Modi government likely to bring bill to prevent religious conversion in next Parliament session

[Alam_dar]

48 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

the boast isn’t that we produced more scientists, which we did. The boast is ALL eastern religions are inherently more open to scientific principles and this is embedded in the creationist legends as well in general doctrine of the religion, which doesn’t hold creation myths as absolute, nor does it say it is absolute.

 

 

just like Ancient Greek religions promoted science more than Christian doctrine did and their priests and churches didn’t issue fatwas or try to execute copernicus etc, neither does the non abrahamic schools.

 

It may be that Hinduism was more open than (only) Abrahamic religions when it comes to sciences, but still the achievements of ancient Hindu scientists has nothing to do with Hindu religious texts. 

 

While ancient Greeks and Romans were not behind (if not ahead) of ancient Indian scientists, although they didn't follow the so called Asian branch of religions. But here conveniently Mulo neglected his claims of West vs East thing. 

 

And present day non-religious West is much more open to science than Hinduism and thus they were able to make thousands of times more scientific inventions than Hindus (including the ancient ones). 

 

And Mulo criticizes creationist legends of Abrahamic religions, but hides this fact that Hindus also followed the Creationist Theories which were described in their religious Hindu books. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

so what. That is a factor of the west having its 500 year period where its ever exceeded Asia.The sum total of Christian scientists is orders of magnitude greater in their contribution to modern math, Industrial Age and such than your  believers in atheism.

 

This 500 years of period is not Europe vs Asia thing as Mulo represent it, but the "BASE" is this that Europe got rid of Church and it's power, it became practically Non-Religious, and only after that it was able to do much more scientific discoveries than Hindu or any other Asian society. 

 

Again the Christian Scientists of last 500 years were very much "non-religious" in nature and they never attributed their scientific discoveries to Bible or Church.

 

And gradually this non-religious tendency converted into total liberation from Christianity and transforming into Atheism in this last century. Today, 97% of American Scientists believe in Theory of Evolution and deny the creationism. 

 

[Alam_dar]

  

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

I boast the supremacy of ALL non abrahamic religions over the abrahamic class of dualist religions. You keep running away from the fact that I have classed all the dharmic religions and asiatic religions seperate from abrahamic religions and you abrahamic apostate is engaging in typical dishonest discussion by saying I am just talking about Hinduism. 

 

What modern day Atheists have to do with Abrahamic religions that you constantly put the blame of sins of Abrahamic religions upon them, and make it a Western Atheist vs Eastern Atheist thing? 

 

Your stupidity is this that you first prove the excellence of Hindu religion upon the Abrahamic religion, and then start claiming that Hinduism also thus have excellence upon the present day Western non-Religious society, including the Western Atheists. 

 

Off course ancient Hindu religion and it's teachings has no excellence upon the present day non-Religious Society of the West and Atheism, but Hinduism is totally outdated and has thousands of flaws like caste system and it was totally men-made religion but deceived people by claiming itself to be divine from gods and goddesses. 

 

Quote

by Muloghonto:

Your atheism is also man made drama. 

 

Off course Atheims is also man made.

But the difference is this that Atheism never deceive the people by claiming it to be from any divine source. But Hinduism is the same as Abrahamic religions in this case, and it indeed deceives people by claiming itself of having a divine origin. 

 

That is why I have been telling it to you that you are making a mistake when you come up with "prophet in Abrahamic religions" and try to prove that Hinduism is anything better while it does not have prophets. And I tell you it does not make any difference while Hinduism is also a man made religion just like Abrahamic religions, and it also deceives people in name of divinity just like the Abrahamic religions do. 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Proof please.

the hundreds of articles are written exclusively by the westerners and their western history educated chamchaas. Manusmriti is one of the least mentioned books in primary sources of Indian history, religion and such. Not even the Buddhists or Jains mention it in their critiques. Less than 1 in a 1000 Hindu has a copy of knows of it. 
 

parroting colonial propaganda won’t get you far. 

 

This is another  big deception of the modern Hindu apologists that they put the blame of Hindu Caste System upon the British people. 

 

British people have nothing to do with Caste System in Hindu society. 

 

And Manusmriti was not revealed directly upon the British people in India. But reality is this that Manusmriti only gathered the laws of Hindu Society which existed thousands of years years ago (before Britishers came to India). That is why we see no criticism upon Manusmriti and it's caste system by early Hindu Scholars, but all of them followed the same caste system as was mentioned in the Manusmriti. 

 

Not only Manusmriti, but there exists no other Smriti which denies the Caste System. 

 

Therefore, Britishers are not the criminals here by only translating Manusmriti, but Hindus of last thousands of years are themselves the criminals here, while they followed the brutal Caste System at their own.  

 

Britishers were not present 2000 years ago, but Buddha was criticising the brutal caste system of India even 2000 years ago. Thus later coming Buddhist generations totally revolted against any so called caste system, and totally demolished it. But it were Hindus themselves who kept on clinging to this brutal system at their own later on. And now Hindu apologists want to put all the blame upon the Britishers. 

[Alam_dar]

  

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

be s respectful of homosexuality, ex Muslim.

don’t equate homosexuality as pedophilia like you homophobes do.

 

I said OFFICIAL GLORIFICATION OF PEDOPHILIA. EROMENOS. This in the ancient world is an unique invention of Greek barbarians and their Roman copy cat Chamchaas. No other civilization has legal texts or literature condoning pedophilia amongst its elites before the Greek scum. through the entire ancient period it was just the Greek and Roman scum that glorified it. Only in middle of medieval period do we hear of it from another set of barbarian genocidal scum culture : the Turks. 

 

What modern Atheists and modern Western society has to do with Paedophilia? 
 

What an insane person Mulo is, while he first mention the paedophilia of Romans, and then put it's blame upon modern Western society. 

 

And another problem is this that present day religious Hindus also don't agree with Homosexuality and consider it a disease too. RSS was ahead in opposing it when the secular Indian judiciary was trying to give a judgement in it's favour. 

 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

Paedophilia in Hindu Religious Texts:

 

And how can Mulo prove the excellence of Hindu society over the modern non-religious Western society, when paedophilia is itself present in Hindu society and India is at top in child marriage in whole world? 

 

Upon that Hindu apologists always come up with a lame excuse that Hindus started marrying their daughters at minor age in order to keep them safe from the Muslim attackers. 

 

But this excuse does not hold any value while Hindu society practiced the marriage of minor girls long before the arrival of Muslims. All the Smritis and other Hindu religious books describe this minor girl marriage. 

 

 

 

Manu Smriti 9.94 A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

 

Manu Smriti 9.88 To a distinguished, handsome suitor (of) equal (caste) should (a father) give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not attained (the proper age).

 

Parasara Smriti 7.5-6 When the twelfth year is reached by the female child, if the guardian does not give her away in marriage, her fore-fathers drink, without interruption, during each succeeding month, whatever blood is passed in her courses. The mother, and the father, and likewise the eldest brother, all these three relatives will go to hell, if before menstruation they neglect to marry the girl.

 

Padma Prana VI.118.2-15 “…A man should marry his daughter as long as she has not attained puberty. Wise men recommend a girl’s marriage when she is eight years old…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krishna Janma Khanda 76.43-52 “…Whoever having decorated his virgin daughter aged eight years with apparel reverentially makes a gift of her to a good Brahmin, reaps the benefits of the gift of Durga.” Tr. Rajendra Nath Sen

 

Yama Samhita verse 22 “The father, who does give away [in marriage] his maiden-daughter after she has attained the twelfth year, drinks her menstrual blood, month after month.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Samvarta Samhita verses 66-68 “[A maiden] eight years [old] becomes Gouri; one of nine years a Rohini; and of ten years, a Kanya (maiden); and after that, a Rajasvala (a woman in menses). By seeing a maiden in menses, her mother, father and eldest brother these three go to hell. Therefore one should espouse a maiden before she has menstruated; the marriage of an eight years old maiden is most preferrable.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Vishnu Smriti 24.41. A damsel whose menses begin to appear (while she is living) at her father’s house, before she has been betrothed to a man, has to be considered as a degraded woman: by taking her (without the consent of her kinsmen) a man commits no wrong.

 

Gautama Dharmashastra 18.21 A girl should be given in marriage before (she attains the age of) puberty.

 

Baudhayana Dharmashastra, Prasna 4, Adhyaya 1.11 Let him give his daughter, while she still goes naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep (the maiden) in (his house) after she has reached the age of puberty”

 

Vasishtha Dharmashastra 17.70 ‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays (in the house) after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father”

 

Mahabharata13.44.13 “A person of thirty years of age should wed a girl of ten years of age called a Nagnika. Or, a person of one and twenty years of age should wed a girl of seven years of age.” Tr. K.M. Ganguli

 

Vishnu Purana 3.10.16 “If he marry, he must select a maiden who is of a third of his age.” Tr. H.H. Wilson

Padma Purana II.85.62-66a ”…Wise men get married their unmarried daughter(s). As long as she does not menstruate (i.e. does not attain puberty)…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Padma Purana II.47.47-65 “…The father should keep his daughter in his house till she becomes eight years old. He should not keep a strong (i.e. grown up) one. Both the parents get the (fruit of the) sin which a daughter, living in her father’s house, commits…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Garuda Purana chapter 95 “…”The relations of a girl incur the sin of wilfully creating a miscarriage, or of killing a foetus in the even of their failing to give her away in marriage before she has commenced to menstruate. A girl is liberty to make her own choice, and to be united with a husband, in the absence of any such relation to give her away in marriage…” Tr. M.N. Dutt

 

Brahmanda Purana 2.3.19.11 “Many sons should be sought so that at least one would go to Gaya, one shall marry a girl of the Gauri type (i.e. of eight years or one who is a virgin) or one shall discharge a Nala (? lean like a red) bull.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Vayu Purana 21.12 “…It is better to wish for many sons. At least one of them will go to Gaya or marry a girl eight years old or discharge a blue ox (free to wander).’ [15] Brhaspati said: A son begot after marrying after marrying a girl of eight years sanctifies twenty one generations. Moreover, he sanctifies six generations in the family of his maternal uncle. This is remembered as the benefit (of such marriage).” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Kisari Mohan Ganguli writes,

“Vrishalipati literally means the husband of a Sudra woman. By actually marrying a woman of the lowest order, by marrying before the elder brother, by marrying a girl that has attained to puberty, and by certain other acts, a Brahmana comes to be regarded as a Vrishalipati.” On Mahabharata 13.126 www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b091.htm

Vyasa Samhita 2.2-4 “…of auspicious signs, clad in silken garments, and not above eight years of age, and whose paternal ancestors to the tenth degree in the ascending line were all men of renown, should be solemnly wedded by a (twice-born) according to religious rites, if preferred in marriage. [7] The sin incidental to (an act of) procuring abortion (lie: destruction of the foetus) is committed, if through the negligence of her giver a girl menstruates before her marriage. He, who does not give away a daughter in marriage before she attains puberty, becomes degraded.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Skanda Purana VII.I.205.80-86 “If a girl, before being consecrated by marriage rites, has her menses in the house of her father, her Pitrs become fallen and that girl is called Vrsali. If a Brahmana knowingly marries that girl, they say, he is not fit for a Sraddha. He cannot be in the same row as others. He is a Vrsalipati. Gauri virgin is the best and most important. Rohini is considered as Madhyama (middling). Rajasvala should be known as the bases though equal to her (Rohini) image. When there is no menstrual flow, she is Gauri. When there is the flow she is Rohini. If the girlhood has not fully developed she is Kanya. One without breasts is Nagnika. A seven year old girl is Gauri; nine year old is Nagnika. Ten year old shall be Kanya; above that she is Rajasvala. Through breasts she spoils the family of her father and through menstrual flow, she spoils the desirable goal (salvation) and pleasures of the other worlds of her father. He who marries one with menstrual flow should be known as Vrsalipati.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Devi Bhagavatam 9.41.26-47 “The World-Mother never stays even for a moment in his house who eats at the house of one who marries an unmarried girl twelve years old in whom menstruation has commenced…” Tr. Swami Vijnananda

 

(link). 

[mishra]

51 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Paedophilia in Hindu Religious Texts:

 

And how can Mulo prove the excellence of Hindu society over the modern non-religious Western society, when paedophilia is itself present in Hindu society and India is at top in child marriage in whole world? 

 

Upon that Hindu apologists always come up with a lame excuse that Hindus started marrying their daughters at minor age in order to keep them safe from the Muslim attackers. 

 

But this excuse does not hold any value while Hindu society practiced the marriage of minor girls long before the arrival of Muslims. All the Smritis and other Hindu religious books describe this minor girl marriage. 

 

 

 

Manu Smriti 9.94 A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

 

Manu Smriti 9.88 To a distinguished, handsome suitor (of) equal (caste) should (a father) give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not attained (the proper age).

 

Parasara Smriti 7.5-6 When the twelfth year is reached by the female child, if the guardian does not give her away in marriage, her fore-fathers drink, without interruption, during each succeeding month, whatever blood is passed in her courses. The mother, and the father, and likewise the eldest brother, all these three relatives will go to hell, if before menstruation they neglect to marry the girl.

 

Padma Prana VI.118.2-15 “…A man should marry his daughter as long as she has not attained puberty. Wise men recommend a girl’s marriage when she is eight years old…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krishna Janma Khanda 76.43-52 “…Whoever having decorated his virgin daughter aged eight years with apparel reverentially makes a gift of her to a good Brahmin, reaps the benefits of the gift of Durga.” Tr. Rajendra Nath Sen

 

Yama Samhita verse 22 “The father, who does give away [in marriage] his maiden-daughter after she has attained the twelfth year, drinks her menstrual blood, month after month.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Samvarta Samhita verses 66-68 “[A maiden] eight years [old] becomes Gouri; one of nine years a Rohini; and of ten years, a Kanya (maiden); and after that, a Rajasvala (a woman in menses). By seeing a maiden in menses, her mother, father and eldest brother these three go to hell. Therefore one should espouse a maiden before she has menstruated; the marriage of an eight years old maiden is most preferrable.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Vishnu Smriti 24.41. A damsel whose menses begin to appear (while she is living) at her father’s house, before she has been betrothed to a man, has to be considered as a degraded woman: by taking her (without the consent of her kinsmen) a man commits no wrong.

 

Gautama Dharmashastra 18.21 A girl should be given in marriage before (she attains the age of) puberty.

 

Baudhayana Dharmashastra, Prasna 4, Adhyaya 1.11 Let him give his daughter, while she still goes naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep (the maiden) in (his house) after she has reached the age of puberty”

 

Vasishtha Dharmashastra 17.70 ‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays (in the house) after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father”

 

Mahabharata13.44.13 “A person of thirty years of age should wed a girl of ten years of age called a Nagnika. Or, a person of one and twenty years of age should wed a girl of seven years of age.” Tr. K.M. Ganguli

 

Vishnu Purana 3.10.16 “If he marry, he must select a maiden who is of a third of his age.” Tr. H.H. Wilson

Padma Purana II.85.62-66a ”…Wise men get married their unmarried daughter(s). As long as she does not menstruate (i.e. does not attain puberty)…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Padma Purana II.47.47-65 “…The father should keep his daughter in his house till she becomes eight years old. He should not keep a strong (i.e. grown up) one. Both the parents get the (fruit of the) sin which a daughter, living in her father’s house, commits…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Garuda Purana chapter 95 “…”The relations of a girl incur the sin of wilfully creating a miscarriage, or of killing a foetus in the even of their failing to give her away in marriage before she has commenced to menstruate. A girl is liberty to make her own choice, and to be united with a husband, in the absence of any such relation to give her away in marriage…” Tr. M.N. Dutt

 

Brahmanda Purana 2.3.19.11 “Many sons should be sought so that at least one would go to Gaya, one shall marry a girl of the Gauri type (i.e. of eight years or one who is a virgin) or one shall discharge a Nala (? lean like a red) bull.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Vayu Purana 21.12 “…It is better to wish for many sons. At least one of them will go to Gaya or marry a girl eight years old or discharge a blue ox (free to wander).’ [15] Brhaspati said: A son begot after marrying after marrying a girl of eight years sanctifies twenty one generations. Moreover, he sanctifies six generations in the family of his maternal uncle. This is remembered as the benefit (of such marriage).” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Kisari Mohan Ganguli writes,

“Vrishalipati literally means the husband of a Sudra woman. By actually marrying a woman of the lowest order, by marrying before the elder brother, by marrying a girl that has attained to puberty, and by certain other acts, a Brahmana comes to be regarded as a Vrishalipati.” On Mahabharata 13.126 www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b091.htm

Vyasa Samhita 2.2-4 “…of auspicious signs, clad in silken garments, and not above eight years of age, and whose paternal ancestors to the tenth degree in the ascending line were all men of renown, should be solemnly wedded by a (twice-born) according to religious rites, if preferred in marriage. [7] The sin incidental to (an act of) procuring abortion (lie: destruction of the foetus) is committed, if through the negligence of her giver a girl menstruates before her marriage. He, who does not give away a daughter in marriage before she attains puberty, becomes degraded.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Skanda Purana VII.I.205.80-86 “If a girl, before being consecrated by marriage rites, has her menses in the house of her father, her Pitrs become fallen and that girl is called Vrsali. If a Brahmana knowingly marries that girl, they say, he is not fit for a Sraddha. He cannot be in the same row as others. He is a Vrsalipati. Gauri virgin is the best and most important. Rohini is considered as Madhyama (middling). Rajasvala should be known as the bases though equal to her (Rohini) image. When there is no menstrual flow, she is Gauri. When there is the flow she is Rohini. If the girlhood has not fully developed she is Kanya. One without breasts is Nagnika. A seven year old girl is Gauri; nine year old is Nagnika. Ten year old shall be Kanya; above that she is Rajasvala. Through breasts she spoils the family of her father and through menstrual flow, she spoils the desirable goal (salvation) and pleasures of the other worlds of her father. He who marries one with menstrual flow should be known as Vrsalipati.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Devi Bhagavatam 9.41.26-47 “The World-Mother never stays even for a moment in his house who eats at the house of one who marries an unmarried girl twelve years old in whom menstruation has commenced…” Tr. Swami Vijnananda

 

(link). 

BSDK, Do MC Ganguli or yourself understand what Gauri represents. Its nothing to do with your fetish with virginity. Girls till that age are goddess Gauri.

Also, while there was Swamvar for adult women, concept of getting married at young age actually is similar to engagement. Girl never went to husbands house. Even then, parents decided when "Gauna" took place. If marriage happened at young age Gauna took place after 5yr-7yr later. So Muslim influence is there.

Name one character from Hinduism who got married young age or one character who could be regarded as pedophile.

 

Now marriage after menstrual cycle was allways regarded as correct (but not immediate, about 16+ years age. Girl has to be mentally so old that she can be responsible to run house). 18 year is modern scientific overpopulating worlds legal requirement, else even as recent as now, all the prince charmings were pedophile.

Edited January 15, 2021 by mishra

[vayuu1]

Paedophilia in Hindu Religious Texts:
 
And how can Mulo prove the excellence of Hindu society over the modern non-religious Western society, when paedophilia is itself present in Hindu society and India is at top in child marriage in whole world? 
 
Upon that Hindu apologists always come up with a lame excuse that Hindus started marrying their daughters at minor age in order to keep them safe from the Muslim attackers. 
 
But this excuse does not hold any value while Hindu society practiced the marriage of minor girls long before the arrival of Muslims. All the Smritis and other Hindu religious books describe this minor girl marriage. 
 
 
 

Manu Smriti 9.94 A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

 

Manu Smriti 9.88 To a distinguished, handsome suitor (of) equal (caste) should (a father) give his daughter in accordance with the prescribed rule, though she have not attained (the proper age).

 

Parasara Smriti 7.5-6 When the twelfth year is reached by the female child, if the guardian does not give her away in marriage, her fore-fathers drink, without interruption, during each succeeding month, whatever blood is passed in her courses. The mother, and the father, and likewise the eldest brother, all these three relatives will go to hell, if before menstruation they neglect to marry the girl.

 

Padma Prana VI.118.2-15 “…A man should marry his daughter as long as she has not attained puberty. Wise men recommend a girl’s marriage when she is eight years old…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krishna Janma Khanda 76.43-52 “…Whoever having decorated his virgin daughter aged eight years with apparel reverentially makes a gift of her to a good Brahmin, reaps the benefits of the gift of Durga.” Tr. Rajendra Nath Sen

 

Yama Samhita verse 22 “The father, who does give away [in marriage] his maiden-daughter after she has attained the twelfth year, drinks her menstrual blood, month after month.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Samvarta Samhita verses 66-68 “[A maiden] eight years [old] becomes Gouri; one of nine years a Rohini; and of ten years, a Kanya (maiden); and after that, a Rajasvala (a woman in menses). By seeing a maiden in menses, her mother, father and eldest brother these three go to hell. Therefore one should espouse a maiden before she has menstruated; the marriage of an eight years old maiden is most preferrable.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Vishnu Smriti 24.41. A damsel whose menses begin to appear (while she is living) at her father’s house, before she has been betrothed to a man, has to be considered as a degraded woman: by taking her (without the consent of her kinsmen) a man commits no wrong.

 

Gautama Dharmashastra 18.21 A girl should be given in marriage before (she attains the age of) puberty.

 

Baudhayana Dharmashastra, Prasna 4, Adhyaya 1.11 Let him give his daughter, while she still goes naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep (the maiden) in (his house) after she has reached the age of puberty”

 

Vasishtha Dharmashastra 17.70 ‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays (in the house) after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father”

 

Mahabharata13.44.13 “A person of thirty years of age should wed a girl of ten years of age called a Nagnika. Or, a person of one and twenty years of age should wed a girl of seven years of age.” Tr. K.M. Ganguli

 

Vishnu Purana 3.10.16 “If he marry, he must select a maiden who is of a third of his age.” Tr. H.H. Wilson

Padma Purana II.85.62-66a ”…Wise men get married their unmarried daughter(s). As long as she does not menstruate (i.e. does not attain puberty)…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Padma Purana II.47.47-65 “…The father should keep his daughter in his house till she becomes eight years old. He should not keep a strong (i.e. grown up) one. Both the parents get the (fruit of the) sin which a daughter, living in her father’s house, commits…” Tr. N.A. Deshpande

 

Garuda Purana chapter 95 “…”The relations of a girl incur the sin of wilfully creating a miscarriage, or of killing a foetus in the even of their failing to give her away in marriage before she has commenced to menstruate. A girl is liberty to make her own choice, and to be united with a husband, in the absence of any such relation to give her away in marriage…” Tr. M.N. Dutt

 

Brahmanda Purana 2.3.19.11 “Many sons should be sought so that at least one would go to Gaya, one shall marry a girl of the Gauri type (i.e. of eight years or one who is a virgin) or one shall discharge a Nala (? lean like a red) bull.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Vayu Purana 21.12 “…It is better to wish for many sons. At least one of them will go to Gaya or marry a girl eight years old or discharge a blue ox (free to wander).’ [15] Brhaspati said: A son begot after marrying after marrying a girl of eight years sanctifies twenty one generations. Moreover, he sanctifies six generations in the family of his maternal uncle. This is remembered as the benefit (of such marriage).” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Kisari Mohan Ganguli writes,

“Vrishalipati literally means the husband of a Sudra woman. By actually marrying a woman of the lowest order, by marrying before the elder brother, by marrying a girl that has attained to puberty, and by certain other acts, a Brahmana comes to be regarded as a Vrishalipati.” On Mahabharata 13.126 www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b091.htm

Vyasa Samhita 2.2-4 “…of auspicious signs, clad in silken garments, and not above eight years of age, and whose paternal ancestors to the tenth degree in the ascending line were all men of renown, should be solemnly wedded by a (twice-born) according to religious rites, if preferred in marriage. [7] The sin incidental to (an act of) procuring abortion (lie: destruction of the foetus) is committed, if through the negligence of her giver a girl menstruates before her marriage. He, who does not give away a daughter in marriage before she attains puberty, becomes degraded.” Tr. Manmatha Nath Dutt

 

Skanda Purana VII.I.205.80-86 “If a girl, before being consecrated by marriage rites, has her menses in the house of her father, her Pitrs become fallen and that girl is called Vrsali. If a Brahmana knowingly marries that girl, they say, he is not fit for a Sraddha. He cannot be in the same row as others. He is a Vrsalipati. Gauri virgin is the best and most important. Rohini is considered as Madhyama (middling). Rajasvala should be known as the bases though equal to her (Rohini) image. When there is no menstrual flow, she is Gauri. When there is the flow she is Rohini. If the girlhood has not fully developed she is Kanya. One without breasts is Nagnika. A seven year old girl is Gauri; nine year old is Nagnika. Ten year old shall be Kanya; above that she is Rajasvala. Through breasts she spoils the family of her father and through menstrual flow, she spoils the desirable goal (salvation) and pleasures of the other worlds of her father. He who marries one with menstrual flow should be known as Vrsalipati.” Tr. G.V. Tagare

 

Devi Bhagavatam 9.41.26-47 “The World-Mother never stays even for a moment in his house who eats at the house of one who marries an unmarried girl twelve years old in whom menstruation has commenced…” Tr. Swami Vijnananda

 

(link). 

Perhaps this can help you

https://www.google.com/amp/s/primitivehindu.wordpress.com/2019/07/19/response-to-pedophilia-in-hinduism/amp/

Sent from my vivo 1601 using Tapatalk

[coffee_rules]

@Alam_darStop peddling distorted translations of texts by some western Indologists who have no knowledge of word etymology in Sanskrit. Do you know how many vulgur interpretations of Vedas there are from western writers? None of them are authentic. Even if they are in those texts. Nobody has codified it like hadiths and followed, get it? 
 

Again, one last time, Dharma is not religion, religious duties are part of Dharma. There is no preaching of it to gain numbers, if people are doing they are not following Dharma.  The scientific advancement of our people is not from religious texts , who is claiming that? It is from the free thinking that was allowed in our civilization (again not religion, Sanskriti is not religion) . It is futile to have religious debates with an ill-informed person, a keyboard warrior googling stuff in the night of sites that spew half baked knowledge. Read real books and listen to real people. Peace

[Alam_dar]

46 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_darStop peddling distorted translations of texts by some western Indologists who have no knowledge of word etymology in Sanskrit. Do you know how many vulgur interpretations of Vedas there are from western writers? None of them are authentic. Even if they are in those texts. Nobody has codified it like hadiths and followed, get it? 

 

I am afraid that blame could not be shifted upon the "Western Indologists" and their translations, while same laws are present in the 2000 years old written religious Hindu books, and were accepted by Hindus themselves and were not contested for thousands of years by Indian society itself. 

 

For example, the writer/writers of Manusmriti, who came much before Western Indologists, they understood the same as present day Western Indologists are understanding. 

 

This is the Direct Link to Manusmriti and it's ancient commentary by Medhātithi, and translated by Hindu Indologist  Ganganath Jha (Verse 9:88).... i.e. Western Indologists have nothing to do with either Manusmriti, nor with it's ancient commentary, nor with it's translation:

 

उत्कृष्टायाभिरूपाय वराय सदृशाय च ।
अप्राप्तामपि तां तस्मै कन्यां दद्याद् यथाविधि ॥ ८८ ॥

utkṛṣṭāyābhirūpāya varāya sadṛśāya ca |
aprāptāmapi tāṃ tasmai kanyāṃ dadyād yathāvidhi || 88 ||

One shall give his daughter in the proper form, even though she may not have attained (the age), to a bridegroom who is of exceptionally distinguished appearance, and her equal.—(88)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘She who has not attained’;—i.e., who has no carnal desires aroused, who is still too young, not having reached the youthful age,—called ‘nagnikā’ in another Smṛti-text; i.e., one in whom the sexual instinct has not arisen, who is only eight or six years old,—but not a mere infant; as is indicated by the qualifications (elsewhere)—‘one who is eight years old.’

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Aprāptām’—‘Who has not attained the marriageable age,’ (Medhātithi and Rāghavānanda);—‘who has not attained eight years of age’ (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.88-89)

Gautama (18-21).—‘A girl should be given in marriage before puberty.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.70).—‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses, let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays in the home after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father.’

Baudhāyana (4. 1.11).—‘Let him give his daughter, while she still goes about naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep the maiden in his house after she has reached the age of puberty.’

 

 

Same is true with Manusmriti (Verse 9:94):

 

त्रिंशद्वर्षो वहेत् कन्यां हृद्यां द्वादशवार्षिकीम् ।
त्र्यष्टवर्षोऽष्टवर्षां वा धर्मे सीदति सत्वरः ॥ ९४ ॥

 

triṃśadvarṣo vahet kanyāṃ hṛdyāṃ dvādaśavārṣikīm |
tryaṣṭavarṣo'ṣṭavarṣāṃ vā dharme sīdati satvaraḥ || 94 ||

 

A man thirty years old shall marry a charming maiden twelve years old; or one twenty four years old, a damsel eight years old; in the event of his duties suffering, he may do it sooner.—(94)

 

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 766), which says that the following is the upshot of the texts bearing on this subject:—If the age of the girl is 8 years or less, she should be married to a man whose age is three times that of hers; if it is between 8 and 12, the age of the bidegroom should two and a half times;—if her age is between 12 and 16 then that of the bridegroom shall be two years less than the double of her age.

 

 

Comparative notes by various authors:

 

Mahābhārata (13.41.14).—‘One who is thirty or twenty-one years old shall take a wife sixteen years old, but before she has attained puberty.’

 

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 766).—‘A man shall select a wife whose age is one-third of his own.’

 

Yama (Do.)—(Same as Manu.)

 

Āpastamba (Do., p. 767).—‘A man thirty-years old shall take a wife ten years old, before she has attained puberty; and one twenty-one years old, a girl seven years old.’

 

Āśvalāyana (Do.).—‘A maiden seven years old is called Śaiśavī; a man eighteen years of age shall marry her; a maiden eight years old is called Gaurī, conducive to richness of sons and grandsons; and she shall be married by a man twenty-five years old; a girl nine years old is called Rohiṇī conducive to richness of wealth; a wise man shall wed her for the accomplishment of all his desires; a girl over ten years age, until she has her courses, is called Gāndhārī; and she shall be married by a man desirous of living long.’

 

 

So, as you could see that all these are the translations and understandings of Hindu Scholars themselves and has nothing to do with the Western Indologists or their translations or their understandings. 

 

Due to these Hindu religious texts, the child marriage was present in the Indian society thousands of years before the arrival of Britishers (or even Muslims). 

 

[Alam_dar]

1 hour ago, mishra said:

BSDK, Do MC Ganguli or yourself understand what Gauri represents. Its nothing to do with your fetish with virginity. Girls till that age are goddess Gauri.

 

Mishra Sahib, please don't get angry upon me. 
 

I am copying here only what has been written by early Hindu Scholars themselves. So, this could not be denied by presenting the excuse of Western Indologist's translation or understanding. 

 

For example, this is what Hindu Scholars themselves understand from GAURI, as has been stated in above post (link):

 

Āśvalāyana (Do.).—‘A maiden seven years old is called Śaiśavī; a man eighteen years of age shall marry her; a maiden eight years old is called Gaurī, conducive to richness of sons and grandsons; and she shall be married by a man twenty-five years old; a girl nine years old is called Rohiṇī conducive to richness of wealth; a wise man shall wed her for the accomplishment of all his desires; a girl over ten years age, until she has her courses, is called Gāndhārī; and she shall be married by a man desirous of living long.’

 

 

1 hour ago, mishra said:

Also, while there was Swamvar for adult women, concept of getting married at young age actually is similar to engagement. Girl never went to husbands house. Even then, parents decided when "Gauna" took place. If marriage happened at young age Gauna took place after 5yr-7yr later. So Muslim influence is there.

 

Mishra Sahib, you have only made a claim, without any Proof. 

 

Actually your claim is going against Logic too. Why is it necessary to engage a girl before the age of puberty, if she has to be married after 7 years? 

Actually, your claim is going against the Hindu sacred texts, as I stated above:

 

Vaśiṣṭha (17.70).—‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses, let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays in the home after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father.’

 

Baudhāyana (4. 1.11).—‘Let him give his daughter, while she still goes about naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep the maiden in his house after she has reached the age of puberty.’

 

1 hour ago, mishra said:

Name one character from Hinduism who got married young age or one character who could be regarded as pedophile.

 

I don't think names of Characters are needed when other parts of sacred texts makes the age of marriage clear. 

 

By the way, there indeed exist the names too, but modern Hindu apologists have come up with excuses for the first time in this century. 

[coffee_rules]

@Alam_dar Presence of Medhatiti doesn't prove it was practiced to the spirit. The commentary of Medhatiti is not part of any religious text. It was probably written in the 9th century CE.  If Manusmriti is supposedly still followed according to you haters, why is it that there is no mention of it it in any contemporary text. There is no reference to it by any foreigner visiting India and writing about India - Persians, Europeans. You don't make up stories by showing some inane links from google. Nobody has seen the Manusmriti in it's originality, Not all manuscripts written in Sanskrit become religious text. Sanskrit has a lot of litreture - plays, books, commentary, it was a language for writers 2000 years ago. We don't chant Manusmriti or Medhatiti commentary in temples. So, don't rig this thread with your google searched links. This is about safeguarding from vulture religions of Islam and Christianity in reducing our status to museums like it is for European Pagans and ME Pagans.

 

The Child marriage is marriage of under-age kids, not an excuse of pedophilia as your sick unread mind thinks.  Of course, since it is not ensured, there are cases of adult men marry under-age girls like any society. I am not justifying child marriage, it was a pratha followed by Hindus to safguard their interests (save dowry or property reasons). Rightfully, it has eased out of our society, still followed in rural areas. Nobody in rural areas are following it because it is said in Manusmriti. Caste system / Varna vyavastha - has mentions in earlier texts predating Munsmrithi. It was based on prefessions and it became rigid in this millennia. Don't keep harping on the same old discussions in every thread, GTFO and open your own for disucssion whatever you want.   

[Alam_dar]

14 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

@Alam_dar Presence of Medhatiti doesn't prove it was practiced to the spirit. The commentary of Medhatiti is not part of any religious text. It was probably written in the 9th century CE.  If Manusmriti is supposedly still followed according to you haters, why is it that there is no mention of it it in any contemporary text. There is no reference to it by any foreigner visiting India and writing about India - Persians, Europeans. You don't make up stories by showing some inane links from google. Nobody has seen the Manusmriti in it's originality, Not all manuscripts written in Sanskrit become religious text. Sanskrit has a lot of litreture - plays, books, commentary, it was a language for writers 2000 years ago. We don't chant Manusmriti or Medhatiti commentary in temples. So, don't rig this thread with your google searched links. This is about safeguarding from vulture religions of Islam and Christianity in reducing our status to museums like it is for European Pagans and ME Pagans.

 

The Child marriage is marriage of under-age kids, not an excuse of pedophilia as your sick unread mind thinks.  Of course, since it is not ensured, there are cases of adult men marry under-age girls like any society. I am not justifying child marriage, it was a pratha followed by Hindus to safguard their interests (save dowry or property reasons). Rightfully, it has eased out of our society, still followed in rural areas. Nobody in rural areas are following it because it is said in Manusmriti. Caste system / Varna vyavastha - has mentions in earlier texts predating Munsmrithi. It was based on prefessions and it became rigid in this millennia. Don't keep harping on the same old discussions in every thread, GTFO and open your own for disucssion whatever you want.   

 

The reference of Medhatiti (or Manusmriti itself) was given so that this excuse from the modern Hinduism apologists come to an end, where they put deny every thing and put whole blame upon the Western Indologists and their translation. 

 

And then Ganganath Jha and others gave the alternative reference of what was mentioned in Manusmriti  i.e. reference to same thing in other Hindu sacred texts too like Mahabharata, other Simritis, Dharmashastra and Puranas etc. 

 

And  Manusmriti is itself authentic and was accepted by Hindu Society. Earlier Hindu Scholars for thousands of years didn't deny Manusmriti, and didn't refute it and didn't blame it to be against Hindu Religion. Had Manusmriti contained teachings and laws against Hindu Society and Hindu Religion, then earlier Hindus would have objected to it. 

 

And if you see the online commentary of verses of Manusmriti about caste system, child marriage, women ....... then we find a lot of "alternative references" to the verses of Manusmriti in the other sacred Hindu books like Mahabhrata, other smritis, puranas, dharmashastras ..... and all this once again a proof that Manusmriti was considered authentic by the earlier Hindu society. 

 

For foreigners, Hindu religion was very complex to understand. All of them mentioned about the caste system, but it was difficult for them to have authority upon all the Hindu sacred books, and then to explain all that to the non-Indian world. 

 

 

 

 

[mishra]

3 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

 

 

I don't think names of Characters are needed when other parts of sacred texts makes the age of marriage clear. 

 

By the way, there indeed exist the names too, but modern Hindu apologists have come up with excuses for the first time in this century. 

No,

The reason you dont and cant get one example is because if anything whatever social custom claim some author is making is simple  misinterpretation by Mofo. It could also of editorial mistake and may have been corrected in new editions.  Once again Which personality of Mahabharata was married to a child?  Which mythical personality was married to underage. If anything, what is English term for "Gauri"? Can you find in oxford dictionary? Could it be limitation to English language?

 

Now , In the same upnishads, Its written get absorb good things but what is deemed wrong, you can ignore. Now why people claim Islam brought it. Why not christianity, Because there is difference. between Social Custom, Admistrative mnadate, Peoples mandate, Legal and Religious mandate,

 

Once again Paedophile could be any where but there is difference in Islamic world. Look at Muslim World, Since days of Prophet Muhhamed who himself consumed 9 year old Aisha, Islamic world is plagued with  pedophilia. Forget Lybia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan Afghanistan, Indonesia,  even in 2020 despite getting educated and brought up in west with western values, Mosyt Muslim men are looking for Muhammeds mandated Aisha in their life. You and Muslim world should be ashamed for it. And you know what, thats the reason why you keep briging such subject. Because you too suffer from  sick mentality

Edited January 15, 2021 by mishra

[coffee_rules]

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

The reference of Medhatiti (or Manusmriti itself) was given so that this excuse from the modern Hinduism apologists come to an end, where they put deny every thing and put whole blame upon the Western Indologists and their translation. 

 

There is no denying of Manusmriti from Hindus. The Medhatiti commentary proves it. What is concocted as the modern caste system that Brits enforced is not the version in that text. It is not the same practice as the varna system, it has been widely distorted first by Western Indologists, then Marxist Historians, Commies, and now Sub-altern liberals. It has been made to believe that every Hindu Brahmin had this text in the house and worshipped it. That is not the case, is all the debate it. There has many religious hymns, commentaries, preaches by medieval Indian thinkers in all languages which has criticized the discrimination based on the jaathi system - starting from Shankaracharya, Basavanna, Ramanujacharya, Purandaradaasa, and whole lot of thinkers from the Bhakti movement. So, reform from whatever was followed was the path to follow. Then came westerners and took over the narrative of the jaathi system to justify their colonial rule, that is all distorted from then on. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And then Ganganath Jha and others gave the alternative reference of what was mentioned in Manusmriti  i.e. reference to same thing in other Hindu sacred texts too like Mahabharata, other Simritis, Dharmashastra and Puranas etc. 

Nobody knows this guy, he is not well known thinkers of Hindu community.  It has only popped up with your google search hit. 

 

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And  Manusmriti is itself authentic and was accepted by Hindu Society. Earlier Hindu Scholars for thousands of years didn't deny Manusmriti, and didn't refute it and didn't blame it to be against Hindu Religion. Had Manusmriti contained teachings and laws against Hindu Society and Hindu Religion, then earlier Hindus would have objected to it. 

There is no proof it was followed to it's spirit, otherwise there will other texts referring to it (contemporarily), Foreign accounts don't refer to any such script that the society is following. All your conclusions are delusional reading the narrative from marxist westerners pov.

 

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And if you see the online commentary of verses of Manusmriti about caste system, child marriage, women ....... then we find a lot of "alternative references" to the verses of Manusmriti in the other sacred Hindu books like Mahabhrata, other smritis, puranas, dharmashastras ..... and all this once again a proof that Manusmriti was considered authentic by the earlier Hindu society. 

All reaching out to people like you get search hits. None of them are authentic translations. 

 

14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

For foreigners, Hindu religion was very complex to understand. All of them mentioned about the caste system, but it was difficult for them to have authority upon all the Hindu sacred books, and then to explain all that to the non-Indian world. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaathi is not the rigid caste, they didn't do their HW or deliberately wanted to show the ills of the society so the colonial rule can be justified

[diga]

Lamerod spouts his BS in every thread about Hinduism... his intention is to derail the thread from what the OP created to something which is just pure BS about Hinduism.  

 

 

[coffee_rules]

10 hours ago, Under_Score said:

Sadly caste system was for the sole benefit of one caste whom my Lingayat friends from B'lore used to mention as 'Kall Bramana'  

 

Yes, blame the bada brahmana for all the wealth that Lingayats and Gowdas have acquired. Go look at who owns lands in India, most are what as called upper caste non-Brahmins, but the title for patriarchy is Brahminical Patriarchy. In kar, it is mostly Gowdas and Lingayats, even political power too. 

[coffee_rules]

4 minutes ago, Under_Score said:

Another reason I was really upset with Bammans in Blore was that they were the sole reason for jacking up the meat price with all the hidden purchase through the back door 

 

Classic casteists comebacks. Khalistanis are learning from their gora masters and pakistani dada.

What about videsi daaru?

Edited January 15, 2021 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It may be that Hinduism was more open than (only) Abrahamic religions when it comes to sciences, but still the achievements of ancient Hindu scientists has nothing to do with Hindu religious texts. 
 

ok. Then when it comes to sciences,  western philosophy has nothing to do with contribution of their scientists if Hindu philosophy has nothing to do with sciences.

Quote

 

While ancient Greeks and Romans were not behind (if not ahead) of ancient Indian scientists, although they didn't follow the so called Asian branch of religions. But here conveniently Mulo neglected his claims of West vs East thing. 
 

ahead ?! We invented every single thing seen in Greco-Roman sciences before them. Pythagorean theorem came in India before, so did we in virtually everything according to first hand evidence. Those who couldn’t even count properly and did inferior Greco Roman numerals were ahead ?! Your western colonialists brainwashes u good about their superiority.

 

Maybe you should ACTUALLY READ the primary classical era greek sources where there are MANY greek authors who are in awe of the hindu scientific and mathematical knowledge. 

We are afterall, the first in the world to invent modern university system - something your abrahamic barbarian invaders genocided out of existence in less than 10 years. 

Quote

 

And present day non-religious West is much more open to science than Hinduism and thus they were able to make thousands of times more scientific inventions than Hindus (including the ancient ones). 
 

 

false association. If the west was much open to sciences than Asia, they wouldn’t be be behind us in every discovery till 500 years ago. They pulled ahead due to the printing press leading to far easier accumulation of knowledge.

Quote

 

And Mulo criticizes creationist legends of Abrahamic religions, but hides this fact that Hindus also followed the Creationist Theories which were described in their religious Hindu books. 

 

state the creationist legend of the abrahamics vs the one from rig Veda. Tell us which is objectively more scientific in principle. 

Quote

 

 

This 500 years of period is not Europe vs Asia thing as Mulo represent it, but the "BASE" is this that Europe got rid of Church and it's power, it became practically Non-Religious, and only after that it was able to do much more scientific discoveries than Hindu or any other Asian society. 
 

nope. Europe did just fine with its incredible scientific discoveries right up to the 1900s, when every single scientist from there was religious. Their advance was due to printing press, not atheism. Bulk majority of western science discoveries were by theists - Newton, leibnitz, Boyle, Gauss, millions of others - god fearing men. 

 

Newton HIMSELF wrote that principia mathematica was inspired by his faith in God and Newton HIMSELF wrote that his crowning accomplishment wasnt principa mathemtica, but "Historical account of two notable corruption in scriptures".

IN HIS OWN WORDS.

 

Whats this nonsense about Europe being able to do scientific discoveries after they got rid of the church ??? The church was ABSOLUTE till 1930s and EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN MATHEMATICIAN, PHYSICIST, CHEMIST prior to this date and a LARGE PERCENTAGE AFTER THIS ( meaning, if you can do BASIC MATH, is the BULK MAJORITY OF European scientists of the last 500 years) were SELF PROFESSED BIBLICAN GOD BELIEVING MEN.  EVERY.SINGLE.ONE.OF.THEM. 

 

This isnt a speculation - this is from THEIR OWN SELF PROFESSION OF THEIR FAITH. Ergo, the bulk majority of industrial age scientists and their discoveries should be credited to CHRISTIAN scientists, as they were CHRISTIANS not atheists.

Quote

 

Again the Christian Scientists of last 500 years were very much "non-religious" in nature and they never attributed their scientific discoveries to Bible or Church.

 

tell that to Newton or Boyle or gauss, who have themselves credited their discoveries to their faith. 

Quote

And gradually this non-religious tendency converted into total liberation from Christianity and transforming into Atheism in this last century. Today, 97% of American Scientists believe in Theory of Evolution and deny the creationism. 

 

Western atheism. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

This is another  big deception of the modern Hindu apologists that they put the blame of Hindu Caste System upon the British people. 

 

British people have nothing to do with Caste System in Hindu society. 
 

so the people who classified the martial races, the subservient races and ruled over us has nothing to do with caste system. 
yet when we see first hand evidence of ancient India from foreigners, we see the caste system of india being the most fluid one in existence. 
explain to us then when we can’t blame the British when the before and after are such contrasts 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And Manusmriti was not revealed directly upon the British people in India. But reality is this that Manusmriti only gathered the laws of Hindu Society which existed thousands of years years ago (before Britishers came to India). That is why we see no criticism upon Manusmriti and it's caste system by early Hindu Scholars, but all of them followed the same caste system as was mentioned in the Manusmriti. 
 

 Again, a clever lie by the Hindu hater. I didn’t say manusmriti isn’t criticized in early Indian literature. I said it is BARELY MENTIONED in any Hindu literature or even by rival Buddhist or Jain literature. 
 

how the hell can a book be important if it isn’t even mentioned anywhere ?! 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Not only Manusmriti, but there exists no other Smriti which denies the Caste System. 
 

who cares ? It’s a smriti. It’s less important than the hadiths, let alone the Koran. 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Therefore, Britishers are not the criminals here by only translating Manusmriti, but Hindus of last thousands of years are themselves the criminals here, while they followed the brutal Caste System at their own.  
 

every single mention of caste system by foreign sources till 1000 years ago, show it to be the most fluid and lax class system of the world. So why are we to blame for its solidification under the British and Islamic genociders ?! 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Britishers were not present 2000 years ago, but Buddha was criticising the brutal caste system of India even 2000 years ago. Thus later coming Buddhist generations totally revolted against any so called caste system, and totally demolished it. But it were Hindus themselves who kept on clinging to this brutal system at their own later on. And now Hindu apologists want to put all the blame upon the Britishers. 

Except the Buddhists themselves do not mention manusmriti in ANY of the texts. They do criticize it but at the same time foreigners write how it’s the most lax system they have ever seen. 
 

as for clingin on- India has the most number of royalty ever in history of mankind who come from lower castes. That is objective first hand evidence 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

This is another  big deception of the modern Hindu apologists that they put the blame of Hindu Caste System upon the British people. 

 

British people have nothing to do with Caste System in Hindu society. 

You mean the people who were obsessed with classifying us as castes, spent millions of pounds of 19th century money to '' catalog and classify'' the castes, have nothing to do with caste ???

Is this why the pre-and post British arrival sees caste go from one of the most fluid social ladder systems in the world to the most locked in and tightly regulated one ??

Granted, the process wasnt invented by the British - it started to solidify mostly due to islamic genocides and poverty that came with it- but the brits accelerated its solidification immensely. 

Quote

 

And Manusmriti was not revealed directly upon the British people in India. But reality is this that Manusmriti only gathered the laws of Hindu Society which existed thousands of years years ago (before Britishers came to India). That is why we see no criticism upon Manusmriti and it's caste system by early Hindu Scholars, but all of them followed the same caste system as was mentioned in the Manusmriti. 

Ah hindu-hater, clever lie. I did not say the manusmriti finds no cricitism in other indian literature. I said it DOESNT FIND MENTION more than once or twice in the ENTIRE LIBRARY of hindu literature and ZERO mention in the entire body of jain and buddhist literature.

 

How can this book be important and defining if it FINDS NO MENTION ??

 

For example, we KNOW that the vedas are highly regarded in hinduism as THE cannonical literature - not only are there plenty of hindu texts that mention the vedas in their importance to hinduism, Buddhist and Jain critiques of Hinduism are FILLED with reference to the Vedas. This shows that the Vedas were important to the hindus:  Its the important literature that the followers and critics cite from opposing ends. We see the same for the Bible and the Koran - christian and muslim literature is FILLED with mention of the Koran/Bible as cannon and so too are their atheist or rival critics.

We see no such thing about the Manusmriti- whos mention in ANY Indian literature - Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Carvaka - is less than 5 times in total. 

So explain to us why it is important without citing the OPINION of your foreign gora masters.

 

Even the Islamist haters of native indian ideologies - who DO make fun of the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Vedas and mention some of them by NAME have never ever mentioned the manusmriti in their critiques. Ever. 

 

So how is this book important, if 99.99% of it dont know it today, there is less than 5 mentions of it in ANY text - both friendly and critical - for thousands of years in history ?????

 

 

 

Quote

 

Not only Manusmriti, but there exists no other Smriti which denies the Caste System. 

Ok. So what ???

These are smritis. Meaning less important than Hanafi or Hanbali writings, nevermind the hadiths or the koran. Why should caste system be need denial ? No one denied caste system in any culture till 100 years ago. 

Quote

 

Therefore, Britishers are not the criminals here by only translating Manusmriti, but Hindus of last thousands of years are themselves the criminals here, while they followed the brutal Caste System at their own.  

 

they are the criminals here for making an obscure, irrelevant book of history a defining book for us, just because it has the flood story in it and it gives them ammo to try and convert us. 

Quote

Britishers were not present 2000 years ago, but Buddha was criticising the brutal caste system of India even 2000 years ago. Thus later coming Buddhist generations totally revolted against any so called caste system, and totally demolished it. But it were Hindus themselves who kept on clinging to this brutal system at their own later on. And now Hindu apologists want to put all the blame upon the Britishers. 

 

falsehoods wont get you far. Buddhists themselves did not reject caste in practice, hence they have castes and all societies have caste. Even today, caste is coming back in the west - because caste is just another name for class system. Every society has it, every society lives by it and its a necessity of society. This necessity becomes a liability when the class sytem becomes locked by birth - which didnt happen to hinduism till at the earliest, 1000 AD. 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Muloghonto