus can be biased, and Marxists, even when they lack any credibility, are to be taken at face value.  His lack of reading comprehension and lack of integrity tried to reduce my entire argument to "He is a Marxist", but, unfortunately, only his own lack of integrity and reading comprehension is exposed.  

 

Also note: this same mental-gymnast, in this very thread, said that "books aren't proof", yet his entire propaganda drive is reliant on a single pair of books, neither of which he has read, written by a single author. 

 

(Translation of this: books shift from haraam to halaal when convenient for me). 

Attempts to slur Hindus in general 

  Reveal hidden contents

He then, again showing his bigotry, slurs any translations by Sanskrit-educated Hindus themselves, despite the peer-review by other people trained in Sanskrit, as the work of agenda-driven "Hindu apologists" (again take note that this bigot takes the Sanskrit-illiterate Jha at his word, but slurs everyone else as agenda-driven: this again shows his lack of even basic integrity. If he was truly neutral, he would be critical of Jha as well, but we all know he has an agenda).

 

(Of course this is the same guy who advocated for discrimination against Hindus in general (and Brahmins in particular) because of historical injustices done by the Brahmins to Dalits, all the while vomiting across multiple threads on "humanity"). (Also note: he simultaneously doesn't support discrimination against Muslims in India, despite the far greater level of genocide, murder, discrimination, slavery, rape et al done by his beloved quom in the sub-continent. It looks like to me, that the "Atheist" is an Islamist in disguise: modern day Brahmins should pay for discrimination done by their ancestors, but discrimination by Muslims should be forgiven, even if the later was to a far greater degree than the former).    

 

Unfortunately for him, any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit knowledge/Vedas aren't based on agreeing with him! Any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit usually involve studying under learned scholars themselves and usually encompasses multiple domains: 

 

It doesn't look like any of those fall under the category of agreeing with an Islam-apologist. 

 

Imagine being so blinded by hatred,  like this guy is, that he has the nerve to discredit numerous Hindu Sanskrit scholars by slurring them as "apologists", simply for being Hindu and not agreeing with his preconceived ideas.  I am sure that none of the Hindus, likely some of them trained in the above are not credible.  

 

I am sure the translation he relies upon, by a German Christian, was done by someone with training in the above. Oh wait, the same translator admitted himself his translation was conjectural.  

 

On the other hand, someone like K Lal, someone whose translations are used in the refutation, who is an actual Sanskrit professor, is an apologist. 

 

 

Addressing the next desperate attempt :

  Reveal hidden contents

Again, desperate to protect his fragile ego, the other poster google-searches and finds that Vivekananda stated that Hindus ate beef before.  As noted above, the guy lacks even basic ability to follow his own argument.

 

Note: 

Sw. Vivekananda was not a historian nor did he make any translations of the Vedas himself. He is hardly qualified to speak on history, and his words regarding history aren't given weight as fact. He is also not the definitive voice on the Sanskrit language. 

Also Note:

Vivekananda isn't someone where what he says/his interpretations of issues are taken as word or fact by Hindus. He isn't above a Sw. Dayananda Saraswati or a Sw. Aurobindo Ghosh, or any other rishi/yogi/guru/swami.  Vivekananda has his adhikara to speak his mind, but there isn't any reason to think his words here hold any particular weight, especially considering he never actually got a Vedic education.  If one were to argue from a Vedic perspective, a swami/rishi/guru/yogi who was actually trained in the Vedic tradition is far more reputable than a Vivekananda, who was trained in a more heterodox pathway. 

   

Vivekananda had a number of statements which most Hindus wouldn't agree with such as his Hinduism was anti-idolatry phase or he supposedly believed Aryans came from the North into India and had "White complexion, straight nose, blue eyes, black or brown hair."  None of those statements are factual or supported (then again the poster in question told me I was an African because I am a "Shudra", so that shows a "different" level of critical thinking he has ).  

 

It's also strange that the same so-called "Atheist" thinks that Vivekananda is unbiased and not an apologist because he agrees with his preconceived opinion, but anyone who disagrees with Vivekananda, namely multiple swamis and Sanskrit scholars are Hindu "apologists" and must necessarily be wrong, lest this guy is wrong and his fragile ego is hurt.    

 

What's even more funny, if one was to take the other poster's nonsense seriously, and take Vivekananda's assertions at face value, his own original argument would be wrong: what Vivekananda actually said essentially refutes the original argument this other poster was trying to make. Unfortunately, the other poster is so desperate to save-face in the argument, he is using a quote which refutes what he was originally arguing. 

 

My quote, criticizing Islamic imperialism:

which seemed to trigger this "Atheist" to engage in apologia. 

Now look at Vivekananda's quote:

Summary: Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, but that was stopped as it was wrong. 

 

If a someone wants to take Vivekananda at his word so much, then one will have to accept that Hindus only ate beef multiple millennia ago, and that his Islamic brethren, who he engaged in apologia for here, brought it back to India. 

 

His statements like "eating beef was old/common culture" stand exposed as farcical (not that there was any doubt of that).    

 

Wait for the mental gymnastics:
"the parts of Vivekananda's quote which support my preconceived notion are valid, but the parts which don't aren't because otherwise I would be wrong".   

 

Poor guy still thinks of Hinduism through his Islamic-jaundiced eyes where the ramblings of some desert dude are sacrosanct for all of mankind and for all of eternity, not realizing that Hindus don't view their "religion" that way. Even if it were the case that Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, and it's clear that this guy lacks any ability to show that this was the case, that has no bearing on the views of the Dharma today where it is roundly forbidden. Furthermore, even if all the Shankaracharyas in India tomorrow stated that eating beef was now okay in Hinduism, it doesn't change the fact that, despite his continued apologia for his Islamic brethren and continued obfuscation of their bigotry and genocide in the subcontinent, it was they who have created this issue. 

 

Next time I will post direct evidence that it was Islamic bigotry and imperialism which was the root cause of the whole beef-issue in the subcontinent!  

 

 

Sorry, I was waiting for a reply from you, while I was not able to see the Molo's post directly, while he is on my Ignore List due to his abusive nature and lack of etiquettes to debate. 

 

Do you have to say something at your own, or do you want to borrow the Mulo's arguments and put them further here? 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

12 hours ago, Tibarn said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The desperate guy implies that I discredited DN Jha  simply because he is a Marxist. Unfortunately for him, I wasn't educated in some madrasa, unlike a lot of other people. I have shown multiple grounds of Jha and his book lacking credibility, none of which rely on him being a Marxist:

1) Jha himself doesn't know Sanskrit and he himself didn't translate the verses for his book.  

2) Jha relied on a "2nd degree" translation by a German Max Muller (languages are known to lose meaning when translated between each other).

3) Muller, who Jha relies on, and Muller's own publisher, themselves admitted his translation is conjectural (see the excerpt above).    

4) I showed an expose on this same "historian" Jha, where he was caught actively doctoring history before.  In a country with a reputable academic system, he would have been dismissed from any university affiliations. Unfortunately in India, we let these people carry-on endlessly. 

5) I show a page from the very book this clown is so reliant on where the "historian" blatantly lied. I show direct verses from the Rig and Yajur Veda which showed that he was lying . 

 

The above five points are sufficient to show that Jha isn't to be taken seriously. That Jha is a Marxist is tangential, but it also shows his own bias/agenda in writing such a shoddy book.

 

Of course, for this bigot, only Hindus can be biased, and Marxists, even when they lack any credibility, are to be taken at face value.  His lack of reading comprehension and lack of integrity tried to reduce my entire argument to "He is a Marxist", but, unfortunately, only his own lack of integrity and reading comprehension is exposed.  

 

Also note: this same mental-gymnast, in this very thread, said that "books aren't proof", yet his entire propaganda drive is reliant on a single pair of books, neither of which he has read, written by a single author. 

 

(Translation of this: books shift from haraam to halaal when convenient for me). 

Attempts to slur Hindus in general 

  Reveal hidden contents

He then, again showing his bigotry, slurs any translations by Sanskrit-educated Hindus themselves, despite the peer-review by other people trained in Sanskrit, as the work of agenda-driven "Hindu apologists" (again take note that this bigot takes the Sanskrit-illiterate Jha at his word, but slurs everyone else as agenda-driven: this again shows his lack of even basic integrity. If he was truly neutral, he would be critical of Jha as well, but we all know he has an agenda).

 

(Of course this is the same guy who advocated for discrimination against Hindus in general (and Brahmins in particular) because of historical injustices done by the Brahmins to Dalits, all the while vomiting across multiple threads on "humanity"). (Also note: he simultaneously doesn't support discrimination against Muslims in India, despite the far greater level of genocide, murder, discrimination, slavery, rape et al done by his beloved quom in the sub-continent. It looks like to me, that the "Atheist" is an Islamist in disguise: modern day Brahmins should pay for discrimination done by their ancestors, but discrimination by Muslims should be forgiven, even if the later was to a far greater degree than the former).    

 

Unfortunately for him, any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit knowledge/Vedas aren't based on agreeing with him! Any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit usually involve studying under learned scholars themselves and usually encompasses multiple domains: 

 

It doesn't look like any of those fall under the category of agreeing with an Islam-apologist. 

 

Imagine being so blinded by hatred,  like this guy is, that he has the nerve to discredit numerous Hindu Sanskrit scholars by slurring them as "apologists", simply for being Hindu and not agreeing with his preconceived ideas.  I am sure that none of the Hindus, likely some of them trained in the above are not credible.  

 

I am sure the translation he relies upon, by a German Christian, was done by someone with training in the above. Oh wait, the same translator admitted himself his translation was conjectural.  

 

On the other hand, someone like K Lal, someone whose translations are used in the refutation, who is an actual Sanskrit professor, is an apologist. 

 

 

Addressing the next desperate attempt :

  Reveal hidden contents

Again, desperate to protect his fragile ego, the other poster google-searches and finds that Vivekananda stated that Hindus ate beef before.  As noted above, the guy lacks even basic ability to follow his own argument.

 

Note: 

Sw. Vivekananda was not a historian nor did he make any translations of the Vedas himself. He is hardly qualified to speak on history, and his words regarding history aren't given weight as fact. He is also not the definitive voice on the Sanskrit language. 

Also Note:

Vivekananda isn't someone where what he says/his interpretations of issues are taken as word or fact by Hindus. He isn't above a Sw. Dayananda Saraswati or a Sw. Aurobindo Ghosh, or any other rishi/yogi/guru/swami.  Vivekananda has his adhikara to speak his mind, but there isn't any reason to think his words here hold any particular weight, especially considering he never actually got a Vedic education.  If one were to argue from a Vedic perspective, a swami/rishi/guru/yogi who was actually trained in the Vedic tradition is far more reputable than a Vivekananda, who was trained in a more heterodox pathway. 

   

Vivekananda had a number of statements which most Hindus wouldn't agree with such as his Hinduism was anti-idolatry phase or he supposedly believed Aryans came from the North into India and had "White complexion, straight nose, blue eyes, black or brown hair."  None of those statements are factual or supported (then again the poster in question told me I was an African because I am a "Shudra", so that shows a "different" level of critical thinking he has ).  

 

It's also strange that the same so-called "Atheist" thinks that Vivekananda is unbiased and not an apologist because he agrees with his preconceived opinion, but anyone who disagrees with Vivekananda, namely multiple swamis and Sanskrit scholars are Hindu "apologists" and must necessarily be wrong, lest this guy is wrong and his fragile ego is hurt.    

 

What's even more funny, if one was to take the other poster's nonsense seriously, and take Vivekananda's assertions at face value, his own original argument would be wrong: what Vivekananda actually said essentially refutes the original argument this other poster was trying to make. Unfortunately, the other poster is so desperate to save-face in the argument, he is using a quote which refutes what he was originally arguing. 

 

My quote, criticizing Islamic imperialism:

which seemed to trigger this "Atheist" to engage in apologia. 

Now look at Vivekananda's quote:

Summary: Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, but that was stopped as it was wrong. 

 

If a someone wants to take Vivekananda at his word so much, then one will have to accept that Hindus only ate beef multiple millennia ago, and that his Islamic brethren, who he engaged in apologia for here, brought it back to India. 

 

His statements like "eating beef was old/common culture" stand exposed as farcical (not that there was any doubt of that).    

 

Wait for the mental gymnastics:
"the parts of Vivekananda's quote which support my preconceived notion are valid, but the parts which don't aren't because otherwise I would be wrong".   

 

Poor guy still thinks of Hinduism through his Islamic-jaundiced eyes where the ramblings of some desert dude are sacrosanct for all of mankind and for all of eternity, not realizing that Hindus don't view their "religion" that way. Even if it were the case that Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, and it's clear that this guy lacks any ability to show that this was the case, that has no bearing on the views of the Dharma today where it is roundly forbidden. Furthermore, even if all the Shankaracharyas in India tomorrow stated that eating beef was now okay in Hinduism, it doesn't change the fact that, despite his continued apologia for his Islamic brethren and continued obfuscation of their bigotry and genocide in the subcontinent, it was they who have created this issue. 

 

 

(1) You blamed Jha for being marxist. But it was not about Jha being marxist or not, but about the "evidences" he brought. Since he used Müller's translation, therefore question went forward. 

(2) Now you criticized Müller for having an agenda against Hinduism and thus translating false.

(3) But problem was this that Wilson also translated the same thing. Now your accusation went further against Wilson too that he got the agenda against Hinduism.

(4) But I showed you another Translation of Griffith. 

Surely Griffith was ignored and no answer was given about him, despite I mentioning him clearly.

And as usual, if any answer comes, then he will be accused of having agenda too against Hinduism. 

(5) And then I pointed out that the translation of two Hindu translators were themselves CONTRADICTORY. Thus both could not be correct at the same time. 

But again this fact was ignored completely and was not answered. 

Then I gave the detailed reason that this kind of “interpretation” is often made by translators who cannot reconcile to the idea that some people who lived 3500 years ago could have been eating beef. But to my mind such interpretations are only a creative curtain over something that the translator does not personally agree with. 

 

Let us see once again:

 

 

 

 

The verse above in question is Rig Veda (5/29/8). 

According to Wilson's translation, 300 buffaloes were consumed. 

While Dayannad came up with translation that it "protects three hundred buffaloes". 

While Prakash/Satyakam came up with translation of 300 "fields" and "forests" of people. 

 

Why the author didn't notice this contradiction between Dayannad and Prakash/Satyakam?

Why you didn't notice this contradiction between them while presenting it here as evidence?

 

Contrary to this, I pointed out the Translation of Griffith too, which is present online. Let us see it:

 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rig_Veda/Mandala_5/Hymn_29

Griffith (5/29/8):
When thou three hundred buffaloes' flesh hadst eaten, and drunk, as Maghavan, three lakes of Soma, All the Gods raised as 'twere a shout of triumph to Indra praise because he slew the Dragon.

 

Again Griffith is supporting the translation of Wilson. But wait, again Griffith will also be blamed to be having an agenda against the Hinduism by you. 

 

In 2004, the United States' National Endowment for the Humanities provided funding to Joel Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison as project directors for a new original translation to be issued by Oxford University Press. Let us see their translation of this verse (link):

 

Joel Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison Rig-Veda (5/29/8)

 

Now translation by Joel Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison is also supporting Wilson and Griffith. But wait, I think the gentlemen here once again will this time declare Joel Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison to be having an agenda against the Hindu Religion. 

 

But problem is this that Indra is found to be eating beef at several other places too:

 

Rigveda Mandal 10, Hymn 86 verses 13 and 14 (above pic)

• Indra will eat your oxen.
• They cook fifteen, twenty oxen at a time for Indra for Indra eat only the fat meat.

And here is the translation by Griffith (Rig Veda 10/86/13 and 14 (link):

13. Wealthy Vrsakapayi, blest with sons and consorts of thy sons, Indra will eat thy bulls, thy dear oblation that effecteth much. Supreme is Indra over all.

14. Fifteen in number, then, for me a score of bullocks they prepare, And I devour the fat thereof: they fill my belly full with food. Supreme is Indra over all.

 

And now let's see another place where Bull is being offered to Indra

This is Ralph T.H. Griffith translation, Rigveda Mandal 10 Hymn 104 verse 3 (above pic)

• To make Indra start a drought a Bull was offered to Indra.

 

And at another place in Rig Veda, we find:

Ralph T.H. Griffith translation, Athraveda Book 9 Hymn 4 and verse 18

• All Gods promote Brahman who offers Bull in sacrifice.

 

That is why Vivekananda also confirmed that in that Era Beef was consumed in Hindu Religion. 

 

Vivekaananda was presented here while at least he does not have the accusation of having an agenda against the Hindu Dharam like all other non-Indians (Muller, Wilson, perhaps Griffith  and perhaps Joel Brereton/Stephanie W. Jamison too). 

 

Since it was not possible to blame Vivekananda for having agenda, thus next excuse was made that Vivekananda said that later the  earlier laws were abrogated in Smrities, and thus today beef should not be consumed. 

 

Please note that our discussion was eating of meat in the Rig Veda and not the later coming times Smrities, which is entirely other topic. Thus opinion of Vivekananda about later time in no way contradict the fact about consumption of beef in Rig-Veda. And his accepting this fact means that the translations by the Western people were accurate, while it automatically means that Dayannad and Prakash/Satyakam type translators are wrong, while they denied eating of beef in Rig Veda in their translations (which is more an interpretation of their own leanings than the translation). 

 

Abrogations in Islam:

At this stage I remember Islam of Muhammad, which also comes up with excuse of "abrogation" when contradictory things were gathered in Quran and Hadith. 

 

Same thing happened when Christianity wanted to make pork halal, then Jesus also "abrogated" the prohibition of Judaism law, which stated pork was prohibited. Actually Jesus abrogated many laws of the Judaism and introduced new laws.  

 

But why? 

 

When the lore of Moses and the Jesus was the same, why then Lord sending one set of laws to Moses and another set of laws to Jesus?

 

It is due to the reason that none of these religions are from any Divine creature, but all of them are man made, and thus contain these human mistakes. 

 

How come that eating beef was so important that no Brahmin could have stayed Brahmin without eating it, and one was not a good hindu without eating the beef, and guests were served the best of bullock, but then it becomes prohibited and then it became blasphemy and then humans have to be punished and even killed in name of this blasphemy? 

 

Actually this contradiction was so big, that Vivekananda himself at different place asking this question in these words:

//It is improper to hold many texts on the same subject to be contradicted by one or two. But why then are the long-continued customs of Madhuparka and the like repealed by one or two such texts as, "The horse sacrifice, the cow sacrifice, Sannyasa, meat-offerings in Shrâddha", etc.? If the Vedas are eternal, then what are the meaning and justification of such specifications as "this rule of Dharma is for the age of Dvâpara," "this for the age of Kali", and so forth?^[Source]

//

 

 

Problem: Contradictions in Smrities:

 

Manusmriti, Chapter 5:

Direct Link along with Commentary of Manusmriti: 

 

30. The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten.

31. 'The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,' that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

32. He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed (the animal), or has received it as a present from others ...

35. When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths. ...

56. There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards.

 

 

So dear friends, whenever you see these abrogations and the contradictions in the so called eternal Divine Texts, then know that they are not divine, but they are human made.

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Alam_dar

[Tibarn]

20 hours ago, Moochad said:

 

 friendly suggestion, you are wasting your time with  the other guy...  

Don't punch down. 

 

I am not talking to the other guy, so why are you bothered? He is on his missionary agenda to "convert" Hindus to Atheism, I hardly care! He is free to his opinion on whatever he wants to have an opinion on. It is all wasted efforts by him IMO. 

 

I was only exposing his hypocrisy and bigotry in slurring Hindus! I will carry on, if it bothers you don't read!

Edited March 14, 2019 by Tibarn

[coffee_rules]

On 3/13/2019 at 12:21 PM, Tibarn said:

Shamelessness!!!.

 

Addressing his attempts to slur me 

  Reveal hidden contents

The desperate guy implies that I discredited DN Jha  simply because he is a Marxist. Unfortunately for him, I wasn't educated in some madrasa, unlike a lot of other people. I have shown multiple grounds of Jha and his book lacking credibility, none of which rely on him being a Marxist:

1) Jha himself doesn't know Sanskrit and he himself didn't translate the verses for his book.  

2) Jha relied on a "2nd degree" translation by a German Max Muller (languages are known to lose meaning when translated between each other).

3) Muller, who Jha relies on, and Muller's own publisher, themselves admitted his translation is conjectural (see the excerpt above).    

4) I showed an expose on this same "historian" Jha, where he was caught actively doctoring history before.  In a country with a reputable academic system, he would have been dismissed from any university affiliations. Unfortunately in India, we let these people carry-on endlessly. 

5) I show a page from the very book this clown is so reliant on where the "historian" blatantly lied. I show direct verses from the Rig and Yajur Veda which showed that he was lying . 

 

The above five points are sufficient to show that Jha isn't to be taken seriously. That Jha is a Marxist is tangential, but it also shows his own bias/agenda in writing such a shoddy book.

 

Of course, for this bigot, only Hindus can be biased, and Marxists, even when they lack any credibility, are to be taken at face value.  His lack of reading comprehension and lack of integrity tried to reduce my entire argument to "He is a Marxist", but, unfortunately, only his own lack of integrity and reading comprehension is exposed.  

 

Also note: this same mental-gymnast, in this very thread, said that "books aren't proof", yet his entire propaganda drive is reliant on a single pair of books, neither of which he has read, written by a single author. 

 

(Translation of this: books shift from haraam to halaal when convenient for me). 

Attempts to slur Hindus in general 

  Reveal hidden contents

He then, again showing his bigotry, slurs any translations by Sanskrit-educated Hindus themselves, despite the peer-review by other people trained in Sanskrit, as the work of agenda-driven "Hindu apologists" (again take note that this bigot takes the Sanskrit-illiterate Jha at his word, but slurs everyone else as agenda-driven: this again shows his lack of even basic integrity. If he was truly neutral, he would be critical of Jha as well, but we all know he has an agenda).

 

(Of course this is the same guy who advocated for discrimination against Hindus in general (and Brahmins in particular) because of historical injustices done by the Brahmins to Dalits, all the while vomiting across multiple threads on "humanity"). (Also note: he simultaneously doesn't support discrimination against Muslims in India, despite the far greater level of genocide, murder, discrimination, slavery, rape et al done by his beloved quom in the sub-continent. It looks like to me, that the "Atheist" is an Islamist in disguise: modern day Brahmins should pay for discrimination done by their ancestors, but discrimination by Muslims should be forgiven, even if the later was to a far greater degree than the former).    

 

Unfortunately for him, any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit knowledge/Vedas aren't based on agreeing with him! Any stated qualifications for studying Sanskrit usually involve studying under learned scholars themselves and usually encompasses multiple domains: 

 

It doesn't look like any of those fall under the category of agreeing with an Islam-apologist. 

 

Imagine being so blinded by hatred,  like this guy is, that he has the nerve to discredit numerous Hindu Sanskrit scholars by slurring them as "apologists", simply for being Hindu and not agreeing with his preconceived ideas.  I am sure that none of the Hindus, likely some of them trained in the above are not credible.  

 

I am sure the translation he relies upon, by a German Christian, was done by someone with training in the above. Oh wait, the same translator admitted himself his translation was conjectural.  

 

On the other hand, someone like K Lal, someone whose translations are used in the refutation, who is an actual Sanskrit professor, is an apologist. 

 

 

Addressing the next desperate attempt :

  Reveal hidden contents

Again, desperate to protect his fragile ego, the other poster google-searches and finds that Vivekananda stated that Hindus ate beef before.  As noted above, the guy lacks even basic ability to follow his own argument.

 

Note: 

Sw. Vivekananda was not a historian nor did he make any translations of the Vedas himself. He is hardly qualified to speak on history, and his words regarding history aren't given weight as fact. He is also not the definitive voice on the Sanskrit language. 

Also Note:

Vivekananda isn't someone where what he says/his interpretations of issues are taken as word or fact by Hindus. He isn't above a Sw. Dayananda Saraswati or a Sw. Aurobindo Ghosh, or any other rishi/yogi/guru/swami.  Vivekananda has his adhikara to speak his mind, but there isn't any reason to think his words here hold any particular weight, especially considering he never actually got a Vedic education.  If one were to argue from a Vedic perspective, a swami/rishi/guru/yogi who was actually trained in the Vedic tradition is far more reputable than a Vivekananda, who was trained in a more heterodox pathway. 

   

Vivekananda had a number of statements which most Hindus wouldn't agree with such as his Hinduism was anti-idolatry phase or he supposedly believed Aryans came from the North into India and had "White complexion, straight nose, blue eyes, black or brown hair."  None of those statements are factual or supported (then again the poster in question told me I was an African because I am a "Shudra", so that shows a "different" level of critical thinking he has ).  

 

It's also strange that the same so-called "Atheist" thinks that Vivekananda is unbiased and not an apologist because he agrees with his preconceived opinion, but anyone who disagrees with Vivekananda, namely multiple swamis and Sanskrit scholars are Hindu "apologists" and must necessarily be wrong, lest this guy is wrong and his fragile ego is hurt.    

 

What's even more funny, if one was to take the other poster's nonsense seriously, and take Vivekananda's assertions at face value, his own original argument would be wrong: what Vivekananda actually said essentially refutes the original argument this other poster was trying to make. Unfortunately, the other poster is so desperate to save-face in the argument, he is using a quote which refutes what he was originally arguing. 

 

My quote, criticizing Islamic imperialism:

which seemed to trigger this "Atheist" to engage in apologia. 

Now look at Vivekananda's quote:

Summary: Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, but that was stopped as it was wrong. 

 

If a someone wants to take Vivekananda at his word so much, then one will have to accept that Hindus only ate beef multiple millennia ago, and that his Islamic brethren, who he engaged in apologia for here, brought it back to India. 

 

His statements like "eating beef was old/common culture" stand exposed as farcical (not that there was any doubt of that).    

 

Wait for the mental gymnastics:
"the parts of Vivekananda's quote which support my preconceived notion are valid, but the parts which don't aren't because otherwise I would be wrong".   

 

Poor guy still thinks of Hinduism through his Islamic-jaundiced eyes where the ramblings of some desert dude are sacrosanct for all of mankind and for all of eternity, not realizing that Hindus don't view their "religion" that way. Even if it were the case that Hindus ate beef many millennia ago, and it's clear that this guy lacks any ability to show that this was the case, that has no bearing on the views of the Dharma today where it is roundly forbidden. Furthermore, even if all the Shankaracharyas in India tomorrow stated that eating beef was now okay in Hinduism, it doesn't change the fact that, despite his continued apologia for his Islamic brethren and continued obfuscation of their bigotry and genocide in the subcontinent, it was they who have created this issue. 

 

Next time I will post direct evidence that it was Islamic bigotry and imperialism which was the root cause of the whole beef-issue in the subcontinent!  

 

Waste of time debating who are using the translations of Western Indologists like Griffith.   To all those trying to malign Vedic litreture. 

 

http://www.vedicgranth.org/misconceptions-on-vedas

 

Quote

In due course the falsehood spread far and wide and they became even more deep rooted when western scholars with their half baked knowledge of Sanskrit transliterated (and not translated from the original text) these interpretations of commentaries of Sayan and Mahidhar, in the name of translating the Vedas.

However, they lacked the pre-requisite understanding of Shiksha (Phonetics), Vyakarana (Grammar), Nirukta (Philology), Nighantu (Vocabulary), Chhanda (Prosody), Jyotish (Astronomy), Kalpa and so on that are critical for correct interpretation of the Vedas.

To give a ready example on how Vedas has been misinterpreted by Sayan, Mahidhar, Bhattacharya, Prof. Max Muller, Ralph TGH Griffith, Monier Williams, Maurice Bloomfield and other like minded scholars, the following verse of of RigVeda (8.48.3) is presented:-

"a ápāma sómam amŕtā abhūmâganma jyótir ávidāma devân c kíṃ nūnám asmân kṛṇavad árātiḥ kím u dhūrtír amṛta mártyasya"

Griffith translates thus "We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered. Now what may foeman’s malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man’s deception? The Ninth Mandala of the Rigveda is known as the Soma Mandala. It consists entirely of hymns addressed to Soma Pavamana (“purified Soma”)."

Let’s see the correct translation as per the Rishis:
Nirukta (the greatest authority on the translation of the Vedas) 4/3/13/44 has described the Soma as medicine promoting long life and youthful strength. The colour of Soma has been said of Harit Varna or green colour (yellow or tawny as per Wikipedia).
Sushrut (termed as father of Ayurveda medicine and surgery) in his Chikitsa Sthanvarti Chapter 8 has given 24 divisions of Soma. He has also termed Soma as the destroyer of old age and death (etymologically meaning promoting long life and youthful strength).
Nirukta Bhashya 5/1/3/13 and Rig Veda 10/89/6 have described Soma as a peaceful natured Soul.
Nirukta Bhashya 5/1/3/13 and Rig Veda 9/107/9 have described Soma as cow’s milk.
Similarly, Nirukta Bhashya 11/1/10/7 describes Soma as moon.
Now let’s see the translation of the above mantra as per Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati in line with Nirukta Bhashya. This mantra describes the advantages of grain eating.
“(Soma) Oh Lord! (apam) We drink the juice of the grain. (amritah abhum) We become amrit i.e. have long life; (jyotih aganm) we strive to achieve bodily strength and eternal glow; (avidaam) may we achieve (devaan) the strength of our senses; (kin krinvat) what can (asman) our (aratih) internal enemies do to us (noonam) in this condition? (amrit) Oh deathless Ish or God! (kim) what can (dhurtih) violent and (martasya) murderous people do to me?”
The ninth Mandala of Rig Veda describes the peaceful qualities of the almighty and not as stated by Griffith.

 

http://www.vedicgranth.org/misconceptions-on-vedas/misconception-3---violence-against-animals-meet-eating-etc

 

Quote

A) Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
Fact: The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring. The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberately not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form. How can a cow killed in winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant and biased communists malign Vedas.

B) Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.” (translation by Avatar Gill and group)

Fact: The mantra states that brilliant scholars enlighten the world in the manner that wood enhances the fire of Yajna. We fail to understand from where did Avtar Gill and his friends discover Indra, cow, calf, horse and buffalo in this mantra! Also, there is a word "Gavyam", which are five in numbers according to Aayurved-cow's milk, curd, butter, Mutra and Apashisht. Where does the flesh come into the picture? Mantra clearly says that the king should be well built through Saatvik bhojan like Ghrit, so that he can defend his country and kill the monsters.

C)  Manusmriti contains violence against animals

Fact:- Unfortunately, most of the vedic texts in the last 1000 years have been adulterated. Though much work has been done in cleansing these texts in the last 100 years, still the adulterated ones remain in circulation. These adulterated texts are great source of misconceptions. Purana and Bhaagvat (not bhagvad geeta) is perhaps the most adulterated (we doubt even its basic writing as many portions of it are Avedic), which is beyond repair. Any reference to such cannot be taken as proof of Vedic Granth containing barbarism.

 

Example, you would come accross some reference from adulterated Manusmriti, containing Violence against animals like:-

 

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

These are additional shlokas are either from adulterated Manu Smriti or misinterpreted by twisting of words. We recommend them to read Manu Smriti by Dr Surendra Kumar which is available from http://vedicbooks.com 

 

D) Ramayan contains Violence in Ashwamedha

Fact:- The Ramayan we get today is a much interpolated text. Many verses have been added later on and that can be checked with a close scrutiny. The Uttar Ramayan, which contains the reference to Ashwamedha, can be proved to be a later addition by even a layman. No mantra in Vedas refer to any form of animal sacrifice. All those mantras which are alleged to have animal sacrifice, can be easily proved to mean something else, if we look at context and root meanings of the words, as used in ancient texts of grammar and vocabulary. Many of these come from misinterpretation from translations of Sayana and Mahidhar who were born in around 15th century. These translations were then publicized by western indologists. But if you look at ancient translations, and references in other books like Shatpath, Nirukta, Nighantu etc, one can easily understand the truth. Infact, Ashwamedha means efforts to make nation better and has nothing to do with horse.
 

E) Some Hindu Philosophers have told that Hinduism permit meat eating 

Fact:- Many people quote those, who may be good though one subject (like Yoga) but may not have credible understanding of the Vedas. These quotations are widely used to prove that Vedas prescribe barbaric things like Violence against animals and women, etc but the users of these quotations are unable to provide real proofs (directly from the Vedas and Vedic Granth). Also, we are not sure that these people have really made such comments or not:-

• Swami Vivekanand said: “You will be surprised to know that according to ancient Hindu rites and rituals, a man cannot be a good Hindu who does not eat beef”. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, vol.3, p. 536).
• Mukandilal writes in his book ‘Cow Slaughter – Horns of a Dilemma’, page 18: “In ancient India, cow-slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. Bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Vedi’ (alter).”
• A scholar of scriptures Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, “Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beef-eating because of its purity”. (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180)
• Adi Shankaracharya’ commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen.
• The book ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’, published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay and edited by renowned historian R.C.Majumdar (Vol.2, page 578) says: “this is said in the Mahabharat that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily in order to give their meat in charity”.

 

Some translators have fallen prey to wrong interpretation of the language. A typical example of foul play by some hell-bent on justifying their obsession with beef in ancient texts, is to translate Mansa as ‘meat’. In reality, ‘Mansa’ is a generic word used to denote pulp. Meat is called ‘Mansa’ because it is pulpy. So mere presence of ‘Mansa’ does not mean it refers to meat.

Now, lets see, how a pure mind would read the following lines from Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) by Maharishi Yagyavalkya:-  “I eat Mansa because it is very soft and delicious.” Infact, reading the whole passage containing this verse, one would know that the passage is factually opposing meat eating.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

quoting western sources on translations is something I've done in the past and i shy away from it now. Infact, i tend to quote the linguistic experts who hail from the same language family for dead languages, as i've found that foreign translators, no-matter how good, tend to completely miss the idioms. 

I don't speak more than 3 words of Gujrati. Yet if i understand the 'maru mathum na kha' as 'don't eat my head', i instantly KNOW this is an idiom, because i speak a language ( two actually) from the same family and i can see the idomatic structure to it. 
I do not expect a Chinese speaker to tell that it is an idiom and not an idiotic phrase inserted in the middle of a serious prose as readily, especially if its a dead language.

This is why when it comes to Sanskrit or Latin, i tend to go with the translators that have a native tongue in the same language sub-family. Yes, this has objectivity bias - most arabs are not keen to translate arabic words with 'harsh, not so harsh and polite' meanings in the Koran to the 'harsh one' instantly, but IMO, these biases are easier to spot than the gibberish of missed idioms. 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Muloghonto

[Moochad]

21 hours ago, Tibarn said:

I am not talking to the other guy, so why are you bothered? He is on his missionary agenda to "convert" Hindus to Atheism, I hardly care! He is free to his opinion on whatever he wants to have an opinion on. It is all wasted efforts by him IMO. 

 

I was only exposing his hypocrisy and bigotry in slurring Hindus! I will carry on, if it bothers you don't read!

Chill yaar, 

 

I am only saying that if you keep seeing someone isn't giving evidence, then there is no reason to even passively engage. 'Propagandists' look for chances to propagandize only. They have decided beforehand and will selectively answer or avoid to answer questions. Zyaada verbose response ka necessity nahi hai. They will stick their fingers in their ears and close out all other information or opinions.    

[Alam_dar]

In Rig-Veda lot of versions leave out lines 5-9 in book 10 hymn 61. (Did Ralph T.H. Griffith forget to translate them?)

here is how the newly released 3-volume Oxford University Press translation of the Rig Veda renders these verses 

 

 

This is a reference to the story of how Brahma attempted to commit incest with his daughter Saraswati, and to stop him Shiva cut off Brahma'a fifth head.

Here is what the Shatapatha Brahmana of the Yajur Veda says about these verses:

Pragâpati conceived a passion for his own daughter... 'May I pair with her!' thus (thinking) he united with her. This, assuredly, was a sin in the eyes of the gods. 'He who acts thus towards his own daughter, our sister, [commits a sin],' they thought. The gods then said to this god who rules over the beasts (Rudra), 'This one, surely, commits a sin who acts thus towards his own daughter, our sister. Pierce him!' Rudra, taking aim, pierced him. Half of his seed fell to the ground. And thus it came to pass. Accordingly it has been said by the Rishi with reference to that (incident), 'When the father embraced his daughter, uniting with her, he dropped his seed on the earth.'

Griffiths also omitted parts of Rig Veda Book 10 Hymn 86. So here is the new Oxford translation's rendering of the hymn.

 

 

What would you say about this? 

Are you ok with believing in these stories to be really from gods? 

It is difficult for me to believe such fantasy stories in which gods are doing those things which even normal sensible mortal human beings would not do. 

 

But before I arrive to any final conclusion for myself, I want to hear from you your side of arguments. 

[Alam_dar]

13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Waste of time debating who are using the translations of Western Indologists like Griffith.   To all those trying to malign Vedic litreture. 

http://www.vedicgranth.org/misconceptions-on-vedas/misconception-3---violence-against-animals-meet-eating-etc

Quote

A) Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
Fact: The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring. The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberately not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form. How can a cow killed in winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant and biased communists malign Vedas.

 

 

I already answered it in my post above (link). 

 

To me, this source is very dubious and it is fabricating claims and proofs at it's own, and thus absolutely not trustworthy. 

 

For example, the next claim by him (as you posted above):

Quote

B) Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.” (translation by Avatar Gill and group)

Fact: The mantra states that brilliant scholars enlighten the world in the manner that wood enhances the fire of Yajna. We fail to understand from where did Avtar Gill and his friends discover Indra, cow, calf, horse and buffalo in this mantra! Also, there is a word "Gavyam", which are five in numbers according to Aayurved-cow's milk, curd, butter, Mutra and Apashisht. Where does the flesh come into the picture? Mantra clearly says that the king should be well built through Saatvik bhojan like Ghrit, so that he can defend his country and kill the monsters.

Now it is a totally false claim while the Verse Rigveda (6/17/1) is totally different and has nothing to do with this subject:

 

Griffith (link) Rigveda (6/17/1):

1. DRINK Soma, Mighty One, for which, when lauded, thou breakest through the cattle-stall, O Indra;
     Thou who, O Bold One, armed with thunder smotest Vrtra with might, and every hostile being.

I don't know from where did come the issue of beef here. 

Nevertheless, there are many verses in Rigveda about Indra and beef, which I presented above. But neither this writer, nor any one of you, answered these verses:

 

I am talking about these verses:

 

 Oxford University Press (link):

 

Joel Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison Rig-Veda (5/29/8)

 

Indra is found to be eating beef at several other places too:

 

Rigveda Mandal 10, Hymn 86 verses 13 and 14 (above pic)

• Indra will eat your oxen.
• They cook fifteen, twenty oxen at a time for Indra for Indra eat only the fat meat.

 

And now let's see another place where Bull is being offered to Indra

This is Ralph T.H. Griffith translation, Rigveda Mandal 10 Hymn 104 verse 3 (above pic)

• To make Indra start a drought a Bull was offered to Indra.

 

And at another place, we find:

Ralph T.H. Griffith translation, Athraveda Book 9 Hymn 4 and verse 18

• All Gods promote Brahman who offers Bull in sacrifice.

 

I wished that the writer have taken the original verses, and then answered them directly. 

 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

@coffee_rules, then the writer came up with this excuse about Mansmrit:

Quote

C)  Manusmriti contains violence against animals

Fact:- Unfortunately, most of the vedic texts in the last 1000 years have been adulterated. Though much work has been done in cleansing these texts in the last 100 years, still the adulterated ones remain in circulation. These adulterated texts are great source of misconceptions.

Do you really believe in this excuse? 

 

There are so many things wrong in it, for example it states that Manusmriti was distorted only about 1000 years ago. 

But the rules and laws about Caste System in Hinduism are present even before the time of Buddha (over 2000 years), due to which he severely criticized this system and refused to accept these laws. 

If you come up with excuse that Manusmriti was altered 1000 years ago, then you will be left with no answer about the caste system in Hindu Religion. 

 

And another objection will come upon the God. What type of powerless and useless creature is God that people altered and distorted His words, and then in his name make millions of low caste people their prey of tyranny, even killing them for small crimes, but God kept on sitting idle and sent no Rishi or another god to correct them. 

 

You are born in this religion. It may be that you could still accept such creature as God. But it is extremely difficult for non-Hindu people to accept such creature as God. 

 

In fact, logical and sensible Hindus would themselves question it. Like Buddah questioned the religion and revolted against such things which he was unable to digest. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Alam_dar

[mishra]

14 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

In Rig-Veda lot of versions leave out lines 5-9 in book 10 hymn 61. (Did Ralph T.H. Griffith forget to translate them?)

here is how the newly released 3-volume Oxford University Press translation of the Rig Veda renders these verses 

 

 

This is a reference to the story of how Brahma attempted to commit incest with his daughter Saraswati, and to stop him Shiva cut off Brahma'a fifth head.

Here is what the Shatapatha Brahmana of the Yajur Veda says about these verses:

Pragâpati conceived a passion for his own daughter... 'May I pair with her!' thus (thinking) he united with her. This, assuredly, was a sin in the eyes of the gods. 'He who acts thus towards his own daughter, our sister, [commits a sin],' they thought. The gods then said to this god who rules over the beasts (Rudra), 'This one, surely, commits a sin who acts thus towards his own daughter, our sister. Pierce him!' Rudra, taking aim, pierced him. Half of his seed fell to the ground. And thus it came to pass. Accordingly it has been said by the Rishi with reference to that (incident), 'When the father embraced his daughter, uniting with her, he dropped his seed on the earth.'

Griffiths also omitted parts of Rig Veda Book 10 Hymn 86. So here is the new Oxford translation's rendering of the hymn.

 

 

What would you say about this? 

Are you ok with believing in these stories to be really from gods? 

It is difficult for me to believe such fantasy stories in which gods are doing those things which even normal sensible mortal human beings would not do. 

 

But before I arrive to any final conclusion for myself, I want to hear from you your side of arguments. 

Bollocks. Is there Hindi translation similar to that. Let me put some basics of Hindu scripture into this discussion.

 

1. In Hinduism, The written text came quite late so everything is written as if Sage A said that in some day and Age Sage B said that he heard Sage C was telling story in which Character A Said that Character B blows bubblegum. So above translation fails in that regards. Shoddy work

2. In Hinduism, Gods Brahmins and sages can get angry on small stuff and punishment is disproportionate. To put it simple, you might be burned into hell etenally for disrespectful behaviour, where disrespectful means you were busy in your family routine and missed welcoming a sage/god. Only if some god intervened and reduced the sentencing by giving you a way out, you have a chance else you are done.

3. Why above story is bollocks, because ancient Supreme God shiva (IMO he is well above rest as ancient and supreme probably he represented fertility) was punished with his penis cut off. Why, there is enough info available on internet. So someone attempting rape will be given unimaginable pain and death for eternity and castigated for good. The punishment Brahma recived sounds in line with accidental misogynistic behaviour towards her daughter. So i am certain that Hindi text will have this as “disrespectful behaviour towards women”.  English translation has turned “disrespectful” into “dishonourable” and then dishonourable into “rape”. I.e bought punishment in line with crime in western society/scriptures.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by mishra

[coffee_rules]

Troll Alert!

Edited March 16, 2019 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/indian-muslims-ready-to-give-up-claims-on-babri-mosque-1.1563180589456

Quote

Muslim leaders have made two key demands.

“One, they want the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to be made watertight by a guarantee from the Supreme Court. This law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947,” one leader said.

Not gonna happen. They are trying to protect Mathura and Kashi to be reverted back.