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

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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 

 

I don't know which foreigners are you referring to, and what they wrote. I just hope you are not again going to repeat the lies of Megasthenes again, which I have already refuted in another thread. 

 

And after Buddha, India was very much under the influence of Buddhism, and thus if caste systems was also not at it's full flow, then it was due to the influence of Buddhism, and not due to the existence of original laws of Hinduism. It is just like this that Hijab is necessary in Islam, but many of Indian Muslim girls (majority) does not take full Hijab under the influence of non-Muslim culture in India. 

 

And foreigners didn't know much about Hinduism and it's complex religious system. 

 

And stupidity of Mulo is this that he is giving preference of these some foreigners to all the Dharmashastras (Smiritis) ..... and also to the criticism of Buddhists against the Hindu caste system of by birth. 

 

 

Buddhist criticism and denial of the Hindu Varna System of by Birth:

 

 Buddhists were so much against Hindu caste system that they later totally abolished this caste (Varna) system all together. It took them some time (evolution in their thought which took time), but finally they got rid of this evil completely. 

 

Even Buddah himself denied the  evil of by Birth Varna system of Hinduism.  Here is the reference:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)#Varna_in_Buddhist_texts

 

Digha Nikaya provides a discussion between Gotama Buddha and a Hindu Brahmin named Sonadanda who was very learned in the Vedas.^[37][38] Gotama Buddha asks, "By how many qualities do Brahmins recognize another Brahmin? How would one declare truthfully and without falling into falsehood, "I am a Brahmin?"^[37] Sonadanda initially lists five qualities as, "he is of pure descent on both the mother's and the father's side, he is well versed in mantras, he is of fair color handsome and pleasing, he is virtuous learned and wise, and he is the first or second to hold the sacrificial ladle".^[37][38] Buddha then asks the Brahmin, "If we omit one of these qualities you just listed, could not one be still a true Brahmin?" Sonadanda, one by one, eliminates fair colour and looks, then eliminates Varna in which one was born, and then eliminates the ability to recite mantra and do sacrifices as a requirement of being a Brahmin.^[37][38] Sonadanda asserts that just two qualities are necessary to truthfully and without falling into falsehoold identify a Brahmin; these two qualities are "being virtuous and being learned and wise".^[37][38]

 

So the evils in Hindu caste system of by birth and colour and Mantras were totally rejected even by Buddha himself too. 

 

But Mulo want to deny all these major proofs, and want to run away from all this in name of foreigners. 

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar Atheism isnt scientific.  It is just the inverse belief system of theism.

Theism == X ( God) exists. Atheism == X (God) doesnt exist. 

Both are positive statements requiring burden of proof.

 

As ANY mathematically competent person will tell you - the ONLY mathematically supported position on God is agnosticism. Ie, 'answer indeterminate'. This is because if i ask you a simple question "are my keys in your room", you can ONLY answer it with a definite assertion ( yes or no) after you exhaust the DOMAIN OF SEARCH ( your entire room) OR find the item ( known as finding the search query in the set). 

 

Till then, the ONLY mathematicall valid answer is 'unknown/indeterminate'.

 

As such, 'does God exist'' has a clear-cut defined domain of search : ALL existence. Well, we havent charted all existence- nevermind multiple dimensions, we havent even charted THIS dimension completely. Ie, your DOMAIN OF SEARCH is unbounded.

 

ANY search function of 'does x exist in domain y' returns 'indeterminate, still searching' in an unbounded domain of search, TILL the item is found. 

 

This is why Richard Dawkins hides behind agnosticism being ' effectively atheism' and tries to consume it under the atheist tag. And this is why most eastern non theistic ideologies are agnostic, not atheistic - people who were ahead of the hilbilly west for all of history in mathematics until 500-600 years ago, have a more advanced mathematical grasp on mathematical validity of logical suppositions. 

 

This is also why the infinite regression theorem, plagiarised by Carl Sagan, was made by a Jain monk named Jinasena. 

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I don't know which foreigners are you referring to, and what they wrote. I just hope you are not again going to repeat the lies of Megasthenes again, which I have already refuted in another thread. 

You refuted nothing, you just said he lied because you didnt like what he said. The sources cited by Arrian, Strabo etc isnt just megasthenes, its also Cstesias, which is now lost to history. 

 

Quote

 

And after Buddha, India was very much under the influence of Buddhism, and thus if caste systems was also not at it's full flow, then it was due to the influence of Buddhism, and not due to the existence of original laws of Hinduism. It is just like this that Hijab is necessary in Islam, but many of Indian Muslim girls (majority) does not take full Hijab under the influence of non-Muslim culture in India. 

Except we see a decisive decline of buddhism start at the fall of the Kushan empire and greater presence of hinduism- particularly vaishnavism and Shaivism from Gupta period onwards.

Several Chinese monks who visited during this period - I-tsing, Faxian etc decisively count the number of heads in buddhist and hindu monasteries and almost all the time the hindus are far more numerous. And during this very time they mention the fluidity of the caste system.

 

Buddha himself never implied that caste system was static or rigid. 

Quote

 

And foreigners didn't know much about Hinduism and it's complex religious system. 

But then you wanna use foreigner based translations and their views when they are the gora masters of the west.

I am not quoting foreigners on hindu eschatology. I am quoting them on WHAT THEY SAW AS SOCIAL CUSTOMS AND PREVALENCES OF SOCIETY. 

 

Quote

 Sonadanda asserts that just two qualities are necessary to truthfully and without falling into falsehoold identify a Brahmin; these two qualities are "being virtuous and being learned and wise".^[37][38]

 

Hey blind Hindu hater- your OWN BUDDHIST CITATION shows that when debated, a conservative brahmin HIMSELF said that the identity of a brahmin depends on being virtuous and being learned/wise and discarded birth being of import. 

 

LEARN TO READ. This is a clear demonstration of Buddha combating social bias by citing scriptures to a brahmin who accepts the verdict and admits the qualifying factor of being brahmin is based on deeds and not birth.

 

Thank you for proving my case that even in Buddhist times, the orthodoxy of brahmins technically didnt believe in birth being important and all it took was some gentle debate to get them to admit it. 

 

Quote

And stupidity of Mulo is this that he is giving preference of these some foreigners to all the Dharmashastras (Smiritis) ..... and also to the criticism of Buddhists against the Hindu caste system of by birth. 

 

Yes. Because they are mentioning how society was fluid or not fluid. Why should i care about what some obscure books given prominence by your gora masters say, when FIRST HAND TESTIMONY of foreigners show that nothing of that sort was in practice ???

 

 

Quote

So the evils in Hindu caste system of by birth and colour and Mantras were totally rejected even by Buddha himself too. 

Yes, buddha rejected THIS brahmin's take on caste. A fringe extremist. Since most hindu texts of that period talk of how caste is made by ones actions, not ones birth. 

Ofcourse a total caste abolitionist will reject that too, but nowhere does Buddha or buddhism imply that caste was locked in by birth as the dominant rule. And we see most first hand evidence refute that.

 

Quote

 

But Mulo want to deny all these major proofs, and want to run away from all this in name of foreigners. 

 

I asked you two simple questions and you wanna run away from:

 

1. Cite the creationist story of the Bible/Koran and the Rig veda and demonstrate to us which one is MORE in accordance to scientific principle.

2. Tell us why we should care about manusmriti when before the british, it finds ZERO mention in any buddhist, jain or carvaka texts and is itself mentioned in less than half a dozen instances in over THOUSANDS of hindu texts.

 

Can i do the same and say xyz is a major atheist book by citing any random book of any random atheist on atheism ???

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 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 ?! 

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

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 ?! 

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 

 

 

Smritis are the 2nd most important religious source for Hinduism after Shruti (Vedas). 

 

And there are tons of references to Manusmriti by Hindus themselves before the arrival of Britishers. 

 

There were many commentaries written upon Manusmriti before the arrival of Birtishers by Hindus themselves and they didn't deny it, but accepted it as Dharmashastra themselves. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti#Commentaries). 

Why then to criticize Britishers, when earlier Hindus themselves accepted Manusmriti? 

 

Secondly, what has been written in Manusmriti about the Hindu caste system (i.e. it is by birth, and Shudras were unable to get hands to Mantras, and fair colour thing), has also been attested by the Buddhist source. 

 

Thirdly, what has been present in the Manusmriti, it also has "alternative source" in other ancient Hindu texts too. Alone it is enough to certify that Manusmriti was authentic and had not been fabricated by anyone.

 

I already presented many examples of "alternative sources" of the verses of Manusmriti in the ancient Hindu texts. Let me quote few more regarding the Hindu caste system (out of many). 

 

(1) Killing of low caste Person is equal to killing the animals

Manusmriti (LINK):

मार्जारनकुलौ हत्वा चाषं मण्डूकमेव च । 
श्वगोधौलूककाकांश्च शूद्रहत्याव्रतं चरेत् ॥ १३१ ॥

Translation:

Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl and a crow,—he shall perform the penance of the ‘Śūdra-killer.’—(131)

 

Comparative notes by various authors (verses 11.131-132):

Gautama (22-19).—‘For injuring a frog, an ichneumon, a crow, a chameleon, a musk-rat, a mouse or a dog (the penance is the same as that for the murder of a Vaiśya).’

Baudhāyana (1.19.6).—‘For killing a flamingo, a Bhāsa bird, a peacock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a Pracetaka, a crow, an owl, a frog, a musk-rat, a dog, a Babhru, a common ichneumon, and so forth, the offender shall pay the same fine as for the killing of a Śūdra.’

Āpastamba (1.25.13).—‘If a crow, a chameleon, a pea-cock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a swan, the vulture called Bhāsa, a frog, an ichneumon, a musk-rat, or a dog has been killed, then the offender should perform the same penance as that for killing a Śūdra.’

Vaṣhiṣṭha (21.24).—‘Having slain a dog, a cat, an ichneumon, a snake, a frog, or a rat,—one shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration, and also give something to a Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇu (50.30-32).—‘If he has intentionally killed a dog, he should fast for three days. If he has unintentionally killed a mouse, or a cat, or an ichneumon, or a frog, or a Duṇḍubha snake, or a large serpent—he must fast for one day, and on the next day give a dish of milk, sesamum and rice mixed together to a Brāhmaṇa and give him an iron hoe as his fee: If he has unintentionally killed an iguana, or an owl, or a crow, or a fish, he must fast for three days.’

 

2. If a person of lower caste adopts the occupation of a higher caste, the king ought to deprive him of all his property and expel him from his kingdom.

Manusmriti, Verse 10.96 (Link):

 

यो लोभादधमो जात्या जीवेदुत्कृष्टकर्मभिः । 
तं राजा निर्धनं कृत्वा क्षिप्रमेव प्रवासयेत् ॥ ९६ ॥

Translation:

If a man of low caste, through greed, subsists by the occupations of his superiors (higher caste), him the King shall deprive of his property and quickly banish.—(96)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘A man of low caste’—The Kṣatriya and the rest Though the context deals with the Kṣatriya, yet this verse is meant to be an interdict upon all occupations of the Brāhmaṇa, for all the other castes.

‘Superior’.—It is the Brāhmaṇa alone who is absolutely (not only relatively) ‘superior.’

‘Occupations’.—Teaching and the rest.

If he subsists by these, he should be punished with confiscation of property and banishment.—(96)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 363), which adds the explanation that—‘if the Vaiśya or other lower castes should have recourse to the modes of living ordained for the higher castes, he should have all his property confiscated and then banished from the kingdom;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi(Calcutta p. 101).

 

3. If a Shudra (lowest caste member) dares to give moral lessons to a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring hot oil in his ear and mouth

Manusmriti, Verse 8.272 (Link):

 

धर्मोपदेशं दर्पेण विप्राणामस्य कुर्वतः । 
तप्तमासेचयेत् तैलं वक्त्रे श्रोत्रे च पार्थिवः ॥ २७२ ॥

Translation:

If through arrogance, he (Shudra) teaches brāhmaṇas their duty, the king shall pour heated oil into his mouth and ears.—(272)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Sometimes Śūdras, ‘through arrogance’ due to a slight knowledge of grammar, address to Brāhmaṇas such advice as—‘this is your duty,’—‘such is the procedure of this rite’—‘do not do it in this manner, you who are learned in the Veda.’ And the text lays down the penalty for such Śūdras. If however a Śūdra has learnt things through his association with Brāhmaṇas, and points out lapses as to proper time and place due to forgetting the details, in a friendly manner, with such words as—‘Do not please omit the morning time,’ ‘fulfil your duties towards the gods,’ ‘satisfy the gods,’ ‘wear the cloth over your right shoulder, and not the reverse,’—then there is nothing wrong in this.

‘Heated’—put into fire and hence painful.

‘Pour’—make it flow.

“It is right that it should be poured into his mouth, since it is with the mouth that he offers the advice. But what is the fault of the ears?”

Their fault lies in having listened to misguided reasonings (which make him think himself qualified for offering the advice).—(272)

 

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5-24).—‘If a low-born man, through arrogance, give instruction to a member of the highest caste, concerning his duty, let the King order hot oil to be poured into his mouth.’

Nārada (15-16.24).—‘If the Śūdra is insolent enough to give lessons to Brāhmaṇas regarding their duty, the King shall order hot oil to he poured into his mouth and ears.’

Bṛhaspati (20.12).—‘A Śūdra teaching the precepts of religion, or uttering the words of the Veda, or insulting a Brāhmaṇa, shall he punished by cutting out his tongue.’

 

 4.  If a Shudra occupies the same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be punished by branding his waist (with hot rod) or getting his buttocks cut!

 

Manusmriti, Verse 8.281 (Link):

 

सहासनमभिप्रेप्सुरुत्कृष्टस्यापकृष्टजः । 
कट्यां कृताङ्को निर्वास्यः स्फिचं वाऽस्यावकर्तयेत् ॥ २८१ ॥

Translation:

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 Śūdrawho 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) 

 

 

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.’

 

 

 

So, how could then present day Hindu apologists run away from it, when Manusmriti also has alternative sources in many other ancient Hindu texts too?  Denying all these proofs in name of foreigners is not going to help you. 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

 

 

 

 

Smritis are the 2nd most important religious source for Hinduism after Shruti (Vedas). 

The shrutis arent just the vedas. They are also the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads.

Thats CURRENTLY a collection of over 400 books and used to be over 2000+ according to Patanjali.

Stop your lies.

 

Find me Islaimc and Christian books that are lower than 400-2000+ in order of priority and tell us how much influence they are on the whole religion.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

And there are tons of references to Manusmriti by Hindus themselves before the arrival of Britishers. 

Prove it.

There is less than 6 mentions of Manusmriti in Indian literautre.

Show us these tons of mentions - which books ??

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

There were many commentaries written upon Manusmriti before the arrival of Birtishers by Hindus themselves and they didn't deny it, but accepted it as Dharmashastra themselves. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti#Commentaries). 

Why then to criticize Britishers, when earlier Hindus themselves accepted Manusmriti? 

Ok so a book A that is a commentary of a book B is mentioning book B....and ???

 

Which other books mention it ??

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

Secondly, what has been written in Manusmriti about the Hindu caste system (i.e. it is by birth, and Shudras were unable to get hands to Mantras, and fair colour thing), has also been attested by the Buddhist source. 

It hasnt. All that has been attested is the brahmin that buddha debated said only deeds and virtue matter and not birth. Which is in direct contradiction to this obscure book called manusmriti.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

Thirdly, what has been present in the Manusmriti, it also has "alternative source" in other ancient Hindu texts too. Alone it is enough to certify that Manusmriti was authentic and had not been fabricated by anyone.

Show us these alternative sources on caste. 

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

I already presented many examples of "alternative sources" of the verses of Manusmriti in the ancient Hindu texts. Let me quote few more regarding the Hindu caste system (out of many). 

 

(1) Killing of low caste Person is equal to killing the animals

Manusmriti (LINK):

मार्जारनकुलौ हत्वा चाषं मण्डूकमेव च । 
श्वगोधौलूककाकांश्च शूद्रहत्याव्रतं चरेत् ॥ १३१ ॥

Translation:

Having killed a cat, an ichneumon, a blue jay, a frog, a dog, an iguana, an owl and a crow,—he shall perform the penance of the ‘Śūdra-killer.’—(131)

 

Comparative notes by various authors (verses 11.131-132):

Gautama (22-19).—‘For injuring a frog, an ichneumon, a crow, a chameleon, a musk-rat, a mouse or a dog (the penance is the same as that for the murder of a Vaiśya).’

Baudhāyana (1.19.6).—‘For killing a flamingo, a Bhāsa bird, a peacock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a Pracetaka, a crow, an owl, a frog, a musk-rat, a dog, a Babhru, a common ichneumon, and so forth, the offender shall pay the same fine as for the killing of a Śūdra.’

Āpastamba (1.25.13).—‘If a crow, a chameleon, a pea-cock, a Brāhmaṇī duck, a swan, the vulture called Bhāsa, a frog, an ichneumon, a musk-rat, or a dog has been killed, then the offender should perform the same penance as that for killing a Śūdra.’

Vaṣhiṣṭha (21.24).—‘Having slain a dog, a cat, an ichneumon, a snake, a frog, or a rat,—one shall perform the Kṛcchra penance of twelve days’ duration, and also give something to a Brāhmaṇa.’

Viṣṇu (50.30-32).—‘If he has intentionally killed a dog, he should fast for three days. If he has unintentionally killed a mouse, or a cat, or an ichneumon, or a frog, or a Duṇḍubha snake, or a large serpent—he must fast for one day, and on the next day give a dish of milk, sesamum and rice mixed together to a Brāhmaṇa and give him an iron hoe as his fee: If he has unintentionally killed an iguana, or an owl, or a crow, or a fish, he must fast for three days.’

 

So manusmriti mentions a punishment that other books also mention ?? HOW IS THIS CITATION OF MANUSMRITI ??

 

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

2. If a person of lower caste adopts the occupation of a higher caste, the king ought to deprive him of all his property and expel him from his kingdom.

Manusmriti, Verse 10.96 (Link):

 

यो लोभादधमो जात्या जीवेदुत्कृष्टकर्मभिः । 
तं राजा निर्धनं कृत्वा क्षिप्रमेव प्रवासयेत् ॥ ९६ ॥

Translation:

If a man of low caste, through greed, subsists by the occupations of his superiors (higher caste), him the King shall deprive of his property and quickly banish.—(96)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘A man of low caste’—The Kṣatriya and the rest Though the context deals with the Kṣatriya, yet this verse is meant to be an interdict upon all occupations of the Brāhmaṇa, for all the other castes.

‘Superior’.—It is the Brāhmaṇa alone who is absolutely (not only relatively) ‘superior.’

‘Occupations’.—Teaching and the rest.

If he subsists by these, he should be punished with confiscation of property and banishment.—(96)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 363), which adds the explanation that—‘if the Vaiśya or other lower castes should have recourse to the modes of living ordained for the higher castes, he should have all his property confiscated and then banished from the kingdom;—and in Vivādacintāmaṇi(Calcutta p. 101).

 

Meddhadhati is A COMMENTARY on the manusmriti. Again typical abrhamic hatred on display here - citing a commentary book as evidence of it being present in other books. DUH. Obviously a bible study commentary will mention the bible and it has ZERO bearing of its presence in OTHER books. 

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

3. If a Shudra (lowest caste member) dares to give moral lessons to a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring hot oil in his ear and mouth

Manusmriti, Verse 8.272 (Link):

 

धर्मोपदेशं दर्पेण विप्राणामस्य कुर्वतः । 
तप्तमासेचयेत् तैलं वक्त्रे श्रोत्रे च पार्थिवः ॥ २७२ ॥

Translation:

If through arrogance, he (Shudra) teaches brāhmaṇas their duty, the king shall pour heated oil into his mouth and ears.—(272)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Sometimes Śūdras, ‘through arrogance’ due to a slight knowledge of grammar, address to Brāhmaṇas such advice as—‘this is your duty,’—‘such is the procedure of this rite’—‘do not do it in this manner, you who are learned in the Veda.’ And the text lays down the penalty for such Śūdras. If however a Śūdra has learnt things through his association with Brāhmaṇas, and points out lapses as to proper time and place due to forgetting the details, in a friendly manner, with such words as—‘Do not please omit the morning time,’ ‘fulfil your duties towards the gods,’ ‘satisfy the gods,’ ‘wear the cloth over your right shoulder, and not the reverse,’—then there is nothing wrong in this.

‘Heated’—put into fire and hence painful.

‘Pour’—make it flow.

“It is right that it should be poured into his mouth, since it is with the mouth that he offers the advice. But what is the fault of the ears?”

Their fault lies in having listened to misguided reasonings (which make him think himself qualified for offering the advice).—(272)

 

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5-24).—‘If a low-born man, through arrogance, give instruction to a member of the highest caste, concerning his duty, let the King order hot oil to be poured into his mouth.’

Nārada (15-16.24).—‘If the Śūdra is insolent enough to give lessons to Brāhmaṇas regarding their duty, the King shall order hot oil to he poured into his mouth and ears.’

Bṛhaspati (20.12).—‘A Śūdra teaching the precepts of religion, or uttering the words of the Veda, or insulting a Brāhmaṇa, shall he punished by cutting out his tongue.’

 

 

 

So, how could then present day Hindu apologists run away from it, when Manusmriti also has alternative sources in many other ancient Hindu texts too?  Denying all these proofs in name of foreigners is not going to help you. 

 

yeah. so what ?? Modern atheists dismiss the musings of a sudra ( the uneducated one) to contradict that of a brahmin ( the degree holders) with equal venal hatred.

This has nothing to do with by birth or not by birth.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 4.  If a Shudra occupies the same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be punished by branding his waist (with hot rod) or getting his buttocks cut!

 

Manusmriti, Verse 8.281 (Link):

 

सहासनमभिप्रेप्सुरुत्कृष्टस्यापकृष्टजः । 
कट्यां कृताङ्को निर्वास्यः स्फिचं वाऽस्यावकर्तयेत् ॥ २८१ ॥

Translation:

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 Śūdrawho 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) 

 

 

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.’

 

See above.

 

[Muloghonto]

 

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

So, how could then present day Hindu apologists run away from it, when Manusmriti also has alternative sources in many other ancient Hindu texts too?  Denying all these proofs in name of foreigners is not going to help you. 

 

Because its ONLY the manusmriti that mentions castes being locked in by birth. 

And it finds very rare mention- one of the LEAST mentioned smritis - in all of hindu literature.

 

And you are basically saying that this ONE obscure book that says caste is by birth is absolute, is clearly the dominant book, because other books argue the same ' penalties'.

 

Thats another typical anti-hindu abrahamist lie. This is like me saying that atheist westerners making fun of hillbillies(shudras) who deny knowledge of the university educated one (the brahmins) are supporting being hillbilly or university educated one by birth because there are few obscure atheist racist books talking about how the son of a hilbilly is consigned to being a lower inferior human.

 

 

You are yet to explain to us how a book is important if it isnt mentioned EVER by its rejectionists and hardly mentioned 5-6 times in ALL of the host literature. Coz white man told you its important to the brown man religion ??? How come NONE of the islamist criticisms of hinduism through the last 1000 years has ever mentioned this important book by name ???

 

 

[coffee_rules]

Cut and paste warrior, stop arguing using Google links. Take a breath and read and understand what is posted first 

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar

You are yet to explain to us how a book is important if it isnt mentioned EVER by its rejectionists and hardly mentioned 5-6 times in ALL of the host literature. Coz white man told you its important to the brown man religion ??? How come NONE of the islamist criticisms of hinduism through the last 1000 years has ever mentioned this important book by name ???

 

 

stop running away from this simple question. Can you cite major books of christians or muslims that find less than 6 mentions in entire body of their literature and never mentioned by its enemies ???

 

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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.

 

 

It is not obligatory that Buddhists should have mentioned Manusmriti.  The Hindu caste system was present there, and Buddhists revolted against it, and finally abandoned it completely. 

 

Even the stories of Mahabhrata and Ramayen is only mentioned in Jatakas and no where else. And there too, the stories of Mahabharata and Ramayen are  different and contradictory than the Hindu versions of Mahabharata and Ramayen. And there is not even any mention of Hanuman present in them. 

 

Bottom line is this that Burtal Caste System was present in ancient Hindu Society. And Manusmriti only recorded the laws of that brutal caste system, as well as other ancient Hindu texts also recorded that same things. After influence of Buddhism, it may be that Hindus were not able to impose their laws faithfully in India, just like Turkey and Bangladesh claim to be Muslims, but unable to impose the Sharia system completely. It may be that later coming Hindus were able to introduce "reforms" in their system. 

 

Nevertheless, all this presents Hinduism as a man made religion, which needed reformation. 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar

 

Ancient non-greek literature addressing the greeks are few and far inbetween. But it is clear that Persians, Egyptians, Indians- all of whom came into contact with the greeks cosidered them an INFERIOR, BARBARIAN people who were skilled warriors and thats it. 

 

Ofcourse, the civilization that INVENTED mass scale commercial slavery and was the HIGHEST slave-composed society of their time ( up to 40% of inhabitants of greece were slaves during this period - a number orders of magnitude greater than ANY other society) will be seen as barbarian. ALL other societies- Indians, Chinese, Persians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians mention only TWO SPECIFIC methods of enslavement - criminals and enemy war combatants who are prisoners of war. A practice that found its way in the modern west and STILL DOES to this day - where criminals in USA are effectively used for their slave labour in US prisons.

 

Contrast this to the Persian empire - the empire that gave us our FIRST EVER document approaching universal human rights, with the cyrus cylinder categorically stating that every person has the RIGHT to free religion and FREE worship of their God or Gods of choosing. 

 

On top of it, its the ONLY civilization in the ancient world along with its copycat Romans- that boast about raping pre-pubescent boys by grown adults as a mark of high culture.

And you resort to that by pointing out how children married children or how POST PUBERTY females were married off young in other cultures. Thank you for proving that other cultures were superior to the barbarian greco-romans, who officially glorified rape of pre-pubescent children. 

 

So * off with your western bias about these barbarian greeks and their pedo-culture and ramblings.

 

Even in the ancient era we Indians intellectually colonized the Greeks and the greeks wrote about it. From 100AD - 400 AD, before rise of christianity in popularity, the Greeks THEMSELVES write that the main philosophical school of thought for them was neo-platonism, a school of thought based on Advaita hinduism and started by an Indian imimgrant named AMMONIOUS THE SAKA. 

 

The Greek barbarians were universally hated outside of their copy-cat Romans. The Romans themselves recorded the Celtic queen Bouddica's insult to Roman women- saying that for all their society's power and advancement, the Celtic women are free to choose their partners and leave them, while the Roman woman is a slave to the Roman man and is continuously debauched for his pleasure. 

 

This is why Greek influence, culture and customs were systematically erased by Asians in every single asian land the greeks conquered, after their liberation. From Mesopotamia & Persia to India, all cultural barbarism and cultural iconograpy of the Greeks were systematically erased. The Parthians show an immediate and gradual reduction of Greek lettering & greek symbology in their coinage, which gets decisively wiped out by the Sassanids and the Indo-greek/Greco-Bactrian coinage system was pretty much immediately wiped out after their fall - Kushans immediately adopted Kharosthi as the bilingual script and within 3 generations eliminated greek writings from their coinage. And after they were gone, the barbarism of the greeks was systematically erased.

 

 

I know you will run away now, because unlike you, I can actually cite PRIMARY source material, not some random islamist website and unlike you, i have read plenty of PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL on history. 

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

It is not obligatory that Buddhists should have mentioned Manusmriti. 

So You admit that buddhists and jains dont mention this so-called great important book of the hindus even once.

So what makes it important if it hardly finds any mention in its own texts and never by its enemies ??

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

The Hindu caste system was present there, and Buddhists revolted against it, and finally abandoned it completely. 

Except the buddhists didnt completely abandon it and caste system is still present in thailand and myanmar and sri lanka.

The hindu caste system being present is irrelevant, since its ONLY the manusmriti that argues its locked in by birth.

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

Even the stories of Mahabhrata and Ramayen is only mentioned in Jatakas and no where else. And there too, the stories of Mahabharata and Ramayen are  different and contradictory than the Hindu versions of Mahabharata and Ramayen. And there is not even any mention of Hanuman present in them. 

So the mahabharata and ramayana are mentioned. Which lines up with its great importance in hindu culture and common knowledge.

But manusmriti isnt mentioned, 99.99% hindus dont even know it but we have to ignore logic in this case and still say manusmriti is important. Why ??

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

 

Bottom line is this that Burtal Caste System was present in ancient Hindu Society.

After 1000 AD. Prior to 1000 AD, it was one of the most lax and mobile systems known to man.

I see you keep running away from the simple objective historical evidence of if Hindu caste system is so brutal, why do hindus have the highest number of lower caste royal dynasties ANYWHERE on the planet not named china ?? So we have the most brutal and oppressive caste system while we give most power to the lower castes during the same period. Does that make sense ?!?

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

And Manusmriti only recorded the laws of that brutal caste system, as well as other ancient Hindu texts also recorded that same things.

 

No other hindu text mentions caste being locked in by birth except this obscure book. That is why you give import to manusmriti like your western masters, to continue your slander of hindus. Because without this obscure book, there is very little case to say theologically caste was locked in by birth.

 

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

After influence of Buddhism, it may be that Hindus were not able to impose their laws faithfully in India, just like Turkey and Bangladesh claim to be Muslims, but unable to impose the Sharia system completely. It may be that later coming Hindus were able to introduce "reforms" in their system. 

 

False. Your OWN citation shows that when debated, a hindu brahmin HIMSELF admitted to Buddha that birth has no bearing on being a brahmin. So how can it be due to buddhist influence when the buddhists write that a brahmin HIMSELF admitted it to Buddha ??

 

Just now, Alam_dar said:

Nevertheless, all this presents Hinduism as a man made religion, which needed reformation. 

 

 

 

Every ideology needs reformation. Duh. We didnt claim to be perfect. We said we are BETTER.

[Alam_dar]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

This is neither here nor there re: pedophilia. 

Again, smritis. Irrelevant books. 

 

Have you seen the alternative sources of the verses of Manusmriti? 

 

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.’

 

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

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 481)

 

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.’

 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

No, all these references are about a small girls who should be married at age of 6 or 8 before she gets maturity. 

 

Islam also does not boast about paedophilia of pre-pubescent girls, but human rationale guides us completely that both Islam and Hinduism are wrong when they allow the marriage of small girls of 6 or 8 years. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

 

Practice of Eromenos has nothing to do with the present non-religious West. Actually present non-religious West gets the credit of being the 1st one who ended the evil practice of marriage of small girls of 6 or 8 years in human history for the first time. In this regards, present day non-religious West is much better than Hindu religion. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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.

 

If Hinduism allowed the marriage of 6 or 8 years old girl without her being an adult, and without her consent as adult, then it is fully ENOUGH to  blame Hinduism to be a man made religion, which oppressed the small girls for thousands of years, and thus Hinduism is inferior to the present day non-Religious Western civilization. The other things like Eromenos is not needed to come to this conclusion. 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Have you seen the alternative sources of the verses of Manusmriti? 

Yes. None of them say caste is locked in by birth. Only manusmriti does.

Saying how one should deal with a shudra or a brahmin- like modern western atheists do to their shudras (hillbillies) and Brahmins ( university educated ones) - doesnt equate it to agreeing with the few western racist books that say the hillbilly is hilbilly due to his birth.

 

So why should we make the exception for manusmriti ??

 

 

2 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

No, all these references are about a small girls who should be married at age of 6 or 8 before she gets maturity. 

 

Why do you LIE after directly quoting something else ?? Your own quote says a 30 year old should marry a 16 year old. or a 20 year old should marry a 13 year old. 

And then you LIE about how its for 6-8 year olds.

 

Yes, we know. This is a relatively recently removed thing. We all have great grandparents who follow one of TWO models - child on child marriage like gandhi and his wife getting married as 12-13 year olds or a early-mid 20s guy marrying a 15-16 year old.

 

This is nowhere the same as OFFICIALLY condoning child rape by the greek barbarians. Duh.

 

2 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Islam also does not boast about paedophilia of pre-pubescent girls, but human rationale guides us completely that both Islam and Hinduism are wrong when they allow the marriage of small girls of 6 or 8 years. 

Islam boasts about their pedo prophet marrying a 6 year old at 41 and consumating the marriage when she was nine. 

And since the pronouncements of Islamic theology are ABSOLUTE - it carries a higher burden of guilt over the not absolute recommendations of non cannonical hindu texts.

 

2 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Practice of Eromenos has nothing to do with the present non-religious West. Actually present non-religious West gets the credit of being the 1st one who ended the evil practice of marriage of small girls of 6 or 8 years in human history for the first time. In this regards, present day non-religious West is much better than Hindu religion. 

West allows child marriage under parental consent as young as 14. India or the east does NOT allow child marriage legally.  You can marry a 14 year old in USA or Canada if her parents consent. Today. in 2020. You cannot marry an under-18 in India, Japan, Korea, China etc. 

 

So how again does west deserve credit ???? 

 

2 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

If Hinduism allowed the marriage of 6 or 8 years old girl without her being an adult, and without her consent as adult, then it is fully ENOUGH to  blame Hinduism to be a man made religion, which oppressed the small girls for thousands of years, and thus Hinduism is inferior to the present day non-Religious Western civilization. The other things like Eromenos is not needed to come to this conclusion. 

 

Except it is your WESTERN glorified greek barbarians who in 200 BCE were inferior to hindus for raping pre-pubescent kids by adults and officially sanctioning it while we didnt. 

Just like how your MODERN PEDO WEST allows child marriage to this day, in 2020 that most of non-abrahamic Asia doesnt. 

 

[Muloghonto]

Hey @Alam_dar :

 

This is from your own beloved western wiki citation:

 

Dharmaśāstra became influential in modern colonial India history, when they were formulated by early British colonial administrators to be the law of the land for all non-Muslims (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs) in South Asia, after Sharia i.e. Mughal Empire's Fatawa-e-Alamgiri^[12][13] set by Emperor Muhammad Aurangzeb, was already accepted as the law for Muslims in colonial India.^[14][15][16]

 

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaśāstra}

 

So TELL me again why we should not blame your barbarian islamists and westerners for using fringe, unknown and unused WORST aspects of hinduism as the norm.

 

 

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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. 

 

 

You have lost your senses. 

 

It is Medical Science which has diagnosed this as a Disease in few Children, and it is trying to help these Children. It may be that the scientific cure of such cases is still not perfect at moment, but surely science will keep on trying to find better and better solution for this. 

 

While religions like Hinduism were not even able to recognise it even as a disease (than what to talk about it's religious cure). 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Its also western christian priests who are the runaway leaders in pedophiles getting busted.

 

Again question is what it has to do with Atheism? Why are you putting the blame of religious Christian priests upon the Atheists or the non-religious Western society which has already declared it a crime and want the Priests to lead a normal life, with sex with normal women. 

 

You are only wrongfully trying to put the blame upon Atheism and West, while you are unable to defend the marriage of 6 or 8 years old girls in Hinduism, and that is going against your Hindu Supremacy syndrome. 

 

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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.

 

False. 

 

Women are much more secure in the West as compared to India. You have come up with such stupidity that I even don't need to answer it. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

It is my right to ask why modern Hindus declare Homosexuality to be wrong and criticise West for allowing it, when ancient Hindus themselves practiced Homosexuality? This will be counted as double standards of modern Hindus then. 

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lowest-age-you-can-legally-get-married-around-world-10415517.html

 

So lets see:

 

Min age of marriage (boy/girl)

USA: 14/12

UK: 16/16

Canada: 16/16

Australia: 16/16

Spain: 16/16

Italy: 16/16

 

India: 18/18

Indonesia: 19/16

China: 22/20

Japan: 18/16

South Korea: 18/16

Thailand: 17/17

Myanmar: 20/20

Nepal: 18/18

 

How the heck does your western masters become enders of child marriage and beacon for anti child marriage legislation, when THEY ALLOW CHILDREN TO GET MARRIED MORE THAN ANY OTHER NATION LEGALLY ??? Americans can legally marry at 12 for a girl. TWELVE !

When will your lies and slave-worship of the west end ??

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

You have lost your senses. 

 

It is Medical Science which has diagnosed this as a Disease in few Children, and it is trying to help these Children. It may be that the scientific cure of such cases is still not perfect at moment, but surely science will keep on trying to find better and better solution for this. 

Except this is not true and there is already precedence set in UK with the Keira Bell case just a couple of weeks ago and your modern western atheists are whining about it because it stops mutilation of children. Let that sink in.

Modern liberal westerners want to cut off children's sexual organs and permanently modify them for a mental illness. 

 

Also it is YOUR western medical establishment that removed it from being an illness 5 years ago and now considers it ' just as valid lifestyle choice'.  They are offering the mutilation of children as a program not to cure a mental illness but to support a legitimate lifestyle choice and valid way of being. This is cited in their own manuals and policies.

so western slave, update your lingo according to your western masters - transgender is no longer an illness according to the western DSMs 

 

Imagine being such a lowlife as to support mutilating children PERMANENTLY and sterilizing them so you can sell them drugs forever, as some sort of advancement.

Guess what other advancement your western masters invented and practiced for DECADES before the public had enough and revolted ? Lobotomy. Cutting off parts of people's brains. This is the value system of your western atheists. Hence their moral code is lower than that of neolithic tribes. 

Quote

 

While religions like Hinduism were not even able to recognise it even as a disease (than what to talk about it's religious cure). 

 

Hinduism recognized the existence of transgender for 1500 years before barbarian west stopped killing them on the spot and we have FIRST HAND testimonials from Islamists and Jesuits calling us craven for allowing transgender people to walk around freely and not kill them. 
I can cite the first hand sources if you wish.

 

Quote

 

 

Again question is what it has to do with Atheism? Why are you putting the blame of religious Christian priests upon the Atheists or the non-religious Western society which has already declared it a crime and want the Priests to lead a normal life, with sex with normal women. 

 

I am not blaming the atheists for this- i am saying this is yet another nail in the coffin of western ideology. Their theists are more rapey than eastern theists, their atheists are mutilating children and abolishing terms like mother and father from the constitution.

Morally the west has always been inferior to the east and still is, to this day.

 

Quote

 

You are only wrongfully trying to put the blame upon Atheism and West, while you are unable to defend the marriage of 6 or 8 years old girls in Hinduism, and that is going against your Hindu Supremacy syndrome. 

Hindu supremacy syndrome ?? Is that why i keep asking you why you western atheists slander buddhists as religious and you run away ??

Hindu supremacists defends buddhists jains and shintos ??

I guess even our supremacists are superior to your inferior western atheists or theists who can only '' other'' everyone that is not them and cannot look out for the interests of those who do NOT share their ideologies.

 

Quote

 

False. 

 

Women are much more secure in the West as compared to India. You have come up with such stupidity that I even don't need to answer it. 

 

Women get raped per capita way more in the west than in EVERY SINGLE ASIAN COUNTRY. Sorry, stats are stats and western self-serving propaganda wont help.

I have met far more women who have been raped in the west than ever in india. 

Quote

 

 

It is my right to ask why modern Hindus declare Homosexuality to be wrong and criticise West for allowing it, when ancient Hindus themselves practiced Homosexuality? This will be counted as double standards of modern Hindus then. 

 

No, you responded about pedophilia amongst the Greek barbarians as homosexuality. Why did you conflate pedophilia with homosexuality like all homophobes do ??

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

According to vast majority of Hindus, Smriti is indeed a religious text, which has some divine origin. While your claims are not important, and they are wrong. 

 

Except for Smritis (Dharmashastras), Hindus have no other Laws. And these same laws have also been alternatively mentioned in all other ancient Hindu texts too, like Puranas,  etc. 

 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

According to vast majority of Hindus, Smriti is indeed a religious text, which has some divine origin. While your claims are not important, and they are wrong. 

A smriti by definition is non cannonical. Otherwise it would be shruti.

It isnt important because no critic of hinduism ever mentions the book by name ( though they mention the actual important books like ramayana mahabharata, vedas etc) and i have already shown you CITED EVIDENCE that these dharmashastra books were made relevant by the British and had little or no relevance prior to it.

 

 

Smritis are EXPLICITLY STATED TO NOT BE OF DIVINE ORIGIN. DONT MAKE UP LIES ABOUT HINDUISM. EVERY SINGLE HINDU TEXT THAT EXPLAINS WHAT A SMRITI IS, SAYS ITS A SMRITI BECAUSE OF NOT BEING DIVINE ORIGIN. ELSE IT WOULD BE AMONGST THE 200+ SHRUTI LITERATURE.

 

Abrahamic hindu-haters always resort to lies to slander superior ideologies than what their fathers follow.

Quote

 

Except for Smritis (Dharmashastras), Hindus have no other Laws. And these same laws have also been alternatively mentioned in all other ancient Hindu texts too, like Puranas,  etc. 

 

Arthashastra says hello. Entire chapter on legal code. We have plenty of legal code plastered around Indian archeology all over the place. So the people who taught the hilbilly bariarian west how to count properly, invented all math prior to advanced calculus first, somehow didnt have the ability to make their laws. 
yes, makes so much sense.

 

No hindu text outside of manusmriti mentions that caste is by birth and even your citation of Buddhist texts show that back in 500 BCE brahmins, when prodded, admit freely by themselves that one does not require to be born a brahmin to become a brahmin.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar Why did you run away from the simple math example of how your atheism is a beleif system and inferior mathematically to agnosticism ??? Is this why you western atheists love to ride on the coat-tails of agnosticism to legitimize yourself, like your God Dawkins did on live tv ?