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

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Lannister said:

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

except the Roman Catholic clergy isn’t appointed by the Indian govt like the Hindu priests are in temples.

Just now, Lannister said:

 

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. 
 

it’s government who should regulate the religious bodies of a nation, regardless of which party is in power.

Just now, Lannister said:

 

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? 
 

Just once in entire Indian history. Regardless of what your western masters have said, there is only one such example in first hand Indian history. 

Just now, Lannister said:

 

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? 
 

if MAJOIRTY of Indians want it, they have the authority to do so. Making a local language the national language is nowhere comparable to hitler, you hindi hating provincial cretin. You already said you would rather have a foreign language than an Indian language. Anti national cretin.

Just now, Lannister said:

 

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

Irrelevant. Who cares what atheist believers think of theist beleivers. They are both idiots.

[Tibarn]

@Muloghonto @coffee_rules

 

I didn't read the whole thread, just Mulo's posts on the last 1.5 pages, but for your reference:

 

Even Manusmriti says that varna is fluid, ie Shudras can become Brahmins, which is what this verse references 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

 

10 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Even Manusmriti says that varna is fluid, ie Shudras can become Brahmins, which is what this verse references 

 

 

Well as you can see, my position is fairly simple and consistent : Why should we define a philosophy by its unheard of, fringe elements ??? Manusmriti is a fringe book of the Hindus, elevated by the British. This is said so by westerners themselves, nevermind us, as my citation shows.

Should we define western atheism by any fringe nonsense book we can find on it ? Should we define Greek philosophy by any random unknown greek book ? So why should we do the same for Manusmriti - a book of zero consequence- never followed, hardly ever mentioned by hindus themselves in history, never ever mentioned by those who opposed hindu ideologies ???

 

Our resident western atheist worshipper and ex-muslim @Alam_dar just continues to run away from these simple questions.

[Muloghonto]

@Tibarn - welcome back. Thanks for singlehandedly raising the IQ of ICF and the potential quality of its posts by at least 10% by returning!

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Well as you can see, my position is fairly simple and consistent : Why should we define a philosophy by its unheard of, fringe elements ??? Manusmriti is a fringe book of the Hindus, elevated by the British. This is said so by westerners themselves, nevermind us, as my citation shows.

Should we define western atheism by any fringe nonsense book we can find on it ? Should we define Greek philosophy by any random unknown greek book ? So why should we do the same for Manusmriti - a book of zero consequence- never followed, hardly ever mentioned by hindus themselves in history, never ever mentioned by those who opposed hindu ideologies ???

 

Our resident western atheist worshipper and ex-muslim @Alam_dar just continues to run away from these simple questions.

 

Yes, from what I read, the British, when they first colonized India, in modern day Bengal and Bihar, they looked for any sort of law book to serve as a civil code for the Hindu community in the colony. They struggled to find one as until the Manusmriti, which they then assumed to be some prominent law book for the various Dharmic Panths, literally just because that was the first thing they found.  

It was easier for the British in regards to the Islamic community, as it was pretty clear Sharia was the basis of their legal system, which the British then applied to the Muslim community. 

 

Theoretically, the Manusmriti would only have been relevant during the era it was formulate, I think somewhere between 1000-2000 BCE(You can correct me if I'm wrong there, I don't know the exact date). The assumption that it applied throughout the entirety of our history is to be completely ignorant of actual history. This is especially the case because Manusmriti is only considered the first smriti chronologically. There are 17 others that came after, some were formulated in specific regions of India, so, if they applied, they would apply for those specific regions. 

 

For reference, the 18 are, in no order: Manu, Vishnu, Daksha, Samvarta, Vyasa, Harita, Satatapa, Vashishta, Yama, Apastamba, Gautama, Devala, Sankha-Likhita, , Usana, Atri, Saunaka, Yajnavalkya, and Parasara. 

 

Reducing all laws and philosophy to Manusmriti simply because the British knew it existed is brainless. The willfully blind wouldn't be able to see that.  

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

@Tibarn - welcome back. Thanks for singlehandedly raising the IQ of ICF and the potential quality of its posts by at least 10% by returning!

Thanks.

 

I actually started posting here sporadically again a while ago, but it seemed you and the others with whom I mostly interact with were on hiatus, so the forum was a little boring  

Edited January 18, 2021 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

 

Yes, from what I read, the British, when they first colonized India, in modern day Bengal and Bihar, they looked for any sort of law book to serve as a civil code for the Hindu community in the colony. They struggled to find one as until the Manusmriti, which they then assumed to be some prominent law book for the various Dharmic Panths, literally just because that was the first thing they found.  

It was easier for the British in regards to the Islamic community, as it was pretty clear Sharia was the basis of their legal system, which the British then applied to the Muslim community. 

 

Correct. But the prominence given to Manusmriti by westerners is DECISIVELY due to their religious & cultural bias. Most westerners who wrote the initial works and studied them profusely in their universities were Christians. We know what Christians think of us.  Also the Western atheists- Western atheists back then, like today ( but way more back then due to more obvert classism) give Abrahamic religions ' theistic primacy'and see all other religious thought as inferior. 

 

Its instructional to read their own goddamn original writings and analysis, instead of two-bit wiki-warriors and google scholars like Atheist-a-Alaaam walla. 

They IMMEDIATELY & Profusely classified THIS book as the core 'truth' of hinduism, because this is the ONLY book that talks of a great world-wide flood and Manu being last man standing Hindu-Noah. 

 

**THIS** fact alone, is the decisive dominance given to Manusmriti. 

 

Quote

Theoretically, the Manusmriti would only have been relevant during the era it was formulate, I think somewhere between 1000-2000 BCE(You can correct me if I'm wrong there, I don't know the exact date).

I dont even know how relevant it would have been. I honestly cant see it being AT BEST- as relevant as Cicero's legal theories were in Rome- only for a while. This is a random smriti- written by someone 'great and famous or knows his stuff type' scholar dude. Which didnt really catch on. Isnt mentioned, hardly any exist, opponents never mention it, etc. 

Just because manusmriti talks about caste doesnt make caste more or less important - thats like saying i am the only book you liked on social conduct laws so therefore my ideas are the only correct one. The relevance of Manusmriti has to be established on the basis of literature analysis itself. 

Not only dont most hindus dont know it today- all objective evidence is decisively of the nature that it exerted, if anything, even less awareness back then. Which can easily be expected of any random Smriti class of writings. There are 100s. Which come after 100s of Shrutis- back then 2000+ as Patanjali mentions them. 

 

They totally want us to ignore the fact that its a smriti- and one of the more obscure ones. 
It has some direct relevance in practice, mostly as a factor of how caste relations and social orders have fluctuated over time. 

 

In simple 'Abrahamic-esque' terms that these will understand, its the St Adolphus of Woodenberry's writings. Who you ask ? Yeah. exactly. Nobody seems to know or ever shown to know except very vaguely by even ancient standards. A random book. Out of 

 

Quote

The assumption that it applied throughout the entirety of our history is to be completely ignorant of actual history. This is especially the case because Manusmriti is only considered the first smriti chronologically. There are 17 others that came after, some were formulated in specific regions of India, so, if they applied, they would apply for those specific regions. 

 

Well Hindus i dont see know much about it in the first place and those who do, very rarely have ever asserted that it is the oldest smriti. This is continuation of the prima-facie bost faced western indology lie, relying on accepting a previous lie ( that manu smriti is the only relevant one due to the flood story, to THEM): well obviously the first smriti would be the smriti of the only dude who survived flood.

 

Anyways- Manusmriti references and copies are very very scant and fragmented prior to 1100 AD or so. When **THE** prevalent version were written. From what i can tell the picture emerging is that manusmriti has had at least 3-4 iterations and its indicative in the language used apparently. And it shows little or no sign of actual recognition in the period prior to 1100 AD. These are the barebones historical facts. I dont know Sanskrit so i cant comment on this much. 

 

Quote

 

For reference, the 18 are, in no order: Manu, Vishnu, Daksha, Samvarta, Vyasa, Harita, Satatapa, Vashishta, Yama, Apastamba, Gautama, Devala, Sankha-Likhita, , Usana, Atri, Saunaka, Yajnavalkya, and Parasara. 

 

Reducing all laws and philosophy to Manusmriti simply because the British knew it existed is brainless. The willfully blind wouldn't be able to see that.  

 

Thanks.

 

I actually started posting here sporadically again a while ago, but it seemed you and the others with whom I mostly interact with were on hiatus, so the forum was a little boring  

 

Well, good to see you around. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

On 1/18/2021 at 12:23 AM, Tibarn said:

@Muloghonto @coffee_rules

 

I didn't read the whole thread, just Mulo's posts on the last 1.5 pages, but for your reference:

 

Even Manusmriti says that varna is fluid, ie Shudras can become Brahmins, which is what this verse references 

 

 

 

The promise of attaining higher Castes (in next Life???) is only a BRIBE to make Shudras to provide SERVICES and Gifts to the higher Castes

 

Verse 9.335 (link)

If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.—(335)

 

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.333.

 

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’

 

 

Mahābhārata—Śānti (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 420).—‘The syllables svāhā and namaḥ are the mantras prescribed for the Śūdra; by means of these shall the Śūdra offer the Pākayajña-Sacrifices; he shall never amass wealth; having acquired wealth by service, he shall win the affection of his elders; and if he is righteously inclined, he may make gifts when permitted to do so by the King.’

 

 

Do. (Do., p. 422).—‘If he cannot make a living by service of the twice-born, the Śūdra may become a trader, or obtain a living by means of the arts, always acting for the welfare of the twice-born.’

 

 

=========

 

@Tibarn

 

Hinduism is a man made religion (mainly by Brahmins). 

I wonder how this simple thing is not clear to people who still follow this religion. 

 

Question: 
Who is going to declare that Shudra have done enough of services towards the Brahmins and now he has attained the higher caste? 
.... or are they going to get this higher caste in the next life (as Verse 10:64 makes it clear. Link)?

 

On 1/18/2021 at 12:37 AM, Muloghonto said:

Well as you can see, my position is fairly simple and consistent : Why should we define a philosophy by its unheard of, fringe elements ??? Manusmriti is a fringe book of the Hindus, elevated by the British.

 

I already made it clear that Manusmriti has "Alternative References" in the other ancient Hindu Sources, which is a proof that all these things/practices were indeed present  in ancient Hindu society. 

[Alam_dar]

Marriage in lower Caste and degradation of status of Children by birth :

 

Manusmriti, Verse 3:13:

 

For the Śūdra, the Śūdra girl. alone has been ordained to be the wife; for the Vaiśya, she as also the girl of his own caste; for the Kṣatriya, those two as also the girl of his own caste; and for the Brāhmaṇa those three as also the girl of his own caste—(13).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 3.13-19)

Vaśiṣṭha (1. 27).—‘By doing this, degradation of family is certain, and after death, fall from heaven.’

 

Vaśiṣṭha (14. 5).—‘The Devas eat not in the house of the Brāhmaṇa-husband of a Śūdra wife.’

 

Yājñavalkya (1. 56).—‘The view that has been held, that the Twice-born may take a Śūdra wife,—this I do not accept; because the man himself is born in his wife.’

 

Śaṅkha (4. 9).—‘By the twice-born, the Śūdra girl shall not be made a wife, even in times of distress; there is no salvation for him as born of her. Those twice-born persons among whose Sapiṇḍa descendants, a Śūdra-born person comes in,—all become Śūdras themselves, even though they may have attained heaven. For these reasons, he shall always avoid the taking of a Śūdra wife.’

 

 

Viṣṇu (26. 25).—‘For the twice-born person, a Śūdra wife can never serve any religious purpose; she may be taken sometimes only for the purpose of pleasure.’

 

Viṣṇu (46. 7).—(Reproduces Manu 18)

 

Baudhāyana (2. 1. 41).—‘Begetting children on a Śūdra wife, etc., etc....... lead to degradation.’

 

Vṛddha Yama (3. 13).—‘If the Brāhmaṇa, infatuated with pride, marries a low-caste wife, he commits the sin of Brāhmaṇa-killing day after day’ [then it reproduces Manu 19].

 

Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra, p. 750).—‘If the Brāhmaṇa has intercourse with a Śūdra woman, he remains impure for three days; if he begets a child on her, he falls off from Brāhmaṇa-hood.’

 

Hārīta (Do.).—‘The Brāhmaṇa having recourse to ṭhe Śūdra woman immediately goes downward; if he has a child by her, he becomes fallen.’

 

Hārīta (Do., p. 751).—‘There is a doubt as to whether or not the Brāhmaṇa becomes degraded by begetting children on wives of lower castes. There can be no such in regard to Kṣatriya or Vaiśya wives. But he who begets a child on the Śūdra certainly becomes degraded.’

 

Uśanas (Do., p. 751).—‘There may be expiation for the wine-drinker, or even for the Brāhmaṇa-murderer; there is none for one who has begotten a child on a Śūdra wife......... Some people say that the Brāhmaṇa-husband of a Śūdra girl becomes degraded; according to others, he does not become degraded, because of the assertion that the Brāhmaṇa may have four wives in due order of the four castes.’

 

Bhaviṣya-purāṇa (Do.).—‘Atri became degraded by leading a Śūdra girl to the altar; Utathya became degraded by begetting a son on the Śūdra; Śaunaka became a Śūdra by having a grandson born from a Śūdra; similarly Bhṛgu and others also became degraded.’

 

Mahābhārata (Āśvamedhika-Parāśaramādhava, p. 495).—‘When the semen falls into the womb of the Śūdra woman, it gives out a loud wail of grief saying “I am, fallen into an ordure-pit; this man, blinded by sinful lust, is casting me downwards, may he himself quickly fall down into the lowest state;”—having thus cursed the man, it falls down.’

 

Mahābhārata (Anuśāsana-Parāśaramādhava, p. 496).—‘The good do not commend the begetting of children on a Śūdra wife; some people have declared that even for purposes of enjoyment, one shall not have recourse to a Śūdra girl.’

 

 

 

 

Caste by Birth and 7 generations needed to change the caste

 

Manusmriti, Verse 10:64:

 

If the child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person,—the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(64)

 

Alternative Sources (link):

 

Yājñavalkya (1.96).—‘Caste becomes elevated during the fifth or the seventh generation; similarly after five or seven generations one acquires that caste of which he has followed the occupations.’

 

Gautama (4.22-24).—‘In the seventh generation, men obtain a change of caste, being either raised to a higher one or degraded to a lower one. The venerable teacher declares that this happens in the fifth generation, and the same rule applies to those born from parents of different castes that are intermediate between two of the castes originally created by Brahmā.’

 

Āpastamba (2, 11.10-11).—‘In successive births, men of the lower castes are born in the next higher one, if they have fulfilled their duties. In successive births, men of the higher castes are born in the next lower one, if they have neglected their duties.’

 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

The promise of attaining higher Castes (in next Life???) is only a BRIBE to make Shudras to provide SERVICES and Gifts to the higher Castes

 

Verse 9.335 (link)

If he is pure, attendant upon his superiors, of gentle speech, free from pride, and always dependent upon the Brāhmaṇa,—he attains a higher caste.—(335)

 

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.333.

 

Viṣṇupurāṇa (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 419).—‘It is only through attending upon the twice-born that the Śūdra becomes entitled to perform the Pākayajñas; and thereby becoming blessed, he wins the worlds.—The Śūdra also shall make gifts, and perform the Pākayajña-sacrifices, as also the rites in honour of Pitṛs.’

 

 

Mahābhārata—Śānti (Parāśaramādhava-Ācāra, p. 420).—‘The syllables svāhā and namaḥ are the mantras prescribed for the Śūdra; by means of these shall the Śūdra offer the Pākayajña-Sacrifices; he shall never amass wealth; having acquired wealth by service, he shall win the affection of his elders; and if he is righteously inclined, he may make gifts when permitted to do so by the King.’

 

 

Do. (Do., p. 422).—‘If he cannot make a living by service of the twice-born, the Śūdra may become a trader, or obtain a living by means of the arts, always acting for the welfare of the twice-born.’

 

 

Thus caste is not fixed and the lower castes can and did progress. As evidenced by the greatest number of lower caste dynasties in India than any other civilization.

 

17 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

=========

 

@Tibarn

 

Hinduism is a man made religion (mainly by Brahmins). 

I wonder how this simple thing is not clear to people who still follow this religion. 

Irrelevant. You are arguing with an agnostic here. 

Its manmade. Yet it is infinitely superior to the manmade abrahamic barbarism or the barbarism of western atheism. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I already made it clear that Manusmriti has "Alternative References" in the other ancient Hindu Sources, which is a proof that all these things/practices were indeed present  in ancient Hindu society. 

 

Stop making up nonsense. Manusmriti is NOT mentioned by name more than half a dozen times in ANY Indian text. Ie, it is one of the LEAST cited smriti in record.

I also gave you DIRECT evidence that this obscure book was lifted to prominence by the British.

If i say ' the penalty for gang rape should be death', i am NOT citing the goddamn indian constitution or any law book. It is a citation when its MENTIONED BY NAME. 

 

What we have proof of, is that caste was not fixed till the genociders and the british arrived and fixed it for us, what we have proof, is of more lower caste empires, kingdoms and royal dynasties than entire middle east and europe put together in history. 

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar why are you parroting european propaganda about the importance of manusmriti after i have directly cited to you that the Dharmashastras were given prominence by the British ?

Nowhere does it show that caste is fixed by birth except manusmriti. And that is your sole reason to give this obscure book any prominence- to slander the hindus as some sort of inferoir society when we have every objective evidence to show we were FAR superior in ethics than your white masters and arab overlords.

We didnt practice slavery like those barbarians did.

We didnt boast about child rape like your Romans and Greeks did and came up with a word for gang-raping children in their orgies ( Catamites).

We also had the most mobile class system- from the time of Buddha where brahmins admit that caste is by action, not by birth. This is directly objectively seen in the historical evidence - where we have SEVERAL kingdoms and empires founded by lower castes. Much more than sum total of European or Arab lower castes founding dynasties.

I can cite the names of the Dynasties if you wish. When are you gonna address these things ??

 

There is plenty of texts in europe and middle east forbidding marriage between the lower castes and royalty- right up to World War I period. So why the double standards ?

Edited January 19, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Alam_dar]

If VARNA was only occupation, why then the lower Caste people were not even allowed to touch the high caste people?

 

I earlier mentioned a foreigner and what he saw in India. 

 

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. ”

 

All these practices were present in a Hindu Society thousands of years before the arrival of Britishers. It is a proof enough that present day evils which we see in the Indian society regarding caste system, they were not introduced by the Britishers. It is a totally wrong allegation and against the Justices. 

 

Similarly, 

 

Manusmriti, Verse 5:103:

 

One should not have a dead Brāhmaṇa carried by a Śūdra, while his own people are there. For it would be an oblation into fire, defiled by the touch of the Śūdra, and as such not conducive to heaven.—(l 03).

 

Then Ganganath presents 5 more alternative sources of this verse of Manusmriti. He writes:

 

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.20);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 634), ... —and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 17). It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 395), which also adds the same remark;—and in Hāralatā (p. 120) which says —‘sveṣu tiṣṭhatsu’ means that if possible the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa should be carried by Brāhmaṇas alone, in the absence of Brāhmaṇas by Kṣatriyas, even by Vaiśyas in the absence of Kṣatriyas, and by Śūdras only when there are no Vaiśyas—‘asvargyā,’ this also refers to cases where twice-born persons are available.

 

And in comparative notes, other Scholars mentioned it in:

 

Viṣṇu (19.1).—‘One must not cause a dead member of a twice-born caste to be carried by a Śūdra; nor a Śūdra by a twice-born person.’

 

Yama (Parāśaramādhava, p. 634).—‘When a sacrificer dies, the Śūdra shall not carry his dead body; that dead person for whom the Śūdra carries fire, grass or wood, remains a ghost for ever and becomes defiled by sin.’

 

 

Therefore, question is, if Varna was only occupation, why then low caste people were not even allowed to touch the high caste people? 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

If VARNA was only occupation, why then the lower Caste people were not even allowed to touch the high caste people?

same reason lower caste peasants weren’t allowed to touch Victorian era nobility. 

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I earlier mentioned a foreigner and what he saw in India. 

 

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. ”

 

All these practices were present in a Hindu Society thousands of years before the arrival of Britishers. It is a proof enough that present day evils which we see in the Indian society regarding caste system, they were not introduced by the Britishers. It is a totally wrong allegation and against the Justices. 

 

 

except all the proof point towards these SOCIAL CUSTOMS not finding much mention in the canonical literature, the social customs being fluid- as indicated by the literal citations of the Buddhists and the prevalence of lower caste dynasties to a greater degree than anywhere else in the world. 
 

I have already given you citation that the obscure dharmashastras- particularly manusmriti was given importance by the British administration, unlike before. 
 

why did you run away from that ?? 

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

 

Similarly, 

 

Manusmriti, Verse 5:103:

 

One should not have a dead Brāhmaṇa carried by a Śūdra, while his own people are there. For it would be an oblation into fire, defiled by the touch of the Śūdra, and as such not conducive to heaven.—(l 03).

 

Then Ganganath presents 5 more alternative sources of this verse of Manusmriti. He writes:

 

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 3.20);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 634), ... —and in Śuddhimayūkha (p. 17). It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 395), which also adds the same remark;—and in Hāralatā (p. 120) which says —‘sveṣu tiṣṭhatsu’ means that if possible the dead body of a Brāhmaṇa should be carried by Brāhmaṇas alone, in the absence of Brāhmaṇas by Kṣatriyas, even by Vaiśyas in the absence of Kṣatriyas, and by Śūdras only when there are no Vaiśyas—‘asvargyā,’ this also refers to cases where twice-born persons are available.

 

similar customs of untouchability finds itself in the European world of Victorian era, where commoners were not allowed to touch corpses of the nobility. So why the singling out of hindus ? 

 

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Therefore, question is, if Varna was only occupation, why then low caste people were not even allowed to touch the high caste people? 

same reason lower caste occupations were not allowed to touch their lords in Europe a century ago. Doesn’t mean it’s static and fixed by birth. You yourself cited evidence that it isn’t fixed by birth even during Buddha’s time.

 

also why did you run away from the fact that your western masters allow child marriage today while we have progressed legally to ban it ?
 

maybe your depraved western atheists can learn something from Asia on how to be civilized and not marry off children 

[Alam_dar]

On 1/19/2021 at 10:37 AM, Muloghonto said:

@Alam_dar why are you parroting european propaganda about the importance of manusmriti after i have directly cited to you that the Dharmashastras were given prominence by the British ?

Nowhere does it show that caste is fixed by birth except manusmriti. And that is your sole reason to give this obscure book any prominence- to slander the hindus as some sort of inferoir society when we have every objective evidence to show we were FAR superior in ethics than your white masters and arab overlords.

We didnt practice slavery like those barbarians did.

We didnt boast about child rape like your Romans and Greeks did and came up with a word for gang-raping children in their orgies ( Catamites).

We also had the most mobile class system- from the time of Buddha where brahmins admit that caste is by action, not by birth. This is directly objectively seen in the historical evidence - where we have SEVERAL kingdoms and empires founded by lower castes. Much more than sum total of European or Arab lower castes founding dynasties.

I can cite the names of the Dynasties if you wish. When are you gonna address these things ??

 

There is plenty of texts in europe and middle east forbidding marriage between the lower castes and royalty- right up to World War I period. So why the double standards ?

 

 

@Muloghonto

 

I admire India for Yoga and Ayurveda and it's ancient Scientific Knowledge, and even for the knowledge of Kama Sutra and other arts. 

 

But denying the wrong-doings of Hinduism as a religion is not in favour of Humanity. It caused a damage to humanity during thousands of years of it's history, and it will continue to harm it in one way or another, till the time we finally accept that indeed Hinduism was also a man made religion and it caused sufferings for human beings. 

 

This practice of hiding the wrongdoings of Hinduism by wrongfully putting blame upon the Britishers, or hiding it's oppression under the oppression of Abrahamic religions is a futile practice and harmful. 

"Justice" with each and every thing is the only way forward to progress as human being.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Alam_dar

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar your Hindu hater agenda is exposed as you keep running your mouth on the civility of the west, then fail to answer how come the civilized ones practiced slavery while we didn’t, how come they still allow marriage of children when we don’t and how come they treat their women poorer than us by raping them way more per capita, if they are civilized.

 

you are still to answer the simple question of why should we care about the manusmriti when it is not canonical literature to Hinduism and is elevated to importance by the British ? 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

@Muloghonto

 

I admire India for Yoga and Ayurveda and it's ancient Scientific Knowledge, and even for the knowledge of Kama Sutra and other arts. 

 

But denying the wrong-doings of Hinduism as a religion is not in favour of Humanity. It caused a damage to humanity during thousands of years of it's history, and it will continue to harm it in one way or another, till the time we finally accept that indeed Hinduism was also a man made religion and it caused sufferings for human beings. 
 

Hinduism is manmade but so is western atheism and it has a higher benchmark of conduct than western atheism or abrahamic religions.

we didn’t claim it to be perfect, we claimed it is better: it is better than the child mutilating atheist queer ideology today, it is better than Islam and Christianity today. In the past too, we didn’t descend to the barbarism of the Greeks or the Romans by refusing property rights to women, raping prepubescent children openly and committing the heinous crime of buying and selling humans. 

Quote

 

This practice of hiding the wrongdoings of Hinduism by wrongfully putting blame upon the Britishers, or hiding it's oppression under the oppression of Abrahamic religions is a futile practice and harmful. 

"Justice" with each and every thing is the only way forward to progress as human being.

 

Except it’s the British who themselves say that they elevated dharmashastras in importance, as I have cited. 
yes, we seek justice against the slander committed by the likes of you and your depraved genocidal western atheists and its slaver legacy of barbarism, which is worse than almost all non abrahamic religions and its devolved philosophies seen by man. 
 

the point isn’t we are perfect, the point is eastern philosophy is far more evolved,humane and has far better track record than western trash ideology. That’s why it’s mutilating children today without parental consent 

 

also we are not interest in western progressivism, which is euphemism for anti family, anti child, anti woman narcissistic corporate profit doctrine. One doesn’t improve by adopting inferior ideologies 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

@Alam_dar we deny the canonical validity of smritis. If hindus are to take blame for random non canonical philosophies that existed, then the same benchmark has to be applied to western atheists and theists. 
maybe you should apologize and do penance for western atheist genocides of the religious people by the commies. 
or western atheist literature that claims family unit should be abolished and pedophilia is okay.

 

if you are to hold all Hindu philosophy as cannonical, we should then do the same for western atheists. Fair is fair. 
 

you have presented zero proof of the importance of manusmriti prior to the British.

 

in fact we have evidence that it was NOT even a well known smriti: when the Champa kingdom boasts about being a glorious outpost of Hinduism 600 years ago and how it’s scholars were well versed in the dharmashastras of the aryas, three dharmashastras are mentioned by name- not one of them being manusmriti.

 

so I ask again, after supplying you direct citation that manusmriti was given undue importance by our slavers, little to no mention of it in prior history, on what basis are we to take this non cannonical literature seriously ?? 
 

why should Hindu haters get to define what is important to hindus and not the hindus themselves ? Should we adopt your standard for the western atheists too and consider them defined only by us, christians and Muslims ?? 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

Great move by the government. This will be the cause for the next road blocks in Delhi

 

[Yoda-esque]

Great move by the government. This will be the cause for the next road blocks in Delhi
 

What happened saar

[coffee_rules]

12 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said:

27 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Great move by the government. This will be the cause for the next road blocks in Delhi
 

What happened saar

 

They should dp this for reservations in education, jobs etc

Edited February 12, 2021 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

Jaisa naam waisa kaam