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

[Alam_dar]

2 hours 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.

 

 

Britishers didn't made caste system in India Relevant.
They didn't impose Manusmriti upon Hindus. 
Despite the Buddhist influence, still Hinduism (before Britishers) got a lot of evils of brutal caste system in their society. 

And these evils are even present till today in the Hindu society. 

Off course Brahmins could not kill the Dallits today, or to pour lead in their ears, but still there is hardly any Temple where Dallits could perform the duties of priests. 

Even marriages are not taking place today between Brahmins and untouchables. 

 

Religious Hindus only had to defend their religion and Hindu society, and that is why they are putting wrongfully blames upon the Britishers. 

 

[Muloghonto]

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Britishers didn't made caste system in India Relevant.
They didn't impose Manusmriti upon Hindus. 

 

 

Except they LITERALLY did:

 

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}

Quote

 

Despite the Buddhist influence, still Hinduism (before Britishers) got a lot of evils of brutal caste system in their society. 

And these evils are even present till today in the Hindu society. 

Caused by the british, as cited above. 

 

Quote

 

 

Religious Hindus only had to defend their religion and Hindu society, and that is why they are putting wrongfully blames upon the Britishers. 

 

The claim itself is not just from hindus but also from your gora atheists. Since you believe that white atheists >> brown man, i cited white man to convince you. 

the citation contains actual links to the works that show its the British who elevated this obscure irrelevant book as the legal code of the hindus and that is why it finds ZERO MENTION in any of the enemies of hinduism prior for thousands of years.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar Oh another bit of info for you about reading ACTUAL historical sources and not western propaganda:

 

Buddhism was actually the THIRD most prevalent ideology in India in ancient and early medieval times. After Hinduism, the next major one was Jainism.

Buddhist sources THEMSELVES acknowledge that Jainism was mass prevalent during their times and that Mahavira was the LAST tirthankar of Jains, not the founder of it.

The earliest attested actual historical figure in India is Rishabdev, the Jain prince.

Samprati, the second ruler of the Mauryas after Ashoka- was a jain.  The Jains remained prolific throughout the 1st millenium AD, with several Rashtrakuta and Chalukya emperors being Jains and patronizing Jainism, whereas between the early Kushan emperors ( Huvishka was the last buddhist Kushan, his successor Vasudeva was a hindu and all Kushans were subsequently, Hindus) and the Pal empire, ONLY Harshavardhana was a Buddhist and that too, a convert and not from long practicing buddhist line.

 

So if anything, the influence of Jainism on hinduism is stronger than that of Buddhism.

But your western masters talk mostly about Buddhism because Buddhism has spread amongst their midst and continues to do so and Jainism hasnt.

 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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. 

 

It is rubbish. 

Atheists don't consider books of Dawkins to have any divine source, as Hindus considered their religious books to be from the divine source. And thus Hindus believed in the confusing and the contradictory creation theories, but Atheists believe only in the Scientific Research. This gives excellence to Atheism above the Hinduism. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

The presence of only these 2 Cities as democratic cities is enough to proof the excellence of Greek social system upon the Hindu social system, which was always ruled by the Kings, who were fighting with each other all the time, and even the religious personalities in religious books followed the hereditary system of kingship, where the son automatically took the place of the death father as king. 

 

And off course the modern democratic System is also a gift of non-religious West, and it is even better than the Greek democracy of the past. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

So greek strategy is superior based on what evidence ??? Arthashastra and like also existed and are FAR superior to the greek warfare system. 

 

It is disputed. Indians were never able to occupy any area further than Afghanistan in the West, while Greeks and Romans conquered lot of areas as compared to Hindu Kings. 

 

Hindu Kings were fighting with each other, killing each other, but they never got enough power to conquer the western lands beyond Afghanistan. 

 

All agree that Alexander was bigger Conqueror than the Indian King. But Alexander was far far away from his home land, and already lost lot of his soldiers in the earlier wars. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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

 

If you are referring to Gupta Empire, then it came through "Force", otherwise Hindu scriptures do not allow the Mantras for the untouchables. And in whole Indian History, there were hardly any untouchables who became royalty or who got the chance to educate themselves. 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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. 

 

And I asked you why you asked this totally "non-related" question, as both Islam and Hinduism has the confusing and contradicting and scientifically wrong creation theories. 

And issue was this that non-religious West has excellence upon the Hinduism, while West follows the Science, but Hinduism followed the man made stories of creation. 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

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.

 

Again a useless discussion from you. 

 

Renaissance took place in Europe, and it caused that Catholic Church became weak. In all, the Renaissance could be viewed as an attempt by intellectuals to study and improve the secular and worldly, both through the revival of ideas from antiquity, and through novel approaches to thought. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

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. 

 

None of Christian Scientist ever claimed that he deduced his scientific discoveries from Bible. It may be that they say that religion gives them spiritual help, but we are talking about direct scientific help, which is not present in the bible for the scientific discoveries. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

 

Again it is totally irrelevant. 

 

I told you that as time passed, and scientific facts became clear, then Christian scientists themselves gradually left Christianity and now 97% of American Scientists believe in the theory of evolution. This is the excellence of modern non-religious Atheism upon the religious Christianity. 

 

Atheism has same excellence upon Hinduism too, where again Indian scientists are believing more and more in theory of evolution, as compared to the stories of creation in the Hindu religious books. 

 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

 

Don't try to hide the wrong-doings of Hindu religion behind the curtain of Islam.

 

Hindu Religion is also guilty of marrying 6 or 8 years old small girls before puberty, and without their consent as an adult. This is enough to prove that Hinduism was also a man made religion, and has nothing to do with divinity and indeed it also oppressed the girls. 

 

Hindu religion could not compete to the excellence of non-religious Western society of today in this matter, which for the first time in Human history, gave the girls full and equal rights. 

[Alam_dar]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

@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. 

 

Totally irrelevant. 

It is not a atheism vs agnosticism debate, but about the excellence of Hindu Religious System of India VS the non-Religious system of the West. 

 

And you my friend, has not been defending agnosticism, but you have been constantly defending the man made religious system, which deceives the people in name of divinity according to even your own agnostic standards. But you keep your eyes closed from this fact due to your disease of Indian Supremacy. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is rubbish. 

Atheists don't consider books of Dawkins to have any divine source, as Hindus considered their religious books to be from the divine source. And thus Hindus believed in the confusing and the contradictory creation theories, but Atheists believe only in the Scientific Research. This gives excellence to Atheism above the Hinduism. 

You dont have to have divine source to have dogma. Communists dont consider communist manifesto or das kapital to be from divine source yet dogmatically follow it.

Hindus dont consider manusmriti or any smriti to have divine source either. You blatently LIED about smritis having divine source when its DEFINITION in every single hindu text is that of a commentary by a guy, not a divine source. Why did you lie ?

 

Confusing and contradictory theories ?

Mate, the vedas are the KING in hinduism and cite to us what the OLDEST AND MOST VENERATED VEDA- the RIG VEDA says about creationism. 

 

Atheists dont believe in scientific research any more than theists do when it comes to their belief systems- if they did, they would not be atheists but be agnostics.

 

Quote

 

 

 

The presence of only these 2 Cities as democratic cities is enough to proof the excellence of Greek social system upon the Hindu social system, which was always ruled by the Kings, who were fighting with each other all the time, and even the religious personalities in religious books followed the hereditary system of kingship, where the son automatically took the place of the death father as king. 

Again, false.

Arthashastra and SEVERAL buddhist texts mention several REPUBLIC states and republic city states by name in the 500 BCE-1000 BCE period. Not just two like the barbarian Greeks.

And the Greeks fought each other far more often than any other civilization fought its own in the 500 BCE-170 BCE period before the Romans finally kicked their butts and annihilated Greek independence.

And unlike the inferior western doctrine- Indian kingship wasnt reserved for the oldest son- it passed over several older sons for a younger son with zero trouble many times.

And also unlike inferior muslims and christian ideologies, India is the first place EVER we see where there is no dynastic struggle or rebellion for king not following the religion of his father. Plenty of Indian dynasties - local kings to empires had rulers who adopted their own religion and nobody cared. 

 

Quote

 

And off course the modern democratic System is also a gift of non-religious West, and it is even better than the Greek democracy of the past. 

The modern democratic western system has TWO competing systems- the Anglo-American model and the French model. Both were created by God fearing christians. Both in UK, USA and France. Founding fathers of modern democracy in USA were mostly God fearing Christians. In their own words.

Same with UK.

 

Quote

 

 

It is disputed. Indians were never able to occupy any area further than Afghanistan in the West, while Greeks and Romans conquered lot of areas as compared to Hindu Kings. 

Why the heck would we conquer poor lands west of us ?? Greeks themselves came from poor poverty stricken land that produced very little of value - no cash crops, no spices, poor quality farmland and the ONLY two things it produced were silver and marble. 

Why would we leave our own lands to conquer when our lands are 30% of humanity back then and greeks are less than 1% ??

 

There is nothing disputed about Alexander crapping his shorts and running away from India in the primary sources. ALL primary sources agree that the courage of the Macedonians withered when they head the army of Dhanand crossing the Ganges, less than 200 kms away, with over 5,000 war elephants in tow, when they had the toughest fight of their entire careers with a piddly punjab king who could field only 150-200 war elephants.

Quote

 

Hindu Kings were fighting with each other, killing each other, but they never got enough power to conquer the western lands beyond Afghanistan. 

We had no reason to conquer blasted deserts that produced nothing. This is why when Hindu kings were not fighting each other, we were the FIRST EVER TRANS-OCEANIC EMPIRE the world has ever seen, when the imperial Chola navies crossed the open Indian ocean to whack Myanmar and Thailand. 

we had better places to conquer than sand and rocks that produce nothing. Duh

 

Quote

 

All agree that Alexander was bigger Conqueror than the Indian King. But Alexander was far far away from his home land, and already lost lot of his soldiers in the earlier wars. 

 

He got scared, his men mutinied due to fear. These are direct citation in ALL Roman and Greek first hand sources. Arrian, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus - ALL mention the Greeks rebelling because they were scared at facing 5000 war elephants in battle when they had the toughest fight of their lives beating a piddly king and his 150-200 war elephants.

 

Quote

 

If you are referring to Gupta Empire, then it came through "Force", otherwise Hindu scriptures do not allow the Mantras for the untouchables. And in whole Indian History, there were hardly any untouchables who became royalty or who got the chance to educate themselves. 

I am not mentioning the Guptas only. I have given you HALF A DOZEN examples - from big empire to small kingdoms founded by lower caste people.

Which is more than the west. Find me example of farmers, cobblers, traders founding ANY dynasty in the west or in Islam- i already gave you the ONLY example in Islam- Saffarids. 

This is clear objective evidence that lower caste people had the greatest upward mobility in Indian subcontinent of ALL lands west of it, in ancient and early medeival times.

 

Quote

 

And I asked you why you asked this totally "non-related" question, as both Islam and Hinduism has the confusing and contradicting and scientifically wrong creation theories. 

So we can see which one is MORE in line with scientific principle. Why are you so afraid to quote the Rig Vedic creation sutra and the islamic sutras ?

 

Quote

And issue was this that non-religious West has excellence upon the Hinduism, while West follows the Science, but Hinduism followed the man made stories of creation. 

Hindus followed science far more than the west did till the last 100 years. We didnt kill scientists for contravening the scriptures. West did. this makes them more the slave of manmade stories than us. Duh.

 

Quote

 

Again a useless discussion from you. 

 

Renaissance took place in Europe, and it caused that Catholic Church became weak. In all, the Renaissance could be viewed as an attempt by intellectuals to study and improve the secular and worldly, both through the revival of ideas from antiquity, and through novel approaches to thought. 

Catholic church became weak where the Protestants rose up in PROTEST. And christianity reigned supreme, just fractured some more. That is why Christians burnt people at the stakes for being heretics all over europe up to the end of the 18th century. Reneissance didnt end in 1800. It ended 200 years prior to it. 

 

Quote

None of Christian Scientist ever claimed that he deduced his scientific discoveries from Bible. It may be that they say that religion gives them spiritual help, but we are talking about direct scientific help, which is not present in the bible for the scientific discoveries. 

Irrelevant.

It still doesnt change the fact that bulk majority of western sciences was discovered by god-fearing christians, which contradicts your BS claim that only after the west turned to atheism did it make scientific progress.

Quote

Again it is totally irrelevant. 

 

I told you that as time passed, and scientific facts became clear, then Christian scientists themselves gradually left Christianity and now 97% of American Scientists believe in the theory of evolution. This is the excellence of modern non-religious Atheism upon the religious Christianity. 

Again its irrelevant to the fact that bulk majority of western sciences are discovered not by atheists but christians. 

Quote

 

Atheism has same excellence upon Hinduism too, where again Indian scientists are believing more and more in theory of evolution, as compared to the stories of creation in the Hindu religious books. 

 

 

Atheism will fail, just like theism has failed because atheism is also a belief system. This is why your Atheist prophet Dawkins squirmed on live tv at mention of agnosticism, why you run away from simple math proof that agnosticism >> atheism and why most eastern non-theists have been agnostics.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

Don't try to hide the wrong-doings of Hindu religion behind the curtain of Islam.

 

We didnt or dont glorify the pedophilia of Islam as absolute. This is why still to this day the most number of pedophile marriages are in Islamic countries like Yemen and Somalia. 

 

13 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Hindu Religion is also guilty of marrying 6 or 8 years old small girls before puberty, and without their consent as an adult. This is enough to prove that Hinduism was also a man made religion, and has nothing to do with divinity and indeed it also oppressed the girls. 

We married children to children and mid-teenagers to young men adults. Just like europeans did. We didnt glorify child rapists raping pre-pubescent children like the west does with glorifying the ancient barbarian greeks. 

 

And to this day, the west allows child marriage, we dont- we get rid of social ills in our legal system far better than the pedophile supporting west does.

13 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Hindu religion could not compete to the excellence of non-religious Western society of today in this matter, which for the first time in Human history, gave the girls full and equal rights. 

You mean the rapiest society man has ever created- the modern west. Where more women and children are trafficked into sex slavery due to their porn peddling culture.

And which still allows child marriage, unlike India or most of the eastern ideology followers with higher age of marriage.

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Totally irrelevant. 

It is not a atheism vs agnosticism debate, but about the excellence of Hindu Religious System of India VS the non-Religious system of the West. 

 

And you my friend, has not been defending agnosticism, but you have been constantly defending the man made religious system, which deceives the people in name of divinity according to even your own agnostic standards. But you keep your eyes closed from this fact due to your disease of Indian Supremacy. 

I am defending hinduism since hinduism also allows atheism and agnosticism in its fold. Along with other agnostic/atheist philosophies like buddhism and janism, which your western atheists slander as religions. I am agnostic and i am hindu. So i can defend it all i wish.

 

Indian supremacy ? thats why i said not even Bon ( tibetan religion), shintoism ( japanese), chinese & vietnamese folk religions are as barbaric as the western atheists and abrahamic theists ??

Didnt realize that India to you means entire land east of and including Republic of India. 

 

Oh and good job running away from the simple logical demostration that atheism is a belief system- something your atheist prophet Richard Dawkins was cornered about and chose to hide behind agnosticism. 

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar only a western imperialistic pig or their bootlickers can call the Greek system - comprised of 40% slaves, with women having ZERO property rights - something granted to them in India, China, Egypt and Persia by 400 BCE, a society that invented COMMERCIAL MASS SCALE SLAVERY and boasts about raping pre-pubescent kids asfull grown adults as COMMON PRACTICE- as a better system.

 

You can cite hindu texts allowing marriage between two kids or a teenager and a 20-30 year old like was common up to end of VICTORIAN EUROPE. It still doesnt hold a candle to the depravity of commonly practiced rape of pre-pubescent kids, outside of marriage and discarded- like the Greeks and the Romans.

 

The Romans FYI had a SPECIFIC word for the young pre-pubescent boys they raped in orgies and discarding them - they were called CATAMITES. Tells you how prevalent a practice is in a society when that practice gets a SPECIFIC TERM in their language.

 

The greeks were universally seen in their own time as barbarians by all who encountered them, except the Romans. That is what the first hand sources of history shows us and the reasons are pretty obvious why the Greeks were an inferior barbaric society to rest of Europe and Asia. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar

 

Here is what your FIRST HAND GREEK SOURCES AND SECOND HAND ROMAN SOURCES say about Alexander the barbarian:

Megasthenes:

 

Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as he did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.

 

Plutarch:

 

As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants.

 

 

Your piddly Greek king beat an incompetent Persian emperor in battle, came to India, pretty much conquered the Belgium of India after the toughest fight of his life and ran away when facing the Russian empire of India.

You dont get a say in this, because this is first hand source as well as direct citation of first hand source (such as also Ctesias who was present in the battle) by the Romans.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_darGreeks, Romans, Arabs conquered a lot of sand and forests.

Easy to conquer 100,000 km of arabia when all you have to do is beat 5,000 men and thats your prize. come to India or South East Asia or China, where conquering 100,000 sq km means facing SEVERAL armies of 20,000 men or more.

 

This is why neither the Greeks or the Romans even begin to compare with the Indian and Chinese empire for the scale of their conquests. Sand rocks and trees dont fight back. People do. This is why Indian and Chinese empires have controlled far more people throughout history than the Romans or the Greeks were able to. 

 

our war strategic knowledge was so much better and so prevalent that it spawned a game out of it - chess. The barbarian Greco-Romans were far too primitive to invent games out of war strategy like us. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar when will your atheist western barbarians catch up to India, China,Singapore, etc. and ban child marriage ?? Is this why you are so-pro west because you can marry a 12 year old girl in USA or 16 year old minors across most of Europe ??? Maybe they need to first start raping their women less and learn from us asians on how to be less rapey a society.

 

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

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

I left you in your stubbornness, while you didn't answer my questions, when I posted this:

 

//

After reading whole account which Megasthenes wrote about India (link to the book), it seems he fabricated stories about India, in order to present it as an Utopia land to his people. For example:

 

1. Megasthenes claimed that  food has been in so much abundance, that there had never been any famine in India. 

2. Indian Elephants are special and they live up to 200 years of age.  Indian elephants are much bigger in Size and Strength than African elephants. 
3. Indian Tigers are double the size of lions.
4. Indian Monkeys are larger than the largest dogs. Their tails are more than 2 cubits in length. They are so tame that they never attack man nor steal. 
5. Stones are dug up which are of the colour of frankincenso and sweeter than figs or honey. 
6. There are serpents two cubits long which have membranous wings like bats. They fly about in night, when they let fall drops of urine or sweat, which blister the skin of persons not on their guard, with putrid sores. 
7. There are also winged scorpions of an extra ordinary size .
8. Indian dogs are greatest in strength. The bull was seized by the muzzle, and died before the dog could be taken off. 

9. He also wrote fantasy stories, such as those about tribes of people with no mouths, unicorns and other mythical animals, and gold-digging ants

//

 

So, how many of these questions did you answer? You just ran away from them at that time. 

 

You want to present this liar as authentic source over all the Smritis and Puranas and other ancient Hindu texts, then you have lost your senses. 

 

 

Quote

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.

 

Please bring forward your proof that Yijing and Faxian wrote positively about the Hindu Caste System. 

 

As far as I can see, then it is totally opposite to your claim, and Faxian severely criticised the brutal Caste System that was present in India in that time among the Hindus. 

 

Here is link to Faxian's book (link). 

 

 

 

Faxian wrote: “Chandalas is the name for those who are (held to be) wicked men, and live apart from others.  When they enter the gate of a city or a market-place, they stike a piece of wood to make themselves known, so that men know and avoid them, and do not come into contact with them ... Only the Chandalas are fishermen and hunters and sell flesh meat. ”

 

I don't know how could you praise this brutal caste system of India. 

 

Moreover, this Chandalas and their being wicked and their living apart, and their striking wood to make themselves know has not been mentioned in any Vedas, but it was the Law of the Hindu Society. And these laws of Hindu Society were present in the Smritis, which Hindu apologists of today deny. 

 

Quote

 

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. 

 

You could say it as louder as you wish, but this is not going to help you. 

 

This incident proofs logically only this that first Brahmin presented the original concept and definition of Brahman from Hindu religion. But Buddha was able to reform him through his wisdom, and the Brahmin accepted the mistakes of Hinduism when the wise Buddha guided him towards the truth. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

58 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I left you in your stubbornness, while you didn't answer my questions, when I posted this:

 

//

After reading whole account which Megasthenes wrote about India (link to the book), it seems he fabricated stories about India, in order to present it as an Utopia land to his people. For example:

 

1. Megasthenes claimed that  food has been in so much abundance, that there had never been any famine in India. 

Quite possible. The number of famines recorded in the 1000 years prior to British rule was 2% of what was recorded during 250 years of british rule.

 

Quote

2. Indian Elephants are special and they live up to 200 years of age.  Indian elephants are much bigger in Size and Strength than African elephants. 

Yes, Indian elephants are MUCH bigger in size than the extinct North African elephants used by Hannibal.

Quote

 

3. Indian Tigers are double the size of lions.

Indian tigers are bigger than lions. 

Quote

4. Indian Monkeys are larger than the largest dogs. Their tails are more than 2 cubits in length. They are so tame that they never attack man nor steal. 

 

The langur is larger than any dog breed older than 1000 years. Again, fact. 

 

Quote

 

So, how many of these questions did you answer? You just ran away from them at that time. 

 

You want to present this liar as authentic source over all the Smritis and Puranas and other ancient Hindu texts, then you have lost your senses. 

 

Any first hand source is of greater value to PREVAILING CUSTOMS of a society than what a theological book says. My observation of what is prevalent in Canada is of greater value than what the canadian constitution says should be in theory. Duh.

 

Also, nobody said everything Megasthenes said is correct or true. We already know he got several things wrong- such as Indians having no writing, when less than 50 years from Megasthenes, we see archeological evidence of  a highly advanced script system in Ashokan pillars - Brahmi - more phonetically exact than the Greek or the Phoenician scripts. 

Not surprising, since unlike the barbarian greco-romans, its EXCLUSIVELY INDIANS who invented the field of linguistics and why classical sanskrit is by far the most scientifically systematic of the old languages. Your western masters even cite Panini as the source of linguistics 2000+ years after him, when they discovered the science of languages. 

 

 

We who actually study history cross-reference. Ctesias is ANOTHER primary source- now lost- but directly cited by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Arrian etc. Ctesias is even older than Alexander's time and some of the stuff is corroborated.

There are several first hand sources on Alexander- all of them lost or incomplete ( including megasthenes FYI) - Cleitarchus, Heironymus being the other two first hand sources directly referenced by the Romans and the later greek sources.

 

 we who are not hindu-haters like you have no choice but to accept it as true- because when multiple first hand sources converge on X, X == true. 

Alexander ran away from India in fear. Noted by multiple first hand sources and recorded by the Romans too.

 

 

Quote

 

Please bring forward your proof that Yijing and Faxian wrote positively about the Hindu Caste System. 

 

As far as I can see, then it is totally opposite to your claim, and Yijing severely criticised the brutal Caste System that was present in India in that time among the Hindus. 

 

Here is link to Yijing's book (link). 

 

 

Yijing wrote that Hindus called the lower caste people "Chandalas" (an abusive word???)  As far as I know, word Chandal is used in negative meaning in Indian Sub-Continent, which means wicked. 

Chandalas are a SPECIFIC caste of people. Nowhere in Yijing's commentary he shows any support or disdain for it. Where does he oppose anything ??

Yijing is seen as one of the most objective chroniclers of his time, observing without passing any positive or negative judgement.

 

Quote

 

 

 

I don't know how could you praise this brutal caste system of India. 

 

I praise it in COMPARISON to being the most mobile and flexible system of its time. 
That is why we also have the most number of lower caste kings and emperors in history. 

 

Quote

You could say it as louder as you wish, but this is not going to help you. 

 

This incident proofs logically only this that first Brahmin presented the original concept and definition of Brahman from Hindu religion. But Buddha was able to reform him through his wisdom, and the Brahmin accepted the mistakes of Hinduism when the wise Buddha guided him towards the truth. 

 

The incident is proof that even in 500 BCE a brahmin exposes his bias and quickly backtracks saying that anyone can be a brahmin based on conduct. Nowhere did the Brahmin say or the buddhist sources say that his opinions are not his own but that of his entire religion or such. So your hindu-hater angle of it being prevalent amongst hindus and not HIS personal opinion is summarily rejected.

 

Buddha makes no comment about reforming him, neither does he say that this is prevailing wisdom of hinduism- he said this is THIS BRAHMIN's view, which he quickly changed upon prodding. 

Much like western modern atheists make a few racist statements here and there and when prodded quickly change.

 

All your story shows, is that a brahmin in 500 BCE admitted that one can be a brahmin based on conduct, not birth.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Mariyam]

Strange that the discussion between me and coffee about GoI laws pertaining to religious institutions of various denominations and their autonomy has been deleted. It was a clean discussion with no casteist/religious slurs or name calling.

 

Baffling!

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Strange that the discussion between me and coffee about GoI laws pertaining to religious institutions of various denominations and their autonomy has been deleted. It was a clean discussion with no casteist/religious slurs or name calling.

 

Baffling!

There you go, I know you were kidding. It was hidden among all cut and paste useless articles 20 pages ago

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar Kahaan bhaag gaye janaab ???

[Alam_dar]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

@Alam_dar Kahaan bhaag gaye janaab ???

 

Sorry if you were waiting. Very busy weekend. 

[Lannister]

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

This is what is in effect. They are not under government control because they do not appoint the clergy at churches. 

Stop being such a hindu hater, western wannbe ''atheist'"

They can if that's something they want to do. Stop being such a sore loser, you bengali brahman. 

 

Its one thing if a secular party regulates/ oversees religious cult practices, but it's different when a self-proclaimed Hindu party wants to regulate other faiths. And, rightly so, they shouldn't be trusted. 

 

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

Because the point is not conversion. Seeking convesion is why your western masters and islamist lovers have killed far more in name of religion than hindus buddhists jains shintos, bon etc combined. 

We will not let the coercive bribing service of conversion racket continue due to democratic right. 

Wait, didn't brahmins used to kill and discriminate people from their own religion? How many buddhists, jains and others had lost their lives in opposing their brutal caste system and forceful conversion? 

 

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

No. the language that has the best claim is the dominant language of the natives. That is the fundamental right of me, as an Indian citizen, to recognize the majority of my own people. 

We are indian first, kannada or bengali second. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the Dharmic civilization of the Indian subcontinent. 

Hitler had wanted to dominate as well. He and his followers have all been buried deep under the ground. Not sure where do you get this confidence that a mere 3-4 Hindi states can have an authority over 20+ non-Hindi states and face no consequences. Didn't you learn anything from your history? 

 

On 1/15/2021 at 11:48 AM, Muloghonto said:

Too bad basic set theory math is beyond your education level. You do have a core value - you refuse to believe in God. Null set. Every philosopher btw, considers atheism a philosophy. I can even quote Dawkins- ur guru on this. 

Sure quote. And make sure to quote his opinions on christianity as well or the religions in general.