Alam_dar Posted February 27, 2020 Author Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Proof is language. In all of recorded history of Sanskrit and all its daughter languages, Das means servant not slave. 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. Not slavery because nobody even raised it as a slavery issue. This is because the servants can quit. And have. Slaves cannot. 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. Citation please. 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 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. 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 False and wrong translation. 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. 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. 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 No need to comment on your fabricated conjectures as proofs are themselves evident.
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: 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. Megasthenes’ accounts cannot be later than 298 BCE because that is when Chandragupta Maurya died. He spent 3 years as a Jain monk doing sallikhena, which is not noted in Megasthenes account and therefore his accounts MUST be at least from 301 BCE. Which is 4th century BCE. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: 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. I already said, that comment was based on you saying stoics are from 3rd century BCE. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Same false conjecture you made up at your own about Diodorus too, without giving any proof, but later caught red handed. I mixed up Arrian with Diodorus. A name you didn’t even know prior to this thread. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Manu in comparison is a FIQH book. Nope. Nice try but nope because manu is automatically not considered authority as to being a smriti. Fiqh have authority owing to Islamic jurisprudence, a concept that does not exist in Hinduism. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: 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. That is correct. We are a heterodox religion that never exercised religious law in the first place like the Muslims or Christians did. Just like ancient Greeks or Roman religion had no religious laws- even when they had their kings. Same applies for similar info-European native religion like Hinduism. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: There is not a single Dharma Shastra book which claims there was no slavery in Hindu religion. Nobody claims a negative in legal code. Duh. There is not a single dharmashatra that claims there was slavery either, except the obscure and unimportant manusmriti 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: 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 . Smritis are rather irrelevant to Hinduism. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: 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. Yes, slavery was practiced by Muslims for 400 years by then in big chunks of India and thus is noted. Hence the mention of slavery specifics from medieval India. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: 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. Nonsense. The Mauryas were followed by two consecutive Brahmin dynasties - Shunga and Kanva. These are the last two dynasties of imperial Magadh and except for Pushyamtra, all these Brahmin kings patronized Buddhism and Jainism. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Challenge: (1) Please tell us how many Hindu Sages or Reformers came from the era of Manu till era of Westerners. Given we don’t know what the era of manu is, it’s not a legitimate question. 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: (2) And then tell us how many of them denied all these Smiritis, considering them "minor, no name book amongst thousands" Shankaracharya says hello. He is only like the biggest saint of Hinduism and he categorically denounced ALL smritis, which has always been noted as non canonical and irreverent literature 10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: (3) Also tell us their source of law if they considered all these books useless and fabrications. The same as the source of laws for Roman kings before roman democracy or Greek kings during despotates: they made it up as they went along. This idea that like Christian code of laws or Islamic jurisprudence, the superior benevolent religions of the east also had decisive religious codex of laws to follow is nothing but an abrahamic assumption and bias only noted by those who come from abrahamic civilizations
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: No need to comment on your fabricated conjectures as proofs are themselves evident. I asked you for citation of the Arthashastra and mahabharata where it talks of slavery i asked you for proof of Ashoka’s edicts talking about ending slavery. We all know what his edicts say because all of them say the same things mostly. NOT ONE talks about ending or outlawing slavery. I asked you to cite where in Divyavadana or Ashokavardhana it says he ended slavery. Instead you posted an opinion and unsubstantiated assertion by a western historian. i pointed out that if your logic is ‘ he said be nice to servants means people were brutal to servants’ , then it also logically follows that he said in EVERY SINGLE EDICT to obey and respect one’s parents and teachers because Indians were brutal and never obeyed their parents and teachers. I also pointed out that if child of a servant being servant means slavery, then the English were also enslaved people because child of a commoner was also a commoner and children of servants of lordly households often inherited the position from their old servant parents. you ran away from addressing any of these points. Edited February 27, 2020 by Muloghonto
Recommended Posts