Jump to content

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


vayuu1

Recommended Posts

7 hours 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.

manusmriti- an obscure irrelevant document. And zero mention in our legal and social books. Hence not prevalent or followed. Unlike with the pedo greeks and romans. 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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).

This is neither here nor there re: pedophilia. 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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

Again, smritis. Irrelevant books. 

Notice this is about women, who attain sexual maturity long before men do and this has ALL to do with sexual maturity - not CATEGORICALLY boasting about pedophilia of pre-pubescent kids like EROMENOS means. 

You cannot be an EROMENOS if you have attained puberty, by definition of the word in Greek. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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

This means nothing - has nothing to do with marriage or sex or whatever. 

 

7 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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). 

 

Yes, these talk about child marriages between children. A custom practiced by hindus for millenias and currently oulawed. Marrying children to each other is nowhere the same deal as boasting and normalizing raping pre-pubescent boys like the Greek barbarians did. 

Duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

  

 

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. 

 

Because its the modern western atheists promoting pedophilia today with their hormone blockers for children and mutilating healthy children in the name of transgender ideology and medical profit. hence the lowest of the low scum.  Its also western christian priests who are the runaway leaders in pedophiles getting busted.

 

ofcourse i will blame the west for its warts that it tries to hide. Like the west is the RAPIEST place on the planet by per capita rape statistics: except for a few subsaharan african nations, no other place on the PLANET is as rapey as the west is. Every single western country rapes 10-100 times more per capita than any Asian country.

 

They try to hide it behind 'we report more they dont report it as much', when ALL reporting data indicates that less than 80% of rapes get reported if they are done by people not known to the victim and less than 2% rapes get reported if its done by people known to the perps. So basic math tells us, when the varience in reporting is a MAX 20x factor between the #1 and last placed nation in reporting rates, the 50-100x more prevalence of rape in the west compared to the east means that the WEST IS MORE RAPEY.

 

But gungadeen gora bootlickers like yourself wont ever acknowledge that. 

Quote

 

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. 

 

 

Then why are you associating pedophilia with homosexuality ???? Thats a typical homophobic association. My comment was SPECIFIC to eromenos - the practice of Greek barbarians raping young boys who hadnt reached sexual maturity. YOU are the one who brought in homosexuality when i mentioned pedophilia, showing your islamist hatred of homosexuals by equating it with pedophilia. 

 

You then wanna equate this to marrying off girls who had their menses - a practice done in EVERY society. Classic double standard fcukery of western dogmatists.

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

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). 

 

 

children marrying children has been present in EVERY society through till the 1800s when it was gradually removed due to needs of industrialized society over farmer society. 

Again, this is manusmriti - an obscure, irrelevant book that is hardly mentioned in our own literature before the westerners elevated it to a position of relevance.

Hence irrelevant.

 

This is like quoting some obscure random greek book on blood sacrifice and then claiming greeks sacrificed their children regularly and not just the spartans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

  

 

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? 

 

Modern western atheists follow abrahamic ethics code and engage in the same abrahamic style disenfranchsement of eastern atheists and eastern ideologies. This is why modern western atheists classify Buddhism, Jainism & Daoism as religions and not atheism, despite them being addressed as atheist/agnostic for millenias by their other eastern rivals. Because westerners cannot stand being second best to anything and must control the narrative. They cannot stand the fact that their atheism - which is only 200 years old at best in any sort of noticable following, was a mass scale movement for thousands of years in the east, where the easterners boast of 99% of all historically substantiated atheist populations. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

Dude, even the hill tribes of the amazon or sentinel island are superior to the modern western non religious society that peddles porno, rapes women more than 99% of the rest of the world and now is erasing mother & father from official literature and obsessed about mutilating children in name of gender ideology. 

 

All these are due to your inferior abrahamic ethical base. 

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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. 

 

What you call outdated is nothing more than classic modern western atheist bias against anything that is well established. What you call out-dated, objective people call tried, tested and proven. Just like the shark and the horseshoe crab or the crocodiles arent outdated genetic models - they havent evolved much in the last 100 million years - they are PROVEN MODELS that dont need to evolve- so too applies for the much older eastern schools of thought. 


We still gain a lot of converts globally - including in the west. We can shower pictures of white people who you worship converting to hinduism. I have converted several myself. This is quite good for a host of ideologies who do not have some sort of divine reward promised/punishment reserved for not spreading our ideals amongst the non believers. 

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

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. 

Any beleif is deception. Atheism too is a deception, because it believes there is no god. 

Which is why i upgraded from atheism to agnosticism, since its agnosticism that is the ONLY mathematically supported position. So much so that your atheist prophet Richard Dawkins can be seen squirming about agnosticism when posed the question in live tv and his only response was to try and consume agnosticism as '' well its effectively the same as atheism" type of standard western ideological imperialism.

 

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

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. 

 

Thats like saying 'hey i found something, i THINK it is from God'' is the same thing as saying '' what i found is DEFINTELY from God and if you question it, i will kill u''.

 

No wonder you want to equate it as all the same because nuance shows that abrahamic religions are far more evil than ANY other religions known to mankind. The bodycount the genocides, the sanctions against scientists are ALL abrahamic religion's burdens to carry. 

hindus or shintos, bon, vietnamese/chinese folk religions, Sikhs, etc didnt go jail scientists and threaten to kill them like Muslims did or the Christians did with copernicus. 

That makes us better.

Hindus or shintos, bon, vietnamese/chinese folk religions, tengriists, native american religions, etc. didnt go burn women at the stake for boiling things in a pot and offering potions which their religious book said is a capital offence. Abrahamics did. 

Hence we are better.

 

You want to reduce it to a hindu vs abrahamic debate, because you fully know that EVERY SINGLE RELIGION has a cleaner history than abrahamic ones and you cannot handle the simple fact that the religion you left is INFERIOR to several others around the world. 

 

Its always the worst ideological followers, the worst of the criminals who argue 'but all ideologies are equally bad, all criminals are equally bad' because its an argument that benefits the worst.

When a genocider argues that he is no worse than a first time killer, for killing is killing, thus equating killing thousands to killing one, the only person who benefits from the agenda is the genocider, by erasing the SCALE of the crime. 

 

Abrahamics do the same to try and show themselves as not as bad, but history is proof that it is Abrahamics that are the worst religions known to man - they have virtually monopolized the SPECIFIC scenario of killing people due to their beleifs - something you abrahamic apologists try to obfuscate with '' but but but buddhists and hindus have wars too" - when we argue that we are NOT talking about wars of conquest but SPECIFIC GENOCIDE DUE TO BELIEF. There are ZERO hindu, buddhist, jain,daoist, shinto, ancient greek, ancient roman, bon, tengriist, native american etc. crusades and jihads. 

 

Just like how islamists today point fingers at Myanmar - a military state which crushes any rebellion with great efficacy - be it their OWN buddhist Karen comrades or Islamist Rohingyas as 'oh look they do it too" to somehow try and equate the FAR WORSE islamist disease that infects dozens of countries and at a far greater scale.

 

We know your western imperialists's game- footsoldier. Its called " perfection is the enemy of good". When pointed out how your ideology is INFERIOR in outcome, you resort to '' well you are not perfect, look at these flaws you have" - when we never claimed to be PERFECT but BETTER. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mishra said:

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. 

 

 

Names have also been mentioned in the Link that I posted above. 

I didn't want to indulge in long discussion, while things are very clear in other references which I provided from all other sources of Hindu sacred texts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

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 is impossible to agree upon it, while Manusmriti is present online with commentaries from Hindu commentators, along with "alternative sources". Thus impossible to blame anything upon the Brits who came much later. 

 

For example, what have Western Indologists to do with this Verse of Manusmriti?  Please show any role of Brits in it. 

 

Verse 8.281

सहासनमभिप्रेप्सुरुत्कृष्टस्यापकृष्टजः ।
कट्यां कृताङ्को निर्वास्यः स्फिचं वाऽस्यावकर्तयेत् ॥ २८१ ॥

sahāsanamabhiprepsurutkṛṣṭasyāpakṛṣṭajaḥ |
kaṭyāṃ kṛtāṅko nirvāsyaḥ sphicaṃ vā'syāvakartayet || 281 ||

If a low-born person tries to occupy the same seat with his superior, he should be branded on the hip and banished; or the king shall have his buttocks cut off.—(281)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Superior’—i.e., the Brāhmaṇa, who is always ‘superior’ by reason of his caste, even though he be ‘inferior’ on account of his bad character. In the case of the other castes ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ are relative and comparative (so that everyone of them may be ‘superior’ and also ‘inferior’). It is for this reason that the text has used the term ‘lowborn,’ where the term ‘born’ shows that what is meant is ‘inferiority’ by birth; hence on account of its proximity, the ‘superiority’ also should be understood to be by birth. This superiority by birth belongs to the Brāhmaṇa, irrespectively of other considerations, and he is never ‘inferior.’ From all which it follows that the punishment here laid down is for the Śūdra who occupies the same seat with the Brāhmaṇa.

Hips,’—buttocks;—‘branded’ upon that. This ‘branding’ is to be not mere marking with lime or saffron or such things; but it is to be indicative of the man’s having undergone the punishment; so that others might fight shy of the same transgression. Hence the marking prescribed is one that is ineffaceable, and should he done with an iron-nail or some such thing; as is going to be laid down below (8.352)—‘Punishments that strike terror, etc., etc.’

He should also be ‘banished’ from the kingdom.

Sphik’ is the name of a part of the buttocks, on both the right and the left side. This he ‘shall have cut off.’ In as much as this is an alternative to ‘branding,’ it is only the part, and not the entire buttock, that is to be cut off.

Tries to occupy’;—the man is to be punished not merely for trying to do so, but only when he has actually occupied it; because the mere wish or attempt can be hidden (and hence may not he discovered), and also because the penalty laid down is very severe.—(281)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 814);—and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 268), which adds the following notes:—‘Sahāsanamabhiprepsuḥ’ sitting on the same seat,—‘abhiprepsu’ (lit. desirous of getting at) standing here for actually getting at itself,—the man sitting upon the same seat with his superior should be ‘branded on his hip and banished—‘utkṛṣṭa,’ the Brāhmaṇa, ‘apakṛṣṭaja,’ the Śūdra,—‘kṛtāṅkah’, branded with red hot iron,—‘spicha,’ a part of the loin;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p.75), which says that the ‘branding’ is to be done with iron, and that ‘spicha’ is a part of the waist.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (12.7).—‘If he assumes a position equal to that of twice-born men, in sitting, in lying down, in conversation, or on the road, he shall undergo corporal punishment.’

Āpastamba (2.27.15).—‘A. Śūdra who assumes a position equal to that of a member of the first three castes, in conversation, on the road, or a coach, in sitting and on similar occasions, shall be flogged.’

Viṣṇu (5.20).—‘If he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be banished with a mark on his buttocks.’

Nārada (15-16. 26).—‘A low-born man, who tries to place himself on the same seat with his superior in caste, shall be branded on his hip and banished; or the King shall cause his backside to be gashed.’

 

 

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

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. 

 

Reformation is one thing. 

But on the bases of reformation, the existence could not be denied. 

 

The problem which is arising here is that later coming reformation has been used to deny the earlier existence of such birth based brutal caste system, and then blamed upon thousands of years later coming Brits. 

 

 

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

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

 

This guy is not important, but his research is important where he is providing the "alternative Hindu sources" of the verses of Manusmriti. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Names have also been mentioned in the Link that I posted above. 

I didn't want to indulge in long discussion, while things are very clear in other references which I provided from all other sources of Hindu sacred texts. 

Written by Sulaiman Razvi

 

Yes. Hindus should accept what the abrahamic genociders and their followers write about us and discard our own voice for the propaganda of the barbarian genocidal faith. Brilliant logic. 

:laugh:

 

Manusmriti isnt a sacred text. No smriti is a sacred text. Smriti is a commentary. Non cannonical. Anyone can write a smriti- i can write one. it is less importance to hindu cannon than ANY text of islamic jurisprudence, let alone the hadiths or the koran- the only two who get sacred text status to the abrahamics, but any hindu text written by any random guy is a sacred text to the abrahamics. Double standard is evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Names have also been mentioned in the Link that I posted above. 

I didn't want to indulge in long discussion, while things are very clear in other references which I provided from all other sources of Hindu sacred texts. 

 

You blind git, Vedlsbhed , some obscure site is godpel for you. Read the link that @vayuu1 posted. Don't argue with some unknown links. Talk to people who have lived thorough the tradition, not some facking outsider.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is impossible to agree upon it, while Manusmriti is present online with commentaries from Hindu commentators, along with "alternative sources". Thus impossible to blame anything upon the Brits who came much later. 

 

For example, what have Western Indologists to do with this Verse of Manusmriti?  Please show any role of Brits in it. 

 

 

Nobody is denying these verses, but they are not the reality and was not practiced.

 

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Reformation is one thing. 

But on the bases of reformation, the existence could not be denied. 

Nobody is denying, others are written and sang about the ills of jaathi discrimination. Don't you read what we post in response, blind man.

 

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

The problem which is arising here is that later coming reformation has been used to deny the earlier existence of such birth based brutal caste system, and then blamed upon thousands of years later coming Brits. 

 

This is the lie that brits have proppelled and you are parroting. 

 

3 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

This guy is not important, but his research is important where he is providing the "alternative Hindu sources" of the verses of Manusmriti. 

 

 

Wendy Doniger wrote a book on Gopikas, saying they were yesteryear lesbians. 1000 years from now, some idiot like you will say it was history and think that as the truth of those times. That's what we are saying about the Medatithi or the translations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is impossible to agree upon it, while Manusmriti is present online with commentaries from Hindu commentators, along with "alternative sources". Thus impossible to blame anything upon the Brits who came much later. 

 

For example, what have Western Indologists to do with this Verse of Manusmriti?  Please show any role of Brits in it. 

 

Another classic misleading by the western atheist peddler: we DID NOT SAY that the british wrote the manusmriti. We said that its the British who made manusmriti RELEVANT.

Who cares what the manusmriti says ??? Its an irrelevant book to Indian history and hinduism, showing zero relevance till your whiteman said so. No buddhist ever cites it, no jain, no carvakin ever cited it in their criticism. Hindu literature - tens of thousands strong- sees it mentioned less than FIVE TIMES. And one of those 5 times is LITERALLY a comentary ON manusmriti. 

 

The role of the british is in elavating an irrelevant book to hinduism as the defining feature of hinduism, when there is ZERO objective rationale behind it. 

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

 

Reformation is one thing. 

But on the bases of reformation, the existence could not be denied. 

 

The problem which is arising here is that later coming reformation has been used to deny the earlier existence of such birth based brutal caste system, and then blamed upon thousands of years later coming Brits. 

The brutal caste system didnt EXIST thousands of years ago. It hasnt existed before 1000 AD at the earliest. Buddists THEMSELVES write how caste system isnt good but mobile. The Greeks, the Chinese scholars who visted India - ALL write how caste system is mobile and how India is strange to have emperors and kings from lower castes.

THESE ARE PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE. 

The Chutus, the Nandas, Kakatiyas, Reddis, Paramaras- are ALL lower caste dynasties.


I challenge you to find any equivalent lower caste kingdoms or empires in your barbarian Islamic or European lands. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

Atheism has no book like Hinduism which tells wrong and confusing and man made stories of creation etc. 

Atheists strictly follow the Scientific work with open mind and they are superior in this regard to Hindus (just as Hindus are superior in this regard than Abrahamic religions). 
 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

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.

 

Even  before the printing press, there came an era where Hindus were behind Europe and even to Muslims in scientific field. 

 

Moreover,  the difference lies at the fact that the accomplishments of Greeks Scientists, Intellectuals and Engineers were widespread and accessible to all Greeks, Public Monumental Buildings included, and not just for the King, the Emperor, the Higher Casts, the Mandarins. It was the Democracy and it was in Action. With the exception of Pythagoras School, everybody could study any given latest advancement. That’s the superiority of Hellas. Even to Slaves there was given access. Plus The Greek Way of Conducting Wars(Strategy, Tactics), any non biased has to accept that it was way far superior than Indian and Chinese.

 

While Hindu knowledge was forbidden for the Shudras and the outcasts. 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

 

 

Why should I do it when both Abrahamic and Hindu man made stories of creationism are false scientifically? 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

I already told you many times that Church lost it's power till 1500, which enable even the normal Christian people too to make much more discoveries about science in religion free society. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Whats this nonsense about Europe being able to do scientific discoveries after they got rid of the church ??? The church was ABSOLUTE till 1930s.

 

Totally false. 


Church was not in absolute power till 1930. It lost it's absolute power at time of renaissance in Europe. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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.

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

 

None of these Christian scientists attributed their scientific discoveries to Bible. 

Show us which Christian scientist claimed that he made his scientific discoveries from Bible? 

 

On the other hand, as science developed and contradictions between Bible and Science became more and more evident, then scientists themselves started leaving bible and they became more and more atheist. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Western atheism. 

 

What does this mean? 

 

I told that 97% of American Scientists today do not believe in bible, but they believe in the evolution theory .... and you have nothing else to say about it than writing two words "Western Atheism" which make no sense here. 

 

Same is true about Indians too. More and more Indians are leaving the man made creationist theories of Hindu religious texts, and they believe in theory of evolution. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Another classic misleading by the western atheist peddler: we DID NOT SAY that the british wrote the manusmriti. We said that its the British who made manusmriti RELEVANT.

Who cares what the manusmriti says ??? Its an irrelevant book to Indian history and hinduism, showing zero relevance till your whiteman said so. No buddhist ever cites it, no jain, no carvakin ever cited it in their criticism. Hindu literature - tens of thousands strong- sees it mentioned less than FIVE TIMES. And one of those 5 times is LITERALLY a comentary ON manusmriti. 

 

The role of the british is in elavating an irrelevant book to hinduism as the defining feature of hinduism, when there is ZERO objective rationale behind it. 

The brutal caste system didnt EXIST thousands of years ago. It hasnt existed before 1000 AD at the earliest. Buddists THEMSELVES write how caste system isnt good but mobile. The Greeks, the Chinese scholars who visted India - ALL write how caste system is mobile and how India is strange to have emperors and kings from lower castes.

THESE ARE PRIMARY SOURCE EVIDENCE. 

The Chutus, the Nandas, Kakatiyas, Reddis, Paramaras- are ALL lower caste dynasties.


I challenge you to find any equivalent lower caste kingdoms or empires in your barbarian Islamic or European lands. 

 

@Alam_dar

I will save you the hassle btw.

 

In the ENTIRE ANNALS OF ISLAMIC EMPTIRES AND KINGDOMS, there are only ONE notable empire/kingdom that isnt founded by the Islamic Kshatriyas ( the warriors like the Turkish royalties) or their Brahmins ( the Sayyids who claimed filial relations to mohammed or the companions) - The Saffarids. Yacoub As-Laith-As-Saffar, the founder of Saffarids was a blacksmith ( a vaishya). THAT IS IT. 

And his empire was dismembered by the Samanids after his death, under EXPLICIT patronage of the Khalifa, because they were of lower caste. 

 

So who the * are you to challenge the superior track record of India, the land where caste mattered the LEAST in ancient and medeival world compared to ALL other ancient lands not named China ??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Names have also been mentioned in the Link that I posted above. 

I didn't want to indulge in long discussion, while things are very clear in other references which I provided from all other sources of Hindu sacred texts. 

Wtf is that link? Some hate website run by a crazy Islamist? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

Atheism has no book like Hinduism which tells wrong and confusing and man made stories of creation etc. 

Atheists strictly follow the Scientific work with open mind and they are superior in this regard to Hindus (just as Hindus are superior in this regard than Abrahamic religions). 

 

You dont have books yet because you are new dogma. All dogmas start as oral traditions then codifies into books. The books have already started - such as Richard Dawkins and finds widespread and increasing purchase amongst atheists. 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

Even  before the printing press, there came an era where Hindus were behind Europe and even to Muslims in scientific field. 

Err, the muslims were never ahead - the entire Islamic golden age is a small short period of muslims mostly translating Indian and Chinese works due to contact with them and fizzed out due to lacking any self-sustaining scientific enquiry principle. Unlike the Hindus, muslims killed scientists willy nilly for contravening the koranic diktats.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

Moreover,  the difference lies at the fact that the accomplishments of Greeks Scientists, Intellectuals and Engineers were widespread and accessible to all Greeks, Public Monumental Buildings included, and not just for the King, the Emperor, the Higher Casts, the Mandarins. It was the Democracy and it was in Action. With the exception of Pythagoras School, everybody could study any given latest advancement. That’s the superiority of Hellas. Even to Slaves there was given access. Plus The Greek Way of Conducting Wars(Strategy, Tactics), any non biased has to accept that it was way far superior than Indian and Chinese.

ONLY TWO OF THE 20+ Greek city states were democratic - Athens and Corinth. 

Rest all had monarchies and the word TYRANT and DESPOT are from the Greek classical pre-alexandrine age for their autocratic rulers.

 

So greek strategy is superior based on what evidence ??? Arthashastra and like also existed and are FAR superior to the greek warfare system. 
We invented chess as a war strategy game, not the barbarian greeks. Same reason why Alexander crapped his pants and ran away from India after beating a tiny punjabi kingdom amongst several punjabi kingdoms. We have direct evidence of his cowardice from Roman sources itself. 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

While Hindu knowledge was forbidden for the Shudras and the outcasts. 

 

False. If it was forbidden, then India wouldnt be the place where we see the MOST lower caste royalties in history. 

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

Why should I do it when both Abrahamic and Hindu man made stories of creationism are false scientifically? 

 

I asked you a SIMPLE question - cite the creationist story of the Rig veda and the abrahamics and TELL US WHICH IS MORE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE. 

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

 

I already told you many times that Church lost it's power till 1500, which enable even the normal Christian people too to make much more discoveries about science in religion free society. 

 

You making up a mickey-mouse number wont do anything. The church split in 1500 between protestants and catholics, just like it split in 900 between catholics and eastern orthodox. 

church lost power in 1500 but burnt people at the stake for heresy all over europe till late 1700s ?? yes, makes so much sense.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

Totally false. 


Church was not in absolute power till 1930. It lost it's absolute power at time of renaissance in Europe. 

 

It was in ABSOLUTE LEGAL POWER in ALL OF EUROPE till 1930 and the uncle of Queen elizabeth who married a divorcee and abdicating being the FIRST INSTANCE of church laws being relaxed legally. EVER. 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

None of these Christian scientists attributed their scientific discoveries to Bible. 

Show us which Christian scientist claimed that he made his scientific discoveries from Bible? 

BULK majority of christian scientists credit their discoveries due to their faith in God. Newton himself did, so who the * are you to challenge Newton on what HE thought inspired him to make the discovery ??

 

This is like Ramanujan stating his math theorems popped in his head due to his prayer to his goddess but you telling him 'no you dont believe that'. Typical abrahamic totalitarianism.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

On the other hand, as science developed and contradictions between Bible and Science became more and more evident, then scientists themselves started leaving bible and they became more and more atheist. 

Sure. Only post 1930. Einstien was a god fearing man. So was Plank. 

Atheist contribution to sciences are INSIGNIFICANT compared to Christian, Buddhist & Hindu contributions to science. 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

 

What does this mean? 

 

I told that 97% of American Scientists today do not believe in bible, but they believe in the evolution theory .... and you have nothing else to say about it than writing two words "Western Atheism" which make no sense here. 

 

Same is true about Indians too. More and more Indians are leaving the man made creationist theories of Hindu religious texts, and they believe in theory of evolution. 

 

 

western atheism == who propagate western dogmatic ideologies originating in the west. Such as calling buddhists, daoists, jains etc as religions, showing dogmatic beleif that all mankind deserves equal opportunity etc. Dont get me wrong- equal opportunity is a noble BELIEF. But still a beleif. It serves a good utilitarian purpose, just like Karma does to the eastern belief system. But at the end of the day - no western atheist has objectively proven WHY every human requires equal opportunity in life. Hence, its just a belief.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alam_dar yes, we fell behind Europe after 1200 AD. Due to one chap called Mohammed ibn Bhaktiyar Khilji who in a span of less than 20 years utterly genocided and destroyed nearly a dozen of the worlds FIRST MODERN university systems. The same university system that saw Chinese beurocrats, at least one Byzantine prince and two korean princesses come for education. 

 

Pre-internet, if we nuked all the universities of Europe and Americas, it too would start falling behind. Still, we carried on being ahead of Europe scientifically till late 1400s, where its Madhava of Kerala, not Newton or Leibnitz, who first discovered calculus. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

You blind git, Vedlsbhed , some obscure site is godpel for you. Read the link that @vayuu1 posted. Don't argue with some unknown links. Talk to people who have lived thorough the tradition, not some facking outsider.

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

 

 

As I stated above, author is not important, but the reference are important which has been provided by him. 

 

And I already told you that modern Hindu apologists try to come up with excuses, which do not do any justice. They are themselves dishonest, but blame the Western Indologists for that. They twist the facts just as Muslim apologists try to twist the facts about Islam. 

 

For example let me present the dishonesty from the article which was mentioned by @vayuu1 gave reference of Medhatithi commentary of Verse 9:94 and writes: 

 

//What the injunction means is that the maiden married should be so much younger than the man;—and not that marriage must be done only at. the age stated. Nor is any stress meant to be laid upon the exact number of years mentioned; all that is meant is that one should many a girl very much younger than himself. ....

//

 

From this, the writer tried to deny the marriage of small girls in Hinduism. But he showed dishonesty to show the commentary of Medhatithi on verse 9:88, where Medhatiti  himself clearly confirmed the marriage of small girls. 

 

Verse 9:88:

 

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-texti.e., one in whom the sexual instinct has not arisen, who is only eight or six years old,

 

At end, all Hindus one way or another accept that Hinduism allowed the marriage of 6 or 8 years old girl too. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Wtf is that link? Some hate website run by a crazy Islamist? 

 

Please try to understand it that author is not important, but the "Proofs" are important. He gave references to Hindu Sacred books, and they are true and could be found online as I posted the online references of Manusmriti above. And commentary of Manusmriti itself contains a lot of other "alternative References" to the Hindu sacred books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Please try to understand it that author is not important, but the "Proofs" are important. He gave references to Hindu Sacred books, and they are true and could be found online as I posted the online references of Manusmriti above. And commentary of Manusmriti itself contains a lot of other "alternative References" to the Hindu sacred books. 

Don't have time to go through the details, but I think it has been refuted here https://sciencebyhinduism.wordpress.com/ (google search, may be more refutations elsewhere)

 

Anyway I don't have time for this, too time consuming. You guys carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

As I stated above, author is not important, but the reference are important which has been provided by him. 

You mean dodgy translations presented by our enemies are valid because YOU are also our enemy and favour islamist take on hindus over hindu take on hindus. Gotcha.

 

12 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And I already told you that modern Hindu apologists try to come up with excuses, which do not do any justice. They are themselves dishonest, but blame the Western Indologists for that. They twist the facts just as Muslim apologists try to twist the facts about Islam. 

We twist nothing but state actual facts that you run away from:

 

Manusmriti is a book made important only by the british. It serves ZERO importance prior to it and there is ZERO evidence it had any role in society prior to the british.
Even the most vocal critics of hinduism, who talk a lot about caste - buddhists jains carvakins - NEVER mention manusmriti. Not once. 

 

So tell us why we should listen to your western masters propaganda on how important manusmriti is or was ??

 

 

12 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

At end, all Hindus one way or another accept that Hinduism allowed the marriage of 6 or 8 years old girl too. 

 

 

Nobody denied that. We have historical proof of our child marriage customs - like Gandhi getting married at 13. We all have great great grandpas who got married at 22-23 to 14-15 year olds. 

Or a 12 year old marrying 6 year olds.

 

We do NOT have official sanction of pedophilia like the pedophile islamic prophet - marrying a six year old at 40 or the pedophile barbarian classical greeks boasting about rape of  pre-pubescent boys by fully grown men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Please try to understand it that author is not important, but the "Proofs" are important. He gave references to Hindu Sacred books, and they are true and could be found online as I posted the online references of Manusmriti above. And commentary of Manusmriti itself contains a lot of other "alternative References" to the Hindu sacred books. 

 

well when your western masters translate our idioms like ' dont eat my head (amar matha khaash na)' as a call against cannibalism instead of an IDIOMATIC phrase, we reject your western translators as incompetent.

 

You keep running away from the fact that manusmriti was a practically unheard of insignificant book- like many smritis are - before the british. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...