Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: There is nothing to be sorry about that India has some of the most populated cities on the planet- we have always been home to most of humanity and infact before the industrial era, we accounted for 25-30% of the world’s population, since Industrial era its been 15-20% for the Indian subcontinent. With over population, often comes the problem of pollution, which means less oxygen and many lung diseases. Some of my relatives when come back to Pakistan from Europe, then they feel problems to breath due to the pollution in the big cities. Traffic and the horns are terribly loud. I see less and less birds in the city now as compared to the time when I was a kid. mishra and Real McCoy 2
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: and yes, we were a paradise. I-tsing doesn’t bother much with social commentary- he mostly noted where he visited, which Abbott he spoke to and studied under etc but one of the very few social observations he made, was how mobile the classes in society were (comparable to China itself he said and China always had least socially restrictive class system) but stunned at having no death penalty in India for crimes !! Are you sure about no death penalty in India? Yijing came much later only in 713 ce. I am sure I read about killing and all other types of horrible punishments in Manusmriti. Let me check it again. Ok, I got it: (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.’ 5. If a person of lower varna (caste) has sexual intercourse with a woman of higher varna, with or without her consent, he is to be killed Manusmriti, Verse 8.366 (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: उत्तमां सेवमानस्तु जघन्यो वधमर्हति । शुल्कं दद्यात् सेवमानः समामिच्छेत् पिता यदि ॥ ३६६ ॥ Translation: An inferior man courting a superior maiden deserves death; he who courts a maiden of equal status, shall pay the nuptial fee, if her father so wishes.—(366). Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya): It has been said that in the case of violating an unwilling maiden, all men, be they superior or inferior, should suiter death, with the sole exception of the Brāhmaṇa; and the present verse, they say, lays down the law relating to the violating of a willing maiden. ‘Superior,’—in beauty, youth, caste and other points. ‘Inferior’—the lowest. The man is not to be killed if there is any equality between the parties. If a man approaches a willing maiden who is equal to him in status,—he shall pay to her father the nuptial fee, as is done in the case of the ‘Asura’ form of marriage. But if the father does not desire to receive the fee, that amount shall be paid as fine to the king. “In as much as this would he a case of ‘Gāndharva’ marriage—marriage by mutual consent,—it cannot be right to inflict any punishment.” Who has said that there is to be no punishment in the case of marriage by mutual consent? In fact such an act would not be one befitting a chaste woman; nor would it he regarded as ‘marriage,’ for the simple reason that it would not have a sacramental character. As for the declaration in the Mahābhārata, in connection with Śakuntalā, to the effect that ‘the Gāndharva is a form of marriage, without fire and without mantras,’—this was an assertion made by Duṣyanta while he was suffering from the pangs of love. Further, mere ‘willing intercourse’ does not constitute ‘marriage.’ Marriage has been classified under eight heads on the basis of different methods used for taking a wife; and it does not mean that there are eight kinds of marriage. So that (in the Gāndharva marriage also), the due selection of the bridegroom (even though he has been already chosen by the bride) and the subsequent rites have got to be performed. Or, the ‘Gāndharva’ may be accepted as a ‘marriage’ only in the case of a maiden after puberty; and before that, the man is to pay the nuptial fee or a fine. The question arises—what is to be done with the maiden? The answer is that she shall be given to that same man. But if she has ceased to love him, she may be given to another man. But in either case the ‘nuptial fee’ has got to be paid, by way of compensation for the single act of intercourse. If the man has ceased to love the girl, he shall be forced to accept her.—(366) Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha: This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 402), which adds the following notes:—‘Uttamām’ has to be qualified by ‘if willing’;—‘samām,’ belonging to the same caste as himself;—‘śulkam’, fee agreed upon by both the parties, as in the ‘Āsura’ form of marriage. It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 321), to the effect that when a man of the lower caste has intercourse with a maiden of a higher caste, whether willing or unwilling, his penalty is death, but when one has intercourse with a willing maiden of the same caste as himself, then he shall present to her father a cow and a bull, if the latter be willing to accept it (and the man has to marry the maiden in this case, adds Bālambhaṭṭī); but if the father is not willing to receive the fee, its equivalent shall be paid as fine to the king (and in this case also the maiden is to be married to the man). It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 157a). 6. If a Brahmin (highest caste) abuses a Shudra (lowest caste), he is to be fined mildly, but if a Shudra abuses a Brahmin, he is to be killed Manusmriti, Verse 8.267 [Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)] (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: शतं ब्राह्मणमाक्रुश्य क्षत्रियो दण्डमर्हति । वैश्योऽप्यर्धशतं द्वे वा शूद्रस्तु वधमर्हति ॥ २६७ ॥ Translation: On abusing a Brāhmaṇa the Kṣatriya should be fined one hundred; and the Vaiśya one hundred and fifty; or two hundred; the Śūdra however deserves immolation.—(267) Manusmriti, Verse 8.268 (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: पञ्चाशद् ब्राह्मणो दण्ड्यः क्षत्रियस्याभिशंसने । वैश्ये स्यादर्धपञ्चाशत्शूद्रे द्वादशको दमः ॥ २६८ ॥ Translation: For abusing a Kṣatriya, the Brāhmaṇa should be fined fifty; and in the case of a Vaiśya, the fine shall be twenty-five; and in that of a Shudra, twelve.—(268) 7. The families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later Manusmriti, Verse 3.65 (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: अयाज्ययाजनैश्चैव नास्तिक्येन च कर्मणाम् । कुलान्याशु विनश्यन्ति यानि हीनानि मन्त्रतः ॥ ६५ ॥ Translation: By sacrificing for men unworthy to offer sacrifices and by denying (the future rewards for good) works, families, deficient in the (knowledge of the) Veda, quickly perish.—(65) Real McCoy 1
Muloghonto Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 30 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Are you sure about no death penalty in India? Yijing came much later only in 713 ce. I am sure I read about killing and all other types of horrible punishments in Manusmriti. Let me check it again. Ok, I got it: Faxian noted the same thing FYI. LACK of death penalty in India. Why should be override actual first hand testimony for what is said inside an undated obscure text ?? The bible exists today in UK. Doesn’t mean people’s laws are poking an eye for an eye in mosaic law. Why can’t this basic standard be accorded to more peaceful religions of the east ?? 30 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: (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.’ 5. If a person of lower varna (caste) has sexual intercourse with a woman of higher varna, with or without her consent, he is to be killed Manusmriti, Verse 8.366 (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: उत्तमां सेवमानस्तु जघन्यो वधमर्हति । शुल्कं दद्यात् सेवमानः समामिच्छेत् पिता यदि ॥ ३६६ ॥ Translation: An inferior man courting a superior maiden deserves death; he who courts a maiden of equal status, shall pay the nuptial fee, if her father so wishes.—(366). Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya): It has been said that in the case of violating an unwilling maiden, all men, be they superior or inferior, should suiter death, with the sole exception of the Brāhmaṇa; and the present verse, they say, lays down the law relating to the violating of a willing maiden. ‘Superior,’—in beauty, youth, caste and other points. ‘Inferior’—the lowest. The man is not to be killed if there is any equality between the parties. If a man approaches a willing maiden who is equal to him in status,—he shall pay to her father the nuptial fee, as is done in the case of the ‘Asura’ form of marriage. But if the father does not desire to receive the fee, that amount shall be paid as fine to the king. “In as much as this would he a case of ‘Gāndharva’ marriage—marriage by mutual consent,—it cannot be right to inflict any punishment.” Who has said that there is to be no punishment in the case of marriage by mutual consent? In fact such an act would not be one befitting a chaste woman; nor would it he regarded as ‘marriage,’ for the simple reason that it would not have a sacramental character. As for the declaration in the Mahābhārata, in connection with Śakuntalā, to the effect that ‘the Gāndharva is a form of marriage, without fire and without mantras,’—this was an assertion made by Duṣyanta while he was suffering from the pangs of love. Further, mere ‘willing intercourse’ does not constitute ‘marriage.’ Marriage has been classified under eight heads on the basis of different methods used for taking a wife; and it does not mean that there are eight kinds of marriage. So that (in the Gāndharva marriage also), the due selection of the bridegroom (even though he has been already chosen by the bride) and the subsequent rites have got to be performed. Or, the ‘Gāndharva’ may be accepted as a ‘marriage’ only in the case of a maiden after puberty; and before that, the man is to pay the nuptial fee or a fine. The question arises—what is to be done with the maiden? The answer is that she shall be given to that same man. But if she has ceased to love him, she may be given to another man. But in either case the ‘nuptial fee’ has got to be paid, by way of compensation for the single act of intercourse. If the man has ceased to love the girl, he shall be forced to accept her.—(366) Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha: This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 402), which adds the following notes:—‘Uttamām’ has to be qualified by ‘if willing’;—‘samām,’ belonging to the same caste as himself;—‘śulkam’, fee agreed upon by both the parties, as in the ‘Āsura’ form of marriage. It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 321), to the effect that when a man of the lower caste has intercourse with a maiden of a higher caste, whether willing or unwilling, his penalty is death, but when one has intercourse with a willing maiden of the same caste as himself, then he shall present to her father a cow and a bull, if the latter be willing to accept it (and the man has to marry the maiden in this case, adds Bālambhaṭṭī); but if the father is not willing to receive the fee, its equivalent shall be paid as fine to the king (and in this case also the maiden is to be married to the man). It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 157a). 6. If a Brahmin (highest caste) abuses a Shudra (lowest caste), he is to be fined mildly, but if a Shudra abuses a Brahmin, he is to be killed Manusmriti, Verse 8.267 [Verbal Assault (Abuse and Defamation)] (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: शतं ब्राह्मणमाक्रुश्य क्षत्रियो दण्डमर्हति । वैश्योऽप्यर्धशतं द्वे वा शूद्रस्तु वधमर्हति ॥ २६७ ॥ Translation: On abusing a Brāhmaṇa the Kṣatriya should be fined one hundred; and the Vaiśya one hundred and fifty; or two hundred; the Śūdra however deserves immolation.—(267) Manusmriti, Verse 8.268 (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: पञ्चाशद् ब्राह्मणो दण्ड्यः क्षत्रियस्याभिशंसने । वैश्ये स्यादर्धपञ्चाशत्शूद्रे द्वादशको दमः ॥ २६८ ॥ Translation: For abusing a Kṣatriya, the Brāhmaṇa should be fined fifty; and in the case of a Vaiśya, the fine shall be twenty-five; and in that of a Shudra, twelve.—(268) 7. The families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later Manusmriti, Verse 3.65 (Link): Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha: अयाज्ययाजनैश्चैव नास्तिक्येन च कर्मणाम् । कुलान्याशु विनश्यन्ति यानि हीनानि मन्त्रतः ॥ ६५ ॥ Translation: By sacrificing for men unworthy to offer sacrifices and by denying (the future rewards for good) works, families, deficient in the (knowledge of the) Veda, quickly perish.—(65) except we have no evidence of this fringe book ever having been implemented in Indian society. Manusmriti is a smriti. No smritis command widespread usage or even authority. You have been fed a lie about importance of manuamriti by western historians because it’s the only Hindu obscure literature that has a flood myth in it. coffee_rules 1
Muloghonto Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 46 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: With over population, often comes the problem of pollution, which means less oxygen and many lung diseases. Some of my relatives when come back to Pakistan from Europe, then they feel problems to breath due to the pollution in the big cities. Traffic and the horns are terribly loud. I see less and less birds in the city now as compared to the time when I was a kid. Why are you running away from the simple question of prove Ashoka ended slavery and explain why Ashoka edicts don’t mention ending slavery even in 1 edict ? mishra 1
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Faxian noted the same thing FYI. If you make claims, then it would be better to give the proofs too. 47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: You have been fed a lie about importance of manuamriti by western historians because it’s the only Hindu obscure literature that has a flood myth in it. Blaming every evil of the ancient Hindu society and religion upon the westerners is not going to help. Westerners came only 400 years ago in India, while Manusmriti was authored by Brahmins long time ago. Also it were the Brahmins who wrote extensive commentaries upon manu much before the westerners. Bhāruci, Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka ... all these commentaries by Brahmins were written during 7th century to 11th century. Who are the earlier Brahmins (before arrival of Westerners), who ever blamed manusmriti to be a fabrication and a lie? Name them please. And then the next lame excuse is presented by the apologists is this that Westerners distorted the translation. I have used Medhātithi commentary above, which is a Brahmin commentary and not the westerner commentary and it is telling exactly the same things in details which is present in the English translation. Therefore, you could not even make the excuse that the Westerners distorted the translation. 47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: except we have no evidence of this fringe book ever having been implemented in Indian society. It influenced the Indian society. That is why the caste system was present in whole Hindustan in it's worst form (although according to modern apologists caste system is not present in the Vedas). And again westerners are not responsible for the spread of caste system. Real McCoy 1
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 On 2/24/2020 at 8:29 PM, Muloghonto said: Not a single edict of Ashoka talks of banning slave markets. But the edict of Ashoka itself testifies the presence of the slaves and he emphasized tolerance of people and the notion of showing consideration towards slaves and servants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka's_policy_of_Dhamma Text of the Edicts .... What is even more deplorable to the Beloved to the Gods is that those who dwell there, whether Brahmans, Sarmanas, or those of other sects, or householders who show obedience to their superiors, obedience to their mother and father, obedience to their teachers and behave well and devotedly to their friends, acquiescence, colleagues, relatives, slaves and servants—all suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones Real McCoy 1
Muloghonto Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: If you make claims, then it would be better to give the proofs too. you mean like how we are waiting for your proof re: Ashoka ending slavery or withdrawal of the claim ? 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Blaming every evil of the ancient Hindu society and religion upon the westerners is not going to help. Westerners came only 400 years ago in India, while Manusmriti was authored by Brahmins long time ago. Also it were the Brahmins who wrote extensive commentaries upon manu much before the westerners. Bhāruci, Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka ... all these commentaries by Brahmins were written during 7th century to 11th century. so ?? 4 random people talking of a minor book is of no consequence to us. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Who are the earlier Brahmins (before arrival of Westerners), who ever blamed manusmriti to be a fabrication and a lie? Name them please. it is a minor, no name book amongst thousands our civilization has produced and has at no point been shown to each been a book that had any major awareness, let alone implementation. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And then the next lame excuse is presented by the apologists is this that Westerners distorted the translation. I have used Medhātithi commentary above, which is a Brahmin commentary and not the westerner commentary and it is telling exactly the same things in details which is present in the English translation. Therefore, you could not even make the excuse that the Westerners distorted the translation. It influenced the Indian society. That is why the caste system was present in whole Hindustan in it's worst form (although according to modern apologists caste system is not present in the Vedas). And again westerners are not responsible for the spread of caste system. The westerners are to blame for the spread of caste system in the modern times.
Muloghonto Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Alam_dar said: But the edict of Ashoka itself testifies the presence of the slaves and he emphasized tolerance of people and the notion of showing consideration towards slaves and servants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka's_policy_of_Dhamma Text of the Edicts .... What is even more deplorable to the Beloved to the Gods is that those who dwell there, whether Brahmans, Sarmanas, or those of other sects, or householders who show obedience to their superiors, obedience to their mother and father, obedience to their teachers and behave well and devotedly to their friends, acquiescence, colleagues, relatives, slaves and servants—all suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones Das is not slave, it’s servants and Ashoka’s edicts mention nothing re: slaves, nor does he mention anything about banning them. You claimed he banned them: explain how not a single edict of his talks of banning them
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: you mean like how we are waiting for your proof re: Ashoka ending slavery or withdrawal of the claim ? And I already provided the link about Ashoka's ending the slave trade (link). Why are you trying to hide behind me when it comes to bringing your proofs for your claims? Due to this practice, you already made false claims about Magesthenes coming 100 years earlier than stoics, and then about Diodorus. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: so ?? 4 random people talking of a minor book is of no consequence to us. Lame Excuse. Manu is neither a minor book, nor these commentators are 4 random people, but considered Scholars of high level. And then there were many more than these 4 commentators. Link. Manu was considered the most important book among all Dharma-Shastras and Most commentaries on dharma-shastras use Manusmriti as the code book (link). 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: it is a minor, no name book amongst thousands our civilization has produced and has at no point been shown to each been a book that had any major awareness, let alone implementation. Which of these thousands of books got so many old commentaries and attention even during commentaries of other Dharma-Shastra books? 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: The westerners are to blame for the spread of caste system in the modern times. Again I see only baseless allegations. Neither Westerners started the evil of caste system in Hindu religion, nor they compelled Buddah to protest against caste system in the past, nor they encouraged the Hindus of modern time to practice it. This evil was present in the Hindu Dharama itself and only due to this Hindus (either from earlier centuries or from the later centuries) were able to fight against this evil. Real McCoy 1
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Das is not slave, it’s servants and Ashoka’s edicts mention nothing re: slaves, I have already provided the role of Dasas in Hindu religious texts, which is different than servants. And your excuses could not change it. Actually, Ashoka's edicts mention slaves (dasa) as distinct from hired servants (bhataka). But since you want to make dasa as servant, therefore you hid bhataka and only mentioned dasa in Ashok's verdict. Real McCoy 1
coffee_rules Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Das is not slave, it’s servants and Ashoka’s edicts mention nothing re: slaves, nor does he mention anything about banning them. You claimed he banned them: explain how not a single edict of his talks of banning them This is not the first time, he has been told. But, he keeps repeating this to each new person or after some time to the same person. It is like the Goebbels law. Laaloo, Real McCoy and mishra 3
mishra Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 50 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: This is not the first time, he has been told. But, he keeps repeating this to each new person or after some time to the same person. It is like the Goebbels law. Exactly. He knows Das is not slave. He knows there was no "Das Market". He knows there was no system to qualify someone into "Das". He knows all the Hindi literature is filled with devotees calling themselves "Das" of God or their "Lovers". But he chooses to say it otherwise. Yes Hanumanji was slave of lord Ram. Lakshman was slave of Lord Ram, Everyone was slave of Lord Shia, Because they all have referred themselves as "Das" of Shiva. So no point in arguing with him. As he has a agenda. Laaloo 1
Muloghonto Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And I already provided the link about Ashoka's ending the slave trade (link). You should read your own links. Nowhere does it say Ashoka ended slave trade nor does it provide any reasoning for your conclusion. You made it up. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Why are you trying to hide behind me when it comes to bringing your proofs for your claims? Due to this practice, you already made false claims about Magesthenes coming 100 years earlier than stoics, and then about Diodorus. I said Megasthenes was a 200 year before Stoics because YOU said stoics were from 3rd century BCE aka 200s BCE 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Lame Excuse. Manu is neither a minor book, nor these commentators are 4 random people, but considered Scholars of high level. And then there were many more than these 4 commentators. Link. It is a minor book because it is a smriti. In Hindu literature, all smritis are minor books, all shrutis are major books. There is no historical evidence of manusmriti ever being implemented to any degree- no king ever quotes it. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Manu was considered the most important book among all Dharma-Shastras and Most commentaries on dharma-shastras use Manusmriti as the code book (link). By westerners, not Hindus. To us it’s a smriti meaning it’s optional and mostly unfollowed. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Which of these thousands of books got so many old commentaries and attention even during commentaries of other Dharma-Shastra books? Try like every damn Purana or upanishads there is. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Again I see only baseless allegations. Neither Westerners started the evil of caste system in Hindu religion, nor they compelled Buddah to protest against caste system in the past, nor they encouraged the Hindus of modern time to practice it. This evil was present in the Hindu Dharama itself and only due to this Hindus (either from earlier centuries or from the later centuries) were able to fight against this evil. They definitely encouraged the practice of it in modern India and There is plenty of evidence that’s the British formalized the system for their divide and rule policy
Muloghonto Posted February 26, 2020 Posted February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: I have already provided the role of Dasas in Hindu religious texts, which is different than servants. And your excuses could not change it. None of it is different from the servants and I already said that even in Victorian era royalties exchanged servants, when their countries had banned slavery, so exchange or bequeathment of servants in the Vedas cannot Be taken as proof of slavery. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Actually, Ashoka's edicts mention slaves (dasa) as distinct from hired servants (bhataka). But since you want to make dasa as servant, therefore you hid bhataka and only mentioned dasa in Ashok's verdict. False. Hired workers are contract workers, servants are not paid for traditionally but given food and shelter in the lords house in all cultures. ashokas edicts mention outlawing hunting certain animals. It talks of opening centenary hospitals, rest houses for travellers and regular hospitals. Nowhere does it say ending slavery. so I ask again, present proof that Ashoka ended slavery. Not even ashokavardhana or divyavardhana make such claims re: Ashoka.
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: You should read your own links. Nowhere does it say Ashoka ended slave trade nor does it provide any reasoning for your conclusion. You made it up. How I made it up? See the image from the From the PDF file. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: I said Megasthenes was a 200 year before Stoics because YOU said stoics were from 3rd century BCE aka 200s BCE 3rd century means 200 to 299 and not only 200 BCE. How then you could blame me for your false claims? How then you still want to hide behind me and not bring your own proofs? Still all your claims need the proofs and you are still dodging them by trying to hide. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: It is a minor book because it is a smriti. In Hindu literature, all smritis are minor books, all shrutis are major books. There is no historical evidence of manusmriti ever being implemented to any degree- no king ever quotes it. False. Not being shruti does not make smriti a "minor, no name book amongst thousands". You are totally wrong when you make up such false claims. And it is accepted that Brahmans were not capable of "fully" implementing Manu due the influence of Buddhism, but when you say that Manu never had any effect then you are wrong while Manu was considered the most important book among all Dharma-Shastras and Most commentaries on dharma-shastras use Manusmriti as the code book (link). 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: By westerners, not Hindus. To us it’s a smriti meaning it’s optional and mostly unfollowed. For thousands of years, Hindu Religion got only these Dharma-Shastras to follow, and they had nothing else to follow. And now they are blaming these same Dharma-Shastras to be "minor, no name books". 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: They definitely encouraged the practice of it in modern India and There is plenty of evidence that’s the British formalized the system for their divide and rule policy No comment upon your false blame game.
Alam_dar Posted February 26, 2020 Author Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: None of it is different from the servants and I already said that even in Victorian era royalties exchanged servants, when their countries had banned slavery, so exchange or bequeathment of servants in the Vedas cannot Be taken as proof of slavery. Once again, without proofs none of your argument has any value. Don't try to hide "gifting 50 female slaves" to any "exchange". And even if any such exchange of servants took place without the consent of those servants, then still it stays under the "evils of slavery". At most it could be said that those royalties were still practising the evils of slavery and thus it ended while it was and evil thing to do. And in Mahabharata, you made a lame excuse is that "dasa" is not "slave" but "servant". And I challenge you to put the word "servant" then in the following verse of Mahabahrata: Mahabharata (link): "Human beings enslaved by human beings, are exploited by them; Tortured, shackled and incarcerated, are forced to work day and night, Though they (who do this) themselves know, the agony evoked by torture and chains!" I know you are not going to do it and will make another lame excuse and run away from it. Therefore, let me do it for you: "Human beings making servant by human beings, are exploited by them; Tortured, shackled and incarcerated, are forced to work day and night, Though they (who do this) themselves know, the agony evoked by torture and chains!" So your lame excuses define a servant, who: (1) Compelled to become servants without their consent. (2) Exploited by others (3) Tortured by others (4) Shackled and incarcerated by others (5) Forced to work day and night (6) Could be gifted to others without their consent And Asthashastra gave the following more about "dasa" during the Mauryan period. (1) Born of a female slave (grhajata) (2) Inherited from father (dayagava) (3) Presented by some other person (labdha) (4) Purchased by paying a sum of money (krita) (5) Imprisoned in war (dhvajahrta) (6) One who sales himself as a slave (atmavikraya) (7) Mortgaged for loan (ahitaka) (8) Reduced to slavery as punishment for some grave offence (danda-pranita) Thank you for giving new definition to term servant in order to make apologies for your glorious religion. And your another lame conjecture was that it was an exceptional case: Women can be won in a dice game & enslaved Mahabharata 2:LXVI (p.128)…But Dussasana dragging Draupadi forcibly by her black locks while she was praying piteously unto Krishna and Vishnu who were Narayana and Nara (on earth), said unto her–‘Whether thy season hath come or not, whether thou art attired in one piece of cloth or entirely naked, when thou hast been won at dice and made our slave, thou art to live amongst our serving-women as thou pleasest.” You must understand that it does not become exceptional case on the bases of your proof-less conjectures. Contrary to your proof less conjecture, this verse is itself proving that it was a NORM in that society that women were made slaves without their consent due to gambling. This same gamble again appears in Mahabharata which shows it was a norm: Mahabharata (link): "Virata said, 'My female slaves and kine, my gold and whatsoever other wealth I have, nothing of all this shall thou be able to protect today even if I do not gamble.' 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: False. Hired workers are contract workers, servants are not paid for traditionally but given food and shelter in the lords house in all cultures. False. If servants are the ones who are born as dasa while their mothers were dasi, then it is itself a slavery. If they are being inherited from father without their consent, then it is itself a slavery. If given as gift to other person without their consent, then it is itself a slavery. If purchased by paying money, then it is itself a slavery etc. And if "Bhataka" were only the independent "contract workers" then Ashoka need not to make an extra mention to behave well with them and be devout to them in his edicts. And after mentioning "slaves and servants" Ashoka also mentioned the reason in the edict that "they suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones". Thus this is not true for any independent contract worker as you claimed out of your proof-less conjecture.
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: How I made it up? See the image from the From the PDF file. Except there isn’t a single stone edict of Ashoka that bans slavery. Why ? Coz it wasn’t a thing when he ruled. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: 3rd century means 200 to 299 and not only 200 BCE. How then you could blame me for your false claims? How then you still want to hide behind me and not bring your own proofs? You said 3rd century and i pointed out that Indika is from the 4th century 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Still all your claims need the proofs and you are still dodging them by trying to hide. False. Not being shruti does not make smriti a "minor, no name book amongst thousands". You are totally wrong when you make up such false claims. Thats exactly what smriti means: one of thousands and not cannon. In comparative terms, any smriti is lesser than any Hadith in comparative value 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And it is accepted that Brahmans were not capable of "fully" implementing Manu due the influence of Buddhism, but when you say that Manu never had any effect then you are wrong while Manu was considered the most important book among all Dharma-Shastras and Most commentaries on dharma-shastras use Manusmriti as the code book (link). Its not the most important book, you are just regurgitating European opinion here. No hindu sage or reformer has ever called manusmriti a major book and it exercised no influence at all. slavery was already non existent by the time of Ashoka’s grandfather as Megasthenes noted 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: For thousands of years, Hindu Religion got only these Dharma-Shastras to follow, and they had nothing else to follow. Show us which king or which dynasty ever stated they followed the manusmriti. Just one example would do 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And now they are blaming these same Dharma-Shastras to be "minor, no name books". The manusmriti part of the dharmashatrss is a minor no name treatese and several versions exist due to this. 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: No comment upon your false blame game. Except the part in red is false.
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Once again, without proofs none of your argument has any value. Proof is language. In all of recorded history of Sanskrit and all its daughter languages, Das means servant not slave. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Don't try to hide "gifting 50 female slaves" to any "exchange". And even if any such exchange of servants took place without the consent of those servants, then still it stays under the "evils of slavery". No it doesn’t.it makes it serfdom not slavery if you are unpaid but provided for and your employer can loan you to another indefinitely. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: At most it could be said that those royalties were still practising the evils of slavery and thus it ended while it was and evil thing to do. Not slavery because nobody even raised it as a slavery issue. This is because the servants can quit. And have. Slaves cannot. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And in Mahabharata, you made a lame excuse is that "dasa" is not "slave" but "servant". And I challenge you to put the word "servant" then in the following verse of Mahabahrata: Mahabharata (link): "Human beings enslaved by human beings, are exploited by them; Tortured, shackled and incarcerated, are forced to work day and night, Though they (who do this) themselves know, the agony evoked by torture and chains!" I know you are not going to do it and will make another lame excuse and run away from it. Therefore, let me do it for you: "Human beings making servant by human beings, are exploited by them; Tortured, shackled and incarcerated, are forced to work day and night, Though they (who do this) themselves know, the agony evoked by torture and chains!" So your lame excuses define a servant, who: (1) Compelled to become servants without their consent. (2) Exploited by others (3) Tortured by others (4) Shackled and incarcerated by others (5) Forced to work day and night (6) Could be gifted to others without their consent None of this implies slavery. In context of the verse in Mahabharata, it’s depicting cruel incarceration prison gangs. Which is not slavery and still legal and all the clauses above apply. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And Asthashastra gave the following more about "dasa" during the Mauryan period. (1) Born of a female slave (grhajata) (2) Inherited from father (dayagava) (3) Presented by some other person (labdha) (4) Purchased by paying a sum of money (krita) (5) Imprisoned in war (dhvajahrta) (6) One who sales himself as a slave (atmavikraya) (7) Mortgaged for loan (ahitaka) (8) Reduced to slavery as punishment for some grave offence (danda-pranita) Citation please. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Thank you for giving new definition to term servant in order to make apologies for your glorious religion. And your another lame conjecture was that it was an exceptional case: Women can be won in a dice game & enslaved Mahabharata 2:LXVI (p.128)…But Dussasana dragging Draupadi forcibly by her black locks while she was praying piteously unto Krishna and Vishnu who were Narayana and Nara (on earth), said unto her–‘Whether thy season hath come or not, whether thou art attired in one piece of cloth or entirely naked, when thou hast been won at dice and made our slave, thou art to live amongst our serving-women as thou pleasest.” Serving woman is literally a servant. There is only one instance of woman won in a dice game, just like there is only one instance of a trans-naval 10 year war caused by the betrayal of a husband (king) by his wife ( Helen of troy) epics are not commentary on day to day life unless you wish to contend that India actually had Demi gods too 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: You must understand that it does not become exceptional case on the bases of your proof-less conjectures. Only one making conjectures without proof is you : like twisting the word dasa to fit your anti Hindu narrative. Or failing to provide evidence of any Ashoka’s edict that outlaws slavery. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Contrary to your proof less conjecture, this verse is itself proving that it was a NORM in that society that women were made slaves without their consent due to gambling. Nope. This verse is from an epic story. If that is norm, then it’s norm for the archaic Greeks to wage inter-naval war for an absconding was the wife. So all Greek naval warfare is due to absconding wives by your logic 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: This same gamble again appears in Mahabharata which shows it was a norm: Mahabharata (link): "Virata said, 'My female slaves and kine, my gold and whatsoever other wealth I have, nothing of all this shall thou be able to protect today even if I do not gamble.' False and wrong translation. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: False. If servants are the ones who are born as dasa while their mothers were dasi, then it is itself a slavery. If they are being inherited from father without their consent, then it is itself a slavery. If given as gift to other person without their consent, then it is itself a slavery. If purchased by paying money, then it is itself a slavery etc. Nope. Being a commoner if your parents are commoner and royalty if your parents are one is a class system the whole world had, not slavery. Serfs and servants are inherited from the Leige lord even in 1930s British peers. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And if "Bhataka" were only the independent "contract workers" then Ashoka need not to make an extra mention to behave well with them and be devout to them in his edicts. I think he did because he mentions behave well towards parents and gurus too. Unless you want to argue that this quote exists because indians mostly abandoned their parents or mistreated them. 3 hours ago, Alam_dar said: And after mentioning "slaves and servants" Ashoka also mentioned the reason in the edict that "they suffer violence, murder and separation from their loved ones". Thus this is not true for any independent contract worker as you claimed out of your proof-less conjecture. Yes it is. Indentured labourers of the British empire suffered separation from their loved ones as well as murder and violence. Doesn’t make them slaves
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 Given that not a single edict of Ashoka talks of banning slavery and Megasthenes says there is no slavery in India in Ashoka’s grandfathers time, an unbiased conclusion would be that slavery was not practiced in India at least by 300 BCE. To say it did, despite material first hand evidence saying otherwise and lack of any slavery related literature from 3rd century BCE - Panini, Patanjali all lived in this 500-300 BCE period and mention many aspects of society but no slavery- is distinct evidence of hinduphobia
Alam_dar Posted February 27, 2020 Author Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: You said 3rd century and i pointed out that Indika is from the 4th century False. Megasthenes was born in 350 BC. While the founder of Stoics "Zeno of Citium" was born in 334 BC (i.e. even before Megasthenes). And Megasthenes died in 290 BC, which means that Indika belonged to the 3rd century BC, i.e. the era of Stoics. Therefore, when you start making claims that Megasthenes came 100 years prior to Stoic teachings, then you were making up false claims at your own. Same false conjecture you made up at your own about Diodorus too, without giving any proof, but later caught red handed. And despite asking several times, still you have not provided proofs for all other of your claims, and still you are trying to run away by making false excuses. 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: In comparative terms, any smriti is lesser than any Hadith in comparative value Manu in comparison is a FIQH book. Thus Manus is the most impotant of Fiqh/Sharia Law book, and the most important of Dharma-Shastra. And as I said before, blaming Manu for "minor, no name book amongst thousands" means that Hindus got no Laws as they have nothing else to follow. There is not a single Dharma Shastra book which claims there was no slavery in Hindu religion. Contrary to this, other Smritis are also confirming the presence of slavery as Manu. I already posted about them, buy you as usual either neglected them or rejected on bases of your false proof-less conjectures. Let me post once again the part about slavery from the different Smrities . Online book upon Slavery in India: Title: Slavery in early medieval India Researcher: Singh, Yasvir Guide(s): Kumar, Vijay https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/113757/7/07_chapter 2.pdf ... The Manu Smrti (C. 200 B.C to 200 A.D) mentions following seven categories of slaves6: 1. Won in a stake or won in war (dhawajahrita) 2. One who sold himself for the sake of food in famine (bhaktadasa) 3. Born of a female slave (grhaja) 4. Purchased (krit) 5. Given by relatives as a present (datrim) 6. Inherited from father (daya) 7. Reduced to slavery in lieu of punishment (danda-dasa) The Narada Smrti (100 AD to 500 AD) describes the following fifteen categories of slaves: 1. Born of a female slave {grhaja) 2. Acquiredby purchase {krit) 3. Obtained through inheritance {daya) 4. Won in a stake {partyajit) 5. Captured in war 6. given on pledge 7. Those who failed to reply debts 8. Those who were maintained during famines, 9. Those who served for a stipulated period 10. Those who sold themselves 11. Those who lapsed from monastic life 12. Those who accepted voluntary slavery 13. Those who offered themselves either owing to the love of a female slave. 14. For the sake of maintenance. 15. Received through gift The increasing number in the categories of slaves mentioned by Vijaneshvara’s commentary on Yajnavalkaya Smriti in 12th A,D. wherein a list of following fifteen kinds of slaves finds place9, perhaps leaves no iota of doubt that the institution of slavery not only gained momentum but also expended its area during the period under study. 1. Born of a female slave (garhajat) 2. Purchased (krit) 3. One obtained by acceptance of gift (labdha) 4. Inherited (daya dupagat) 5. One who accepted slavery during famines (akalbhart) 6. One who has pledged himself against the loans (ahit) 7. Given in repayment of debt (rina dasa) 8. War prisoners (yudhaprapta) 9. One who won in gamble (panejit) 10. One who has come forward declaring “I am Slave” (upagat) 11. An apostle from ascepticism (parvarjyavatis) 12. One who is enslaved for a stipulated period (kart) 13. One who accepted slavery for maintenance (bhakta dasa) 14. One who has married with a female slave and thus reduced to the status of a slave (vadavahart) 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: No hindu sage or reformer has ever called manusmriti a major book and it exercised no influence at all. And I already answered it that Brahmans didn't get enough power to impose it after the Mauryan period due to the influence of Buddhism, but they recorded these religious rulings in these Smiritis. Challenge: (1) Please tell us how many Hindu Sages or Reformers came from the era of Manu till era of Westerners. (2) And then tell us how many of them denied all these Smiritis, considering them "minor, no name book amongst thousands" (3) Also tell us their source of law if they considered all these books useless and fabrications.
Recommended Posts