OP
naveen_reloaded
!! RecuZant By Birth !!
when i give a real scientific observation in front of u and u disagree... thats the height of being adament and ignorant
*** Science Or God? ***
when i give a real scientific observation in front of u and u disagree... thats the height of being adament and ignorant
karnivore
in your face..
I understand the difference between “hell”, a physical place and “hell”, an allegorical reference to mental state. Unfortunately though, “narak” is more often than not referred to as a physical place. That is why I gave the reference of Pandava. Now don’t say, that Pandava’s visit to “narak” was all metaphorical. Then a huge part of MBH will fall apart.
Shifting your goal post already. That was fast. Inserting the word “illogical” will not change anything. Upanayana is actually declaring the coming of age of a child and start of studies, not the end of it. (All castes were eligible for upanayan, though only Brahmins were allowed to do brahmanic studies). Basically what you are saying is that, parent going out to the world screaming, hey my kid is adolescent now and will start his schooling, is not illogical.
Now I have to look up the word “logic” in a dictionary. Clearly, I thought it meant something else.
And no, it is not obsolete. If you see a Brahmin with his sacred thread, then it means that he has had his upanayana. Now, find me some Brahmin, who is not an atheist, without that bloody thread.
What about “karma” or "dharma" or “reincarnation” or….
This time around, I want specific reference to those specific parts in Vedas that deal with “maths, astronomy, physics etc.” No, this time you can’t get away by saying, “I do not know much about vedas”. If you can suggest me to read something, I would expect that you have already read it and know it as well. So, until you find those parts, don’t bother to reply.
Capiche ?
“Fight for existence” sound familiar ?
“Proved math, science” ? In Vedas ? Are you high ?
Nope, that’s not change.
Yes, you got that right, and it comes with experience. Anyway, I don’t give a flying fukc to what religion you belong or whether or not you are religious person. You are just a pseudonym to me and your posts are all that matter. Your personal life has no relevance to me.
Mental gymnastics. Unfortunately you are not too good at it.
karnivore
in your face..
Is that how you have learned Sanskrit. That explains your suicidal faux pas.
“Ancient Indian philosophy was built upon the strong base of Vedas...Later Buddha, Carvaka and Mahavir expressed their disbelief in the testimony of the Vedas. So their system of philosophy is called "Nastik". The word "Nastik" means one who do not believe in God and rebirth. But in the Indian context the expression "Nastik School of Philosophy" means the system of philosophy which do not believe in the testimony of the Vedas.”
- "Brahmananda Swami Sivayogi and his selected works" by P.V.Gopalakrishnan. Pg 25
"The equivalent of the word atheist is Nastik in Sanskrit. But the word Nastik has been defined in the Hindu scriptures as a person who does not belive the Ved."
- "Buddha, the Trimurti, and modern Hinduism" by Anant Ramchandra Kulkarni, pg 71
"The materialism (lokayata, carvaka), for example, rejected the idea of reincarnation and spiritual insight, while the Ajivikas rejected free will. While the Buddhists emphasized a middle way between extremes of austerity and indulgence, the Jains emphasized extreme mortification in order to become detached from action. Yet, while there are divergences within Sramanism, all sramana groups shared a common value system and framework of discourse, and all rejected the Veda as revelation and so radically turned against orthodox, brahmanical teaching or reinterpreted those teachings. These schools are understandably regarded as heterodox (nastika) by orthodox (astika) Brahmanism. Their mutual hostility has been pointed out by Romila Thapar who notes that the grammarian Patanjali refers to their altitude towards each other as being like that between a snake and a mongoose."
- "An Introduction to Hinduism" by Gavin Flood, Pg 82
1st bold: Nothing really. It only shows that you and your “religion” are no different from those religions.
2nd bold: Actually you are. That’s the only reason why I am posting. You are constantly trying to imply that Hinduism is somehow holier than the holiest.
3rd bold: It is. Learning about religion, particularly Hinduism, is indeed my hobby.
4th bold: Incorrect. I am not differentiating. You are. I am saying just the opposite. That you are no different from the adherents of other faiths. This is a typical, whose-dady-is-Sita argument.
5th bold: Touched a raw nerve there. You are reacting just like the people of other faiths react when their holy book is attacked – not that I give a donkey’s dick to how these theists react. I guess, I have proved one more point here. Thank you.
1st, no need to get that serotonin, or what remains of it, soar so high. You missed the stress word “ALL”.
2nd, Nope. I never said Buddhist texts. What I said was:
“The entire vedic corpus was written, long before, any religion seriously challenged its tenets. Hence, vedic texts do not directly talk of conflict with other religions. Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts. Vedic texts do talk of tribal conflicts, though.”
Back to your old game of distorting quotes. Tch Tch.
4th, Exactly how does that answer to what I had said. For the uninitiated, what I said was “Someone can’t be intolerant of something that one doesn’t know of.”
6th, You are kidding me. I gave you specific verses from your Gita, that assert supremacy of Krishna over all and sundry, practically undermining other faiths and you go on like a scratched LP. Keep sticking your head in the sand. Am sure that way you can protect your ego from reality.
Now you want verses from Vedas. You keep on proving how big an IDIOT you are. I have specifically reasoned, why Vedic texts can’t be all that supremacist, so far as other religions are concerned. Because there was no other religion to lord over.
Typical. The so called vedic tolerance, was raised with regard to other religions. This argument is in itself a strawman, because, there was no other religion to be tolerant, or intolerant of. But there were tribes and there were tribal conflicts. And accordingly, they found mention in the Vedas.
1st bold: No, it is not possible to read entire “Vedic corpus”, unless you are a Ph.D student or trying to author a book. I have indeed read a significant portion of it, and numerous commentaries on them. You are basically making nonsensical argument. Since a part of Vedas was lost, even you can’t say what was in it. You are just trying to prove a negative. And you pretty well know, what I have meant by “entire vedic corpus”. If you haven’t start from kindergarten.
2nd bold: Yes it is.
How ?
My blood pressure is fine, thank you very much. Which part of the following sentence is devoid of understanding and logic?
“…hindus have a tendency of imposing divinity on anything they revere”
Don’t argue for argument’s sake.
Yep it is a joke indeed. But your astonishment over the fact that people, some 3000 years ago knew of VIBGYOR, was a little comical.
You posted from Rg Veda. So I mentioned of Rg Veda.
O goodie. Now we have the license to use Griffith’s translation. You have only quoted verse 4. Here is the entire Surya hymn for your (in)convenience.
1 HIS bright rays bear him up aloft, the God who knoweth all that lives,
Sūrya, that all may look on him.
2 The constellations pass away, like thieves, together with their beams,
Before the all-beholding Sun.
3 His herald rays are seen afar refulgent o’er the world of men,
Like flames of fire that burn and blaze.
4 Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light,
Illuming all the radiant realm.
5 Thou goest to the hosts of Gods, thou comest hither to mankind,
Hither all light to be beheld.
6 With that same eye of thine wherewith thou lookest brilliant Varu[FONT="]ṇ[/FONT]a,
Upon the busy race of men,
7 Traversing sky and wide mid-air, thou metest with thy beams our days,
Sun, seeing all things that have birth.
8 Seven Bay Steeds harnessed to thy car bear thee, O thou farseeing One,
God, Sūrya, with the radiant hair.
9 Sūrya hath yoked the pure bright Seven, the daughters of the car; with these,
His own dear team, he goeth forth.
10 Looking upon the loftier light above the darkness we have come
To Sūrya, God among the Gods, the light that is most excellent.
11 Rising this day, O rich in friends, ascending to the loftier heaven,
Sūrya remove my heart's disease, take from me this my yellow hue.
12 To parrots and to starlings let us give away my yellowness,
Or this my yellowness let us transfer to Haritāla trees.
13 With all his conquering vigour this Āditya hath gone up on high,
Giving my foe into mine hand: let me not be my foeman's prey.
RgV 1.50 is an oblation to the sun god. EPIC FAIL.Sūrya, that all may look on him.
2 The constellations pass away, like thieves, together with their beams,
Before the all-beholding Sun.
3 His herald rays are seen afar refulgent o’er the world of men,
Like flames of fire that burn and blaze.
4 Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Sūrya, maker of the light,
Illuming all the radiant realm.
5 Thou goest to the hosts of Gods, thou comest hither to mankind,
Hither all light to be beheld.
6 With that same eye of thine wherewith thou lookest brilliant Varu[FONT="]ṇ[/FONT]a,
Upon the busy race of men,
7 Traversing sky and wide mid-air, thou metest with thy beams our days,
Sun, seeing all things that have birth.
8 Seven Bay Steeds harnessed to thy car bear thee, O thou farseeing One,
God, Sūrya, with the radiant hair.
9 Sūrya hath yoked the pure bright Seven, the daughters of the car; with these,
His own dear team, he goeth forth.
10 Looking upon the loftier light above the darkness we have come
To Sūrya, God among the Gods, the light that is most excellent.
11 Rising this day, O rich in friends, ascending to the loftier heaven,
Sūrya remove my heart's disease, take from me this my yellow hue.
12 To parrots and to starlings let us give away my yellowness,
Or this my yellowness let us transfer to Haritāla trees.
13 With all his conquering vigour this Āditya hath gone up on high,
Giving my foe into mine hand: let me not be my foeman's prey.
There are some writers, who are like plague to the human sanity. Mr Frawley, a.k.a Vamadeva Sastry (yes converted to Hinduism) is one such scum. Therefore ignored.
Here is a pop quiz for you: What is so significant about hymn, RV 10.85.
Btw, you forgot to “educate” me on Samhitas. What are these, o teacher ?
Can we have the verses please ?
A big LoL. You talking of civility. That’s rich.
Anyway, decorating your posts with smilies is all right, but writing “LoL” isn’t. Errr…how old are you really. Please don’t tell me that you are still in school. That would be huge let down.
amitash
Intel OCer
as far as i can see, the MBH is not hindu scripture, its just an epic
So its logical for parents to show their kids marks card and say they have passed some exam? or illogical to show an admission certificate to some school or the other or just tell other ppl that he is studying here and there? Or maybe celebrating a birthday party saying: "hey my kid is adoloscent"?
Karma is just our deeds or work...if we do good, we get good, if we do bad, we get bad...wats the spirituality there?
dharma is just righteousness or duty or path of duty...i still dont see spirituallity there.
as for reincarnation, if you remember what i said:
as for reincarnation, i dont see any phillospphy in it...just reject it, simple as that.
you are just raving, you cannot predict what might/might not have happened.
read ayurveda for one, and i trust you have read about vedic mathematics, then theres yoga too, different planets and stars and constellations named by the vedas, etc etc
as for proofs, many parts of ayurveda are proved and also many parts are disproved...google vedic mathematics yourself and i dont think i need to discuss the benefits of yoga.
what is change acc to you?
So i guess your always right and everyone else is wrong and you have experienced everything..
Is that the best you could come up with? Tsk tsk.
mediator
Technomancer
I dunno from which site you plagiarized such stuff now to support your "earlier" frantic rigmaroles. I asked you to "quote" "from the scriptures", from "authentic buddhist sites" where buddha told his "disciples" such things. Let me ask, do you even understand the meaning ofkarnivore said:
a) Authentic buddhist sites?
b) scriptures?
c) excerpts from those scriptures?
d) Buddha's own words?
Wasn't Gautama Siddhartha born in India only? So what does the phrase "in Indian context" means? Nastik, like I said, usually means "not believing" and it is "usually" used in context of Gods. Do you understand the meaning of simple english term called "usually"?
You didn't answer to my question. How will jains and buddhists be termed if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas?
REad it all again, you have made enough mockery of yourself by trolling in a discussion that happened between me and amitash, without reading what he has stated and asking the same set of questions that he stated and then making me repeat all over and then generalising on him and anyone who disagrees with you.
1) M glad, you have only strengthened my point then that religions are not the ones which seed terrorism, but only humans. One such atheist human, who specialises in generalising people who disagree with him, is trying to analayse me, my religion and other religions. Well done!karnivore said:
2) Please do enlighten this forum now, where I might have tried to potray my religion as "holier than the holiest". I know halucination is a bad habit of yours, but do give it your best.
Google on this forum, take help of your critic friends, but do tell where I'm potraying it as holiest. I wouldn't have have asked @amitash to look into buddhism earlier if that would have been the case. And so religious hater lies again. Lies lead to intolerance and you set examples in spreading intolerance now.
3) O'reilly? ANd thats why you stated verse 9.22 is "boastful" and "complete Vedic corpus" has rituals and prayers in it? Thats some education about Hinduism you did!
4) If you are not differentiating, then why are u lying about Buddhism and Hinduism? Why do you shy so much from "quoting" from "authentic buddhist sits" if "Buddha ever said those words or rejected the science, mathematics, karmic principles, ayurveda etc etc"?
Your confusion is obscuring your own words!
5) What "reacting"? If it is the word "dared" that I stated which was in context to your childish comprehension of verse 9.22, then every person of any faith will react like this only. Even the science teacher will react like this if a student foolishly generalises on one statement that the teacher said without listening his entire converstion or from the complete science book, or thinks he will know the whole story by reading one statement from the complete story book!
You are just like that foolish student who is generalising on 9.22 and remarking it as "boastful" without even reading what the whole of GITA says and generalised on @amitash on one statement alone.
2) then quote those texts too. If buddhist texts don't talk of conflict, then it strengthens my point even further that religions are not creating wars and massacres, but humans.karnivore said:
And, I asked you 2 times already => what tribal conflict has to do with Vedic tolerance?
4) Then how come 9.22 was boastful according to you? Anyone who has read GITA completely would never even assume such a thing like "boastful".
The mountain of lies you created is just becoming bigger and bigger. And hence my point again that religioun haters like you compete on top for creating intolerance. They assume, they lie, they spread rumours and thus begins the game of intolerance and hate speeches where they don't listen and keep mumbling all the time.
6) Hence my point proved. Just show me where you might have accidently put 9.23 to show that Krishna talks of tolerance himself or the true definition of "himself" that he tells Arjuna.
Lastly, the part in bold again shows how pathetic ur troll is.
The debate was about => "where religion talks of intolerance over other religions or GOd saying that god of other religion is inferior or to kill people of other religions". And now you say you can't even put verses from Vedas. You have been refuted on GITA already with 9.23 and other verses and commentaries put by me.
Not able to give verses from Vedas that talk of killing people of other religions or buddhist texts talking of conflict like I asked, is strengthening my point again and again and exposing your little childish lies.
Deja Vu! Let me ask, do you even understand what the topic was, that began between me and @amitash? Atleast learn the topic before intiating your trolls.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
1). If you are trying to ask for some sympathy so that I should neglect on what you said, then I'd only advise you to stop your childish troll for you are only making me repeat and everyone else without any concern for the topic.
WE all know what "complete Vedic corpus" means. What you didn't know was that ..
* Vedas are compiled in poetic and metaphorical form. So for even an religion hater, an illiterate who generalises on single statements, a statement like "sungod riding on chariot with 7 horses" will be comprehended like " a god, that sun rides his chariot, on horses which are seven" without even knowing how the personification has been done.
* You cannot comprehend "complete" vedas, since only a fraction of it is available.
* You cannot even generalise on Vedas, since the complete compilation is not there.
* And thus you cannot really compare Vedas with anything else.
Like I said earlier what you are doing is passive/indirect and dangerous for you only. You are not even genuine in you little speeches, but plaguirizing from some critic's site.
2) I feel like laying my arms down and surrendering now!
And look at you, remarking that "complete vedic corpus" contains "rituals and prayers"!
Oh they knew more than that! Google my dear, use the only tool that resuscitates your life.karnivore said:
I thought u'd say I posted from some "chapter of rigveda" instead of "rigveda" and hence further narrowing me down to that chapter then.karnivore said:
No, I posted from "Vedas".
Funny, one guy posts a sentence from page 70 of chapter 15 of book 20 of some topic of "knowledge". Another guy says you posted from book 20. Another says you posted from chapter 15 and another fool says you posted from page 70 without even looking of where all of it is subjected under.
And so, I'm talking of Vedas i.e all of it which is compiled under.
Like I said plenty of times. YOU ARE PREDICTABLE. Seems you didn't understand the metaphor even in griffiths translations. INTELLECT FAIL, yet again!karnivore said:
Again, not all the sentences have "prayers or rituals" even in RV 1.50 and many are personfied. An unbiased mind can comprehend easily what much of it says.
A brilliant example of your idiocy! And again, anyone who you do not agree with will face the consequence of your inspection of his background, whether he is a convert and then generalised and ignored?karnivore said:
You just keep proving my point again and again! Now you even "dared" to call a person as "scum" like that?
Why do I get such dumb apprentices? Atleast complete your first stage of primary education by reading the GITA first before asking me to educate you further.karnivore said:
Are you kidding now? Don't tell me you don't even know what ayurveda means or vedic mathematics is. First you asked on GIta 9.22, which I enlightened you with more verses and explaining it. Then I explained how the nature of Vedas are and that what we have is a fraction of it. You just keep dumping the entire critic's compilation don't u? And then you think you are learning about Hinduism? I guess thats either lie or a joke!karnivore said:
Imagine a person holding a story book and generalising on a single statement from somewhere in between and then saying I'm trying to "understand" it.
And so, you have demoralised me way beyond my expectations by your repeated trolls, repetitions, illogic, generalisations, failing to fulfill what is asked, being apathetic to the topic itself etc etc. Again, I may not reply if you continue showering stupidity, like till now, in ur next post. [
]
Last edited:
karnivore
in your face..
First we have a genius, claiming MBH can’t be trusted all the time. Now we have another genius claiming MBH is not “hindu scripture”. Amazing.
Please come back once you have learned a little bit about Hindu rituals, particularly upanayana. It is neither a “birthday” party nor is it an event equivalent to “showing marks card”.
If you reject reincarnation, you reject Hindu concept of Karma. Unlike Buddhism, they go hand in hand. [A clue: Human in this birth, cat in the next. Guess why. This is the exact problem mediator had. Couldn’t realize the nuanced difference between Buddhist Karma and Hindu Karma.] In any case you just typed a sentence, and a self-claimed “atheist” still didn’t notice the fallacy. Here is what you wrote.
“…if we do good, we get good, if we do bad, we get bad.”
Had you been a genuine atheist, you would have asked a simple question: How does good deed ensure that the do-gooder gets good in return? And only then, you would have seen spiritually written all over it.
Regarding “dharma” too, you made a slip. “Dharma” is not just righteousness. It actually means, something like attribute [e.g. water’s dharma is to be wet – this is my favourite example]. That something is created, or someone is born, with specific “dharma” again smacks of spirituality.
I am not predicting. Bible and Koran are freely available texts. Read those texts to get an idea of what I meant.
“Ayurveda” is not part of the 4 vedas. The basis of ayurveda is just as bunkum as homeopathy. I have said this before and I will say it again. Every ancient civilization had its own medicine based on plants and trees. The Incas too had them. No big deal.
“Vedic Mathematics” is neither “vedic” nor is it any specific branch of mathematics.
“Yoga” is a work out routine. So is “Tai Chi”.
The stars, planets and constellations named in vedas are not unique in any sense. Mayans did the same, Egyptians did the same.
Something in the lines of abolishing “sati” or introduction of “widow marriage”. Abolishing “caste” system can be very very good start. Abolishing of Brahmanical priest system. Stop rewriting history, or retrofitting everything into Hindu texts.
Btw, as an atheist, I would want abolishing of all religion. But that’s not going to happen anytime soon.
Nope. Not at all. The thing is, if I am doubtful about something, or have not much read/ researched on something, I simply wouldn’t opine.
Unfortunately, dear, that is quite enough for you.
karnivore
in your face..
1st bold: You have accused me of plagiarism for so many times, that I have lost count of it. Not once, could you prove it. Not once. This time also, for reasons that you very well know, you won’t be. But it is comical how, you wish that I had plagiarized some site and you could find it out and plaster it all over the forum. Nice wet dream.
2nd bold: Let me give you an example of your cognitive dissonance. Here’s something you had said earlier:
Now you are saying, that “nastik…usually means “not believing” and it is “usually” used in context of Gods.” But atheist is the one who doesn’t believe in god. Now if nastik “simply means an atheist”, where does “usually” fit in?mediator said:
3rd bold: I see. The same old tactics. Lie low for sometime. Wait for the pages to flip. Wait for people to forget. Then bam. Start, as if nothing has happened. I have answered all your questions. Not going to repeat it.
4th bold: LoL. Actually you trying to make me do it.
I have to give it to you. The pot that you are smoking is of top class. Your replies have started to become unrelated to my quotes.
1) If that gives a nice sleep at work, go ahead, fool yourself into thinking whatever you feel.
2) The fact that you trying to detach your religion from their religion is proof enough. As with your quotes, well, you are not that important that I will go looking into the muck that you call your post.
3) What would be considered as boastful ? O teacher educate me ?
4) What can I say to an idiot. If one accepts that there is a sun and an earth and a moon and some stars, or that 2 + 2 = 4, he has accepted Vedas. You are clutching at straws. Keep clutching. And yes Buddha rejected the “Karmic principles of hinduism”. Since Karma is not a vedic principle, the question doesn’t arise w.r.t the Vedas.
Anyway, Adi Sankaracharya thought that Buddha rejected Vedas. But I guess, he was one of those fake Brahmins.
Btw, what is an “authentic” Buddhist site ? Who certifies “authenticity” ?
5) Hari Om.
2) What texts ? You are kidding me again. Buddhism came into being as a protest against hindu Brahminical practices, which got authenticated by the hindu texts, particularly notorious of which was Manusmriti. The very existence Buddhism is the proof of Brahminical tyranny. Here’s one more quote:
“When Brahminical orthodoxy was disputed in ancient India by members of other groups (including merchants and craftsmen), the fact that the protesters were often quite affluent should not distract attention from the fact that, in the context of Brahmin dominated orthodoxy, they were indeed distinctly underprivileged. This may be particularly significant in understanding the class basis of the rapid spread of Buddhism, in particular, in India. The undermining of the superiority of the priestly caste played quite a big part in these initially rebellious religious movements, which include Jainism as well as Buddhism. It included a “leveling” feature that is not only reflected in the message of human equality for which these movements stood, but is also captured in the nature of the arguments used to undermine the claim to superiority of those occupying exalted positions. Substantial parts of early Buddhist and Jain literatures contain expositions of protest and resistance.”
-“The Argumentative Indian” by Amartya Sen, pg. 10
What has tribal conflict got to do with vedic tolerance ? Everything. That whatever conflict that these poets were aware of got mentioned in the Vedas. Those that they were not aware of wasn’t mentioned. Google the words “dasa” and “dasyu” and try to figure out how these words fit in the larger scheme of vedic hymns. This is the 2nd time I am explaining. I am sure that it is not the last time though.-“The Argumentative Indian” by Amartya Sen, pg. 10
4) Actually all the verses that I have quoted are boastful, not just 9.22. Through all those verses, attempt has been made to stamp the supremacy of Krishna over all other religion/faith. That’s why. And, btw. Ask a person of different religion, preferably the Semitic ones, to see if they consider this as boastful. On second thought, you don’t have to go that far. Go ahead and ask a typical Shaivite, and get ready to be surprised. Please tell me that you do know how to recognize a Saihivite.
6) You are getting desperate in every post. I understand, that it is not a nice feeling to be corrected in almost very post, that too, by an atheist. Cool down. No need to get hyper. As with 9.23, Krishna doesn’t talk of tolerance (see below for a complete conversation between you an me regarding this) and there are many definitions of “Himself”.
Rest is your wishful daydream. Not my problem.
How does that even come close to being a reply to that quote of mine ? Still smoking ? Naughty you.
1) Sympathy ? Yes I do need some. I am getting tired of correcting your faux pas. Can I have some. Please. O teacher.
* Again pissing at the wrong tree. Man I am getting drenched in all this stinking piss of yours. YUK.
* Adi Sankaracharya could. Vivekananda could. Arobindo could. Tom can. Dick can. Harry can. I can. But you can’t. Pity.
* Aha, I see. You haven’t heard of Avesta.
Ahh, that plagiarizing accusation once again. Pity pity pity. Prove it.
2) What? You mean the curse will be lifted from us?
You are the worst kind of a fukcing liar that I have ever come across.. What you said was:
The hymn is actually from Rg veda, Book 10, Hymn 129
You are now conquering new heights of stupidity. Congrats.
Learn how vedic rituals are performed. Learn also, that each hymn represents a complete mantra which, in most occasion, is to be chanted in entirety not just a particular verse. Where do you think the mantras that are chanted during the homas come from. Your arse or mine. I know its not mine. Go to a priest, sit with him and learn.
The portions that you have emphasized are praises to the Sun god. In every ritual, the particular god to whom sacrifice is being offered, has to be praised first in order to please him. Only if he is pleased with the praise, will he oblige the offerer. Better the diction, purer the call, better are the chances of pleasing the god. The amount of sacrifice also determines if the god will be pleased or not. I can go on describing the specifics of such rituals. But whats the use. I will be preaching a certifiable idiot. But here’s a pointer. Read sautasutras and grihyasutras to learn how the vedic rituals are to be performed.
You have quoted RV 1.50. What about the other hymns, dedicated to Agni, Indra, Soma, Varuna and Maruts. What do you make of YajurVeda, Kanda VII, verses 1.13 – 20 or 2.11 – 20 or 3.13 – 20 or 4.13 – 22 or 5.11/12 [did a meenie minie mo to pick it]
Just a small sample: VII.1.13
To the going hail!
To the advancing hail!
To the running hail!
To him after be hath run hail!
To the crying of 'shoo' hail!
To him over whom is cried 'shoo' hail!
To him who hath moved hail!
To him who hath moved forward hail!
To him springing forward hail!
To him jumping away hail!
To him who advanceth hail!
To him who advanceth forward hail!
To all hail!
Let me reiterate once again. The entire vedic corpus is about prayers and rituals. Almost all the Hymns are actually mantras to be recited at one ritual or other.
Yes I know, you will have to take birth twice over to know why RV 10.85 is significant. The entire hymn is recited during hindu marriage, even today. That’s why.
Once again, what are “samhitas”, “Brahmanas” (not the plural of brahmana) and “Aranyakas”.
You can paint a scum with whatever colour you want, a scum continues to be scum. I have read plenty of David Frawley, Stephen Knapp, N.S.Rajaram, Koenraad Elst etc. to know, that these are insult for human beings. No. Not because they disagree with my point of view, but because these are swindlers (Frawley, Knapp) and liars (all of them). N.S.Rajaram was even caught red handed in faking an Indus seal. The more you quote from them, the more you lower your credibility (not that you have any to me).
The basis of “Ayurveda” is bs. “Vedic Maths” is bs.
And you think that your explanation of 9.22 holds any value to me, or for that matter, anybody with sense. One of those wet dreams. Isn’t it.
Re bold: You just won’t stop projecting yourself. Will ya now ?
One interesting thing is that you have repeated verse 9.22 , 5 times. Not once have you mentioned the other verses that I have quoted. If for argument’s sake, I assume, that 9.22 shouldn’t have been mentioned, the other verses still stand and still make their points. This is typical of idiots – forgetting the bigger picture and making tangential arguments.
But lets see what have you “explained” to me about 9.23.
=============================
me #999
“To those men who worship Me alone, thinking of no other, of those ever united, I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess.” – BG 9.22
COMMENTS: Means, “surrender to me, or you are doomed”.
you #1002
2."Surrender to me" does not mean "you are doomed". I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of view from you.
Further "surrender to me" has various aspects like from worshipping, "karma", "spiritual knowledge", "love" etc
4. Beneath your verse 9.22, is the verse 9.23 ...
"9.23 Those who worship other gods with faith, worship ME alone, although improper method."
Comment : Again improper method doesn't mean any superiority among different religion's Gods. Read the commentaries.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-09-22.html
me #1004
2.What does “…I secure what is not already possessed and preserve what they already possess” mean ? That would mean, that whatever one already has (i.e. present), and whatever one may posses (i.e. future), will be preserved, only if one surrenders (i.e. have faith) to Me (Krishna). The flip side: If one doesn’t surrender, then one’s present and future will not be preserved. How wrong was it to call it being doomed ?
4. BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).
you #1005
1,2) It seems you are getting emotional about the definition of God. You simply have not replied where the religions or supreme Gods are preaching intolerance for other faiths?. Your earlier point was already refuted. <You completely dodged the argument >
4. It is not bt about the procedure or has to do anything with the style in which he is doing prayer, but "true devotion". I guess you really did not read the commentaries even after my suggestion.
here's one commentary from that source...
commentary said:
me #1006
Swami Prabhupada’s commentary:
““Persons who are engaged in the worship of demigods are not very intelligent, although such worship is offered to Me indirectly,” Krishna says. For example, when a man pours water on the leaves and branches of a tree without pouring water on the root, he does so without sufficient knowledge or without observing regulative principles. Similarly, the process of rendering service to different parts of the body is to supply food to the stomach. The demigods are, so to speak, different officers and directors in the government of the Supreme Lord. One has to follow the laws made by the government, not by the officers or directors. Similarly, everyone is to offer his worship to the Supreme Lord only. That will automatically satisfy the different officers and directors of the Lord. The officers and directors are engaged as representatives of the government, and to offer some bribe to the officers and directors is illegal. This is stated here as avidhi-purvakam. In other words, Krishna does not approve the unnecessary worship of the demigods.”
COMMENTS: Regarding the parts in bold, it means, that demigods (i.e. all other gods) don’t “have separate existence without Krishna”
you #1009
So, with hatred towards religion mixed with emotional psyche just becoz you have been proved wrong on the verses, you are now further treating this is as a battle?
Like I said, you only put verses and commentaries you find, proving you biased point that you agree with. You state them without even understanding the meaning of it and behave like "Hey, explain this!". So which part may I ask, "proves" your point? Again I give you a clue : You have not read the complete GITA.
me #1012
If you are saying it, then it must be right. But I agree, dismissing Prabhupada is beyond you. I am glad that you haven’t used your typical ad homenims against him, just to score a brownie point against me. Wise decision.
And yes, I rest my case.
============================
So where have you proved me wrong or any way proved yourself correct. You first ran away from debating 9.22 and then simply fizzled out on 9.23.
amitash
Intel OCer
i know its not...just asking you how its logical for parents to tell ppl their childs marks, celebrate birthdays ets and not logical to celebrate the starting of education.
You are again veering offtopic, it was accepting the phillosophical part without the spiritual part...you can just reject all the human to cat rebirth thing and take karma just as deed.
good and bad are all relative FYI...even happiness is good, its very simple actually, you do something that you feel is good, you will feel happy so you have got good there in return....in a war if you kill an enemy soldier, you think you are doing good by protecting your countries citizens and thus you get a sense of accomplishment and happiness which is good in return, its very simple, anything you do which you consider as good, will give you some good in return.
Again you are veering off and strengthening my point, accept the righteous path part and reject all the creation part...thus phillosophy without spirituality.
again you are raving...just because something happened to some other scripture in some other part of the world doesnt mean it would have, under the same conditions.
aurveda starts with the atharva veda FYI...and can you please state the basis of ayurveda?
read more about vedic maths, you will understand
last bold: you stregthen my point once again, you asked me to show you the science in vedas, i did, now you are telling me that other civilizations have done it too, yes they did, so what? now your comparing other civilisations with ancient indians just because you cant prove your point which was:
and:
lol again you strengthen my point...do you think sati was abolished overnight? it took generations to do so! same thing for everything else you have stated...your original point was that nothing was changing whereas i said change is happening but slowly...which you have agreed to right now.
If you stuck to your own rules we wouldnt have been having this arguement right now.
OK
mediator
Technomancer
And now the troll whines! Here's my question for the 3rd time that u miss deliberately.karnivore said:
How will jains and buddhists be termed if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas?
"Usually" fit in the cases like you.karnivore said:
And hence my question again : How will jains and buddhists be termed if they reject or "not believe" in all the science and maths, the karmic principle, morality and wisdom in vedas?
3rd,4th : Troll whines again!
1) Whinings ignored!karnivore said:
2) Had you read korrectly I actually told that Hinduism is a way of life also, but can also be called religion. One faith can be disassociated from another. One science lesson from another, one teacher from another etc. A wise teacher never tells he is superior to others or tells to kill those who doesn't follow him.
Such simple logic yet failed on you.
3) Your little speeches, the acts of chauvinism, generalisation on many people who disagree can quite be considered as "boastful". Such "boast" is not visible in GITA. An illiterate critic who has hardly read GITA and mumbling over it, is called ignorance + arrogance ! Understand lil apprentice?
4) AFAIK, buddha was against the brahminism, "by birth", the supremacy of Vedas that the brahmins were preaching to establish their own control, that was arising at that time giving rise to a lot of bad cult. So once again, where did Buddha said to his disciples that "he is against Vedas".
I guess you have completely chickened out from giving excerpts from buddhists texts. Keep ignoring, run away from my questions and the core of the debate for thats the only thing left for you.
Also do tell "where" Shankaracharya "thought" of whateva you imagined.
Even a child would know what authentic site means. It means which gives buddhist scriptures in proper comprehension and order, just like bhagvada Gita site I referred ! Understand my dumb apprentice?
Wat a waste of time and intellect. This must the umpteenth time you have brought manusmriti to support your hatred towards Hinduism.karnivore said:
And I repeat, manusmiriti was never considered a part of Hinduism. Not every ancient Indian work can be considered a part of Hinduism. All these drivels marked with hatred must be affecting ur eyesight to read the lines I put repeatedly.
4) Did you forget already the definition of "him" that Krishna puts?
Chapter 9.17-19
"I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rig, the Sama and the Yajur Vedas."
"I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the abode, the refuge, and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place and the eternal seed."
"O Arjuna, I give heat, and I withhold and send forth the rain. I am immortality, and I am also death personified. Both spirit and matter are in Me."
Chapter 7, 8-10
I am the taste in water,
the light in the moon and sun,
the sacred syllable Om
in the Vedas, the sound in air.
I am the fragrance in the earth,
the manliness in men, the brilliance
in fire, the life in the living,
and the abstinence in ascetics.
I am the primal seed .
within all beings, Arjuna:
the wisdom of those who know,
the splendor of the high and mighty.
Chapter 9 , 22-23
"But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have."
"Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way."
This "wrong way" was clearly identified in commentaries.
Like I said, the name Krishna is irrelevant. All the way in GITA he defines the dharma, karma and supreme consciousness. His true form is nature itself. He defines himself as the energy of the sun, OM the knowledge of Vedas etc.
Krishna is not telling to worship some guy called Krishna, but after having explained his true form, he tells that worshipping that form is the truth.
This can be easily verified from nature. If we don't gather knowledge, we tend to remain in dark. If we hurt nature and cut trees, then it will only hurt us in terms of soil erosion, global warming, less oxygen etc. We all know how we need Sunlight for our existence. Maybe nature is GOD, knowledge is GOD, wisdom is GOD !!!
Chapter 3, Verse 42-43.
The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence.
So stop your little whinings will you? I repeated once again for u.
NOW KINDLY EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHERE IS THE "boastful" nature of the verses?
I wonder why you ignored the commentaries I gave and refrained after post #1009
And here you are posting ur trademark, i.e the childish "you said this and I said this" debate.
6) The complete conversation was stopped when I asked ...
mediator said:
And here I am completing the sequence of logic (above part of the post).
That must be the joke of the day. An atheist, a religon hater who generalises on those who disagree with him telling "how vedic rituals are performed".karnivore said:
"reverence" is the first part. Reverance does not mean either prayer or ritual. And so logic failed once more on you. This reverance is done in the 1.50 RV by stating how SUngod's nature is.
Marking it all with prayer and ritual is again stupidity. Thats the height of illiteracy!
Once again for an umpteenth time: Where are the religions I stated i.e Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism etc, are telling to kill people of other religions? Where is Buddha saying I'm the best?
Your throat must have dried real bad "googling" on this, begging the critics to back you up for one last time to support your hatred against religion, all this month, isn't it? The symptoms of your weak eyesight are already visible clearly.
karnivore said:
mediator said:
karnivore said:
karnivore said:
I rest my case for I have had enough phun with you already. Mocking a helpless illiterate is not my cup of tea!
Last edited:
Buddhism and Sikhism must have some verses about killing infidels. Let me us google advanced search.
geek_rocker
Broken In
GTFO, Buddhism doesn't have the concept of "infidels". Buddhism is a somewhat of atheistic/agnostic religion. I'm Buddhist and also an agnostic.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha
Enough said.
karnivore
in your face..
“What Manu says is medicine” – Taittiriya Samhita (II.2.10.2) & Tanda Maha Brhamana (XXII.16.17)
There is a growing trend among a bunch of Hindu apologist, to deny the veracity of Manusmriti. Surprisingly, VHP happens to belong to those deniers. The reason for this denial is understandable. Manusmriti, is one of the most racist, casteist and sexist text ever written in the name of Hinduism. This sticks out like sore thumb. But the problem is that the reality of casteism, or the place of women in Hindu society, can’t be swept under the carpet. Hinduism has drawn much criticism, and rightly so, for such inhuman practices. Thus, if it can be proved that the source of such practices was a result of some distortion, then it will absolve their religion of the accusation, that it supports this practice. Thus their religion will remain chaste, while the blame can then be shifted to something else, e.g. human error, intentional or otherwise. There is no doubt, that Brahminism resulted in most of the evils, that we see today in a Hindu society, but the fact remains that, these Brahmins, had texts like Manusmriti to defend their acts. What is even more amusing is that Manusmriti, alone is not the reason of the Brahmanical preponderance over Hindu society. There are numerous other texts, that support many of these absurd practices. Stragely, no denial of such texts are made. Anyway, those are outside the scope of this write up.
There are three different arguments to deny Manusmriti’s veracity. a) Manusmriti is actually “Smriti”, and therefore, not important and should be ignored. b) Manusmriti was never authoritative, or had less influence among Hindus. c) Manusmriti was never a part of Hinduism. I will take on these three arguments, one by one, although b) and c) can be conflated into one argument only.
Well, there is actually a fourth argument, which was echoed by people like Adi Shankaracharya and Dayananda Swaraswati. They had no doubt, that Manusmriti was one of the most important texts of Hinduism. But they also believed that the despicable parts of Manusmriti were not written by Manu himself, but by others, at a much later date. In other words, those disparaging remarks about caste, women etc. were interpolation. As usual, they forgot to give logical reasons, as to why those portions should be considered as interpolation. In any case, interpolation can’t be completely overruled, but there is very little to prove such interpolations. Instead, the structure of the entire treatise, the arrangements of the slokas, the consistency of Sanskrit grammar, and more importantly, the logic of his laws, almost invariably rule out later additions or redactions in any form. In the words of Sir James George Frazer, “Crude and false as that philosophy may seem to us, it would be unjust to deny it the merit of logical consistency. The flaw of the system lies not in it’s reasoning but in it’s premises in it’s conception of the nature of life, not in any irrelevancy of the conclusions which it draws from that conclusions.” (The Golden Bough, pg 263). However, in this post, I will stay away from the interpolation debate.
Before we get down to business, a few relevant words about Manu himself and his magnum opus, Manusmriti. There are 14 Manus in Hindu mythology. MBH mentions 7, 6 named and 1 unnamed. Upanishads extend this number to 14. The first Manu is called Svayambhu (Self born) Manu. In Hindu mythology, he is the first man, an equivalent of Bible’s Adam. In fact the base word for “manusya”, meaning man, comes from the word “manu” or “manus”. Manu mythology, is spread all over the Hindu texts in one form or the other, the most notable one is of the Manu in “Matsya Purana”, where Vishnu, in his fish incarnation, saves Manu from a terrible flood (something similar to Noah’s flood). The law giver Manu is the one who succeeds the Manu in “Matsya Purana”.
Manusmriti was written not earlier than 200 BC and not later than 200 AD. Most scholars take the circa 200 BC as the most probable date, but then, some apologist would claim it to have been written as early as 900 BC. It is actually a compilation of rules for rituals, already mentioned in the Vedas, the sutras, the brahmanas etc. and also the rules of social order, with, of course, Manu’s unique touch. It is probably the first Hindu text that attempts to provide such social rules, which go to the extent of prescribing rules for statecraft, for inheritance and also punishments for criminal acts.
A school of thought, believes that Manusmriti was not written by Manu at all. It was written by a nameless person, and ascribed it to Manu, for its acceptance. For example, Patrick Olivile notes in his, “Law Code of Manu”, that, “The eponym 'Manu', of course, is not the name of the historical author of this text. The name, however, was an astute choice. The ancient vedic text Taittiriya Samhita (2.2.10.2) records what appears to have been a proverbial saying: ‘Whatever Manu has said is medicine.’ Numerous legal maxims were ascribed to Manu, who must have been viewed by later generations as an ancient law giver.” (pg xxi) Another school believes that, Manu or whoever actually wrote Manusmriti, wasn’t really giving any rules to be followed, but was actually recording the social rules, that had already begun to exist in the society. In that sense, it comes close to being somewhat of a historical record. But then again, that is a different debate altogether.
Let us now examine the arguments, mentioned earlier.
a) Hindu texts actually fall under two categories. “Sruti” (what is heard of) and “Smriti” (what is remembered). “Sruti” refers to the texts that were revealed to the sages, while “Smriti” refers to the ones, that were written by the sages on their own understanding of the religion and society at large. Since, “Smriti” is the result of human endeavor, it is therefore subject to error while “Sruti”, being of divine source, is not. “Sruti” therefore has preponderance over “Smriti”. “Sruti” includes all the four Vedas, including their respective “samhitas”, “brahmanas”, “aranyakas” and “upanishads". “Smriti” includes everthing else. All the puranas, the rest of upanishads, sutras etc. A sub-category of “Smriti” is called “Itihasas” (history), which includes the epics, Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Gita.
The argument, that Manusmriti is to be rejected because it is a “Smriti”, is inherently, a flawed argument. Because, in that case, it stops no one from rejecting all the puranas, all the Upanishads, the Gita, the MBH and Ramayana. In fact every single text, connected with, or written about Hinduism, that doesn’t suite one’s fancy or point of view, can be rejected on this ground. But that is certainly not the case. Current Hinduism, as I have argued before, is more Upanishadic and Puranic than it is vedic. Several important Hindu sects, like, Shaivism (worshippers of Lord Shiva) or Vaishnavism (worshippers of Lord Krishna, e.g. ISCKON) or Shakaism (worshippers of Shakti) do not even have vedic origin. Shaivism, for example, consider Shiva Purana more authoritative than Gita while, for a Vaishnav, Gita is the more authoritative.
The question then arises, can we pick and choose a text, or rather a “Smriti”, and reject it ? Adi Sankaracharya, while criticizing Kapila-smriti, comments, in his Vedanta Sutras, that, “There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and asramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.)
Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)
Lets move on to the next argument, that, Manusmriti was never authoritative or that it was never a part of Hinduism.
b) & c) The argument of Manusrmiti, not being authoritative or influential, in a sense, do not exactly deny that Manusmriti, was a part of Hinduism, or that it was accepted, at least, by certain section of Hindus. On the question of authority, it can however be proved, that Manusmriti was indeed influential. In his, “Brief History of Dharmasastra”, S.C.Bannerji notes, “The Manusmriti is the most authoritative work among Dharmasastras. In the traditional list of writers on dharma, contained in the Yajnavalkya Smriti (i.4-5), Manu is mentioned first of all.” (Pg 32-33).
With the exception of Gita, no other “Smriti” can boast as many commentaries, as Manusmriti can. S.C.Bannerji observes, in the same book, that, “Manusmriti has been commented upon by a number of scholars. Perhaps, no single smriti has got so many commentators.” There are commentaries by Medhatithi (the oldest of all commentaries on Manusmriti), Kullukabhatta, Govidaraja, Narayana, Raghavananda, Nandana and Ramachandra. Although, only Medhatithi and Kulluka’s commentaries are most of the time referred to. Had it been an unimportant text, there certainly wouldn’t have been so many commentaries. There are references of Manusmriti, in literary works of Sudraka (Mrcchakatika), Vatsayan (Kamasutra) etc. We have echo of some of the laws of Manu, in MBH and Gita and independent treatise like Kautilya’s Arthasastra. We have Adi Shankaracharya, Dawananda Swaraswati, Vivekananda, profusely quoting Manu in their lectures and other works.
S.N.Sen notes in “History of the Freedom Movement in India”, that, “IfRammohan appealed to the Upanishads, Bankim to the Gita and Vivekananda to the Advaita (of Shankara), Dayananda appealed to the Vedas (Hindu religious books). In 1875 Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83) founded the Arya Samaj. Dayananda denounced idolatry, polygamy and caste and harked back to the Vedas as the fountain of all truth and the sheet anchor of Hinduism. Manu Smriti (one of the ancient Law-books of India) formed the basis of Dayananda's ethics for daily conduct.” (pg 77) Dayanada went to include over a quarter of the total law codes of Manusmriti, in his magnum opus, “Satyarth Prakash”. Vivekanda, in his famous lecture, “The Work Before Us”, notes “Says our great law-giver, Manu: "Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)
I have already quoted Shankaracharya, a little earlier.
Manu’s fame even went beyond the borders of India. Law books of Burma and Thailand ascribe to Manusmriti. The early Burmese law book, Wagaru Dhamma, contains 18 titles of law, which are dealt with in Manusmriti. The other ancient Burmese texts, that borrow heavily from Manusmriti, are Dhammavilasa, Dhammasatta, Manuyin etc. In Cylon a work in Pali, makes direct references to Manusmriti as well. Tests in Bali, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. all show, some influence of Manusmriti, in one form or the other.
Attempting to mention all such references and influences in all the texts, is futile. I hope I have been able to give the idea, that Manusmriti has never been, just another Hindu text, neither in its influence, nor in its fame.
Below are some of the references in some of the holy texts of Hindus. These references are ,by no means, exhaustive.
===============
w.r.t Rg Veda
But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. (M 1.31)
Purusha Sukta, RV 10.90.12
The brahmana (priest) was his mouth, If his two arms were made the rajanya (kshatriya - warrior),
His two thighs the vaishya (merchant and agriculturist), From his feet the shudra (laborer class) was born.
Comment: The verse from Rg Veda, is considered by most scholars as later additions. Most of book 1 and 10 are. In any case, Manu’s mentioning of creation of caste was simply, a reference to the Rg Veda, and was not of his own articulation. This again, goes on to prove, that Manu’s position was never contrary to the Vedas.
===========
w.r.t Gita
Manusmriti
The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land. (M 1.90)
Among the several occupations the most commendable are, teaching the Veda for a Brahmana, protecting (the people) for a Kshatriya, and trade for a Vaisya. (M 10.80)
If it be asked, ’How shall it be, if he cannot maintain himself by either (of these occupations?’ the answer is), he may adopt a Vaisya’ s mode of life, employing himself in agriculture and rearing cattle. (M 10.82)
One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes. (M 1.92)
Gita
Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born of (their own) nature. (G 18.44)
========
Manusmriti
It is better (to discharge) one’ s own (appointed) duty incompletely than to perform completely that of another; for he who lives according to the law of another (caste) is instantly excluded from his own. (M 10.97)
Gita
Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin. (G 18.44)
========
w.r.t Mahabharata
But in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Sudras; (M 10.43)
(Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Kodas, the Dravidas, the Kambogas, the Yavanas, the Sakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Kinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas. (M 10.43)
“It is in consequence of the absence of Brahmanas from among them that the Sakas, the Yavanas, the Kamvojas and other Kshatriya tribes have become fallen and degraded into the status of Sudras. The Dravidas, the Kalingas, the Pulandas, the Usinaras, the Kolisarpas, the Mahishakas and other Kshatriyas, have, in consequence of the absence of Brahmanas from among their midst, become degraded into Sudras.” [MBH, Anusasana Parva (13.35)]
Comments: The “Pahlavas” refer to Persians, while, “Yavanas” to Greeks, “Shakas” to Scythians.
==============
These races, (which originate) in a confusion (of the castes and) have been described according to their fathers and mothers, may be known by their occupations, whether they conceal or openly show themselves. (10.40)
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as--of what caste so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice. Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite. [Aranya Parva, (3.179)]
Comment: The predicament, that gripped Manu, seemed to have gripped Yudhishthira as well. How to determine caste of a person born of parents, belonging to different castes. Both Manu and Yudhishthira, appear to consider that in such cases of intermingling, birth shouldn’t be the basis of caste.
================
In modern Hindu society, the biggest bane is its caste system. Not surprisingly, the same caste system gets sanctioned in Manusmriti pretty unambiguously. The disparaging attitude towards the female sex, is also pretty common in Hindu society. Rampant female feticide is one fall out of that perversion.
Let us further examine, if Manu’s laws, other than caste, had/have any bearing on contemporary/modern Hindu society. I have selected some of the laws, that are pretty much visible, even today. The following, needless to say, is not exhaustive.
Keep in mind this law, for the phrase “twice born” will be mentioned quite a number of times:
10.4. Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya castes (varna) are the twice-born ones, but the fourth, the Sudra, has one birth only; there is no fifth (caste).
1st birth is the natural birth, while the 2nd birth refers to upanayana or if you want to be more liberal, education.
General Practices:
Non-violence and vegetarianism:
5.15. He who eats the flesh of any (animal) is called the eater of the flesh of that (particular creature), he who eats fish is an eater of every (kind of) flesh; let him therefore avoid fish.
5.43. A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in (his own) house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress, cause an injury (to any creature) which is not sanctioned by the Veda.
5.48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.
5.49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.
Comments: To this day, a huge community of Hindus are vegetarians and do not eat fish (except for Eastern India, e.g. Bengal, Orissa). Manu, however, makes exception for two specific fishes, Pathina and Rohita. He also sanctions eating meat, only when in distress and is a matter of survival, or for sacrificial purpose, only to the extent and in the manner permitted by the Vedas.
==============
Prohibition of garlic/onion eating:
5.5. Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and (all plants), springing from impure (substances), are unfit to be eaten by twice-born men.
Comment: This is typical of Hindu vegetarianism. No onion. Again, sanctioned by Manu. Followed even today.
==============
Rules for OM:
2.74. Let him always pronounce the syllable Om at the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in) the Veda; (for) unless the syllable Om precede (the lesson) will slip away (from him), and unless it follow it will fade away.
Comment: A religious Hindu almost always pronounces “OM”, at least before the beginning of anything, that s/he considers to be important. Sanctioned by Manu.
==============
Rules of Charansparsh (prostrating before the revered):
2.71. At the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in the) Veda he must always clasp both the feet of his teacher, (and) he must study, joining his hands; that is called the Brahmangali (joining the palms for the sake of the Veda).
2.72. With crossed hands he must clasp (the feet) of the teacher, and touch the left (foot) with his left (hand), the right (foot) with his right (hand).
Comment: Average Hindu does a shorter version of it, using one hand, preferably the right hand. But in classical rituals, and traditional festivities, most of the Hindus follow this rule of charansparsh.
Inheritance:
9.104. After the death of the father and of the mother, the brothers, being assembled, may divide among themselves in equal shares the paternal (and the maternal) estate; for, they have no power (over it) while the parents live.
9.130. A son is even (as) oneself, (such) a daughter is equal to a son; how can another (heir) take the estate, while such (an appointed daughter who is even) oneself, lives?
Comments: The two rules, combined, imply, that parental property is to be divided equally between the sons and daughters. Something, which is enshrined in our current Hindu law, with very little modification.
==============
Cow Urine:
5.121. A man who knows (the law) must purify conch-shells, horn, bone and ivory, like linen cloth, or with a mixture of cow’s urine and water.
11.90. A twice-born man who has (intentionally) drunk, through delusion of mind, (the spirituous liquor called) Sura shall drink that liquor boiling-hot; when his body has been completely scalded by that, he is freed from his guilt;
11.91. Or he may drink cow’ s urine, water, milk, clarified butter or (liquid) cow dung boiling-hot, until he dies;
Comment: Regardless of its supposed therapeutic value as per Ayurveda, cow urine is still considered as holy and a purifying agent.
===============
Panchagavya (Five products of cow):
11.165. (To swallow) the five products of the cow (pankagavya) is the atonement for stealing eatables of various kinds, a vehicle, a bed, a seat, flowers, roots, or fruit.
Comment: The five products are, milk, curd, butter, urine and dung. Swallowing of these five products, is a form of prayaschitta (penance) for certain sins. This belief is still prevalent among the hardcore Hindus.
==============
Ritual Practices (sanctioned by Manu):
5 daily performances:
3.70. Teaching (and studying) is the sacrifice (offered) to Brahman, the (offerings of water and food called) Tarpana the sacrifice to the manes, the burnt oblation the sacrifice offered to the gods, the Bali offering that offered to the Bhutas, and the hospitable reception of guests the offering to men.
Comment: These are collectively called “mahayajnas”. Individually these are called “brahmayajna”, “pitryajna”, “devayajna”, “bhutayajna” and “manusyayajna” respectively. The most famous of these performances is the “pitryajna”. This is described in detail in Srautasutra, but it is Manu, who calls it “tarpana”, by which it is more popularly known as.
=============
5 sacrifices:
3.74. Ahuta (not offered in the fire) is the muttering (of Vedic texts), Huta the burnt oblation (offered to the gods), Prahuta (offered by scattering it on the ground) the Bali offering given to the Bhutas, Brahmya-huta (offered in the digestive fire of Brahmanas), the respectful reception of Brahmana (guests), and Prasita (eaten) the (daily oblation to the manes, called) Tarpana.
Comment: These are followed, in almost all religious ritual.
=============
Feeding at least on Brahmin, during Sraddh:
3.83. Let him feed even one Brahmana in honour of the manes at (the Sraddha), which belongs to the five great sacrifices; but let him not feed on that (occasion) any Brahmana on account of the Vaisvadeva offering.
Comment: Needless to say, how this is adhered to, still today.
================
Sanctioning inaudible and mental recitation of prayers:
2.85. An offering, consisting of muttered prayers, is ten times more efficacious than a sacrifice performed according to the rules (of the Veda); a (prayer) which is inaudible (to others) surpasses it a hundred times, and the mental (recitation of sacred texts) a thousand times.
=================
Prayascittas (Penance):
11.46. A sin unintentionally committed is expiated by the recitation of Vedic texts, but that which (men) in their folly commit intentionally, by various (special) penances.
Comments: He prescribes five types of penances, Pahchagavya, mentioned earlier, being one of those.
================
Upanayana:
2.42. The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a of a triple cord of Munga grass, smooth and soft; (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres; (that) of a Vaisya, of hempen threads.
2.43. If Munga grass (and so forth) be not procurable, (the girdles) may be made of Kusa, Asmantaka, and Balbaga (fibres), with a single threefold knot, or with three or five (knots according to the custom of the family).
2.44. The sacrificial string of a Brahmana shall be made of cotton, (shall be) twisted to the right, (and consist) of three threads, that of a Kshatriya of hempen threads, (and) that of a Vaisya of woollen threads.
2.48. Having taken a staff according to his choice, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire, turning his right hand towards it, (the student) should beg alms according to the prescribed rule.
2.49. An initiated Brahmana should beg, beginning (his request with the word) lady (bhavati); a Kshatriya, placing (the word) lady in the middle, but a Vaisya, placing it at the end (of the formula).
2.50. Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).
2.51. Having collected as much food as is required (from several persons), and having announced it without guile to his teacher, let him eat, turning his face towards the east, and having purified himself by sipping water.
2.53. Let a twice-born man always eat his food with concentrated mind, after performing an ablution; and after he has eaten, let him duly cleanse himself with water and sprinkle the cavities (of his head).
=============
References:
Manusmriti
Mahabharata (English translation by K.M. Ganguli
Gita (Translations and commentaries by Prabhupada & Sivananda)
Encyclopaedia of Hinduism by N.K. Singh.
History of Dharmasastra by P.V. Kane
A Brief History of Dharmasastra by S.C. Bannerji
Law Code of Manu by Patrick Olivile
The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanda
History of the Freedom Movement in India by S.N. Sen
Satyarth Prakash by Dawanada Saraswati
====================
ERRATA: Patrick "Olivile" shall read Patrick "Olivelle"
There is a growing trend among a bunch of Hindu apologist, to deny the veracity of Manusmriti. Surprisingly, VHP happens to belong to those deniers. The reason for this denial is understandable. Manusmriti, is one of the most racist, casteist and sexist text ever written in the name of Hinduism. This sticks out like sore thumb. But the problem is that the reality of casteism, or the place of women in Hindu society, can’t be swept under the carpet. Hinduism has drawn much criticism, and rightly so, for such inhuman practices. Thus, if it can be proved that the source of such practices was a result of some distortion, then it will absolve their religion of the accusation, that it supports this practice. Thus their religion will remain chaste, while the blame can then be shifted to something else, e.g. human error, intentional or otherwise. There is no doubt, that Brahminism resulted in most of the evils, that we see today in a Hindu society, but the fact remains that, these Brahmins, had texts like Manusmriti to defend their acts. What is even more amusing is that Manusmriti, alone is not the reason of the Brahmanical preponderance over Hindu society. There are numerous other texts, that support many of these absurd practices. Stragely, no denial of such texts are made. Anyway, those are outside the scope of this write up.
There are three different arguments to deny Manusmriti’s veracity. a) Manusmriti is actually “Smriti”, and therefore, not important and should be ignored. b) Manusmriti was never authoritative, or had less influence among Hindus. c) Manusmriti was never a part of Hinduism. I will take on these three arguments, one by one, although b) and c) can be conflated into one argument only.
Well, there is actually a fourth argument, which was echoed by people like Adi Shankaracharya and Dayananda Swaraswati. They had no doubt, that Manusmriti was one of the most important texts of Hinduism. But they also believed that the despicable parts of Manusmriti were not written by Manu himself, but by others, at a much later date. In other words, those disparaging remarks about caste, women etc. were interpolation. As usual, they forgot to give logical reasons, as to why those portions should be considered as interpolation. In any case, interpolation can’t be completely overruled, but there is very little to prove such interpolations. Instead, the structure of the entire treatise, the arrangements of the slokas, the consistency of Sanskrit grammar, and more importantly, the logic of his laws, almost invariably rule out later additions or redactions in any form. In the words of Sir James George Frazer, “Crude and false as that philosophy may seem to us, it would be unjust to deny it the merit of logical consistency. The flaw of the system lies not in it’s reasoning but in it’s premises in it’s conception of the nature of life, not in any irrelevancy of the conclusions which it draws from that conclusions.” (The Golden Bough, pg 263). However, in this post, I will stay away from the interpolation debate.
Before we get down to business, a few relevant words about Manu himself and his magnum opus, Manusmriti. There are 14 Manus in Hindu mythology. MBH mentions 7, 6 named and 1 unnamed. Upanishads extend this number to 14. The first Manu is called Svayambhu (Self born) Manu. In Hindu mythology, he is the first man, an equivalent of Bible’s Adam. In fact the base word for “manusya”, meaning man, comes from the word “manu” or “manus”. Manu mythology, is spread all over the Hindu texts in one form or the other, the most notable one is of the Manu in “Matsya Purana”, where Vishnu, in his fish incarnation, saves Manu from a terrible flood (something similar to Noah’s flood). The law giver Manu is the one who succeeds the Manu in “Matsya Purana”.
Manusmriti was written not earlier than 200 BC and not later than 200 AD. Most scholars take the circa 200 BC as the most probable date, but then, some apologist would claim it to have been written as early as 900 BC. It is actually a compilation of rules for rituals, already mentioned in the Vedas, the sutras, the brahmanas etc. and also the rules of social order, with, of course, Manu’s unique touch. It is probably the first Hindu text that attempts to provide such social rules, which go to the extent of prescribing rules for statecraft, for inheritance and also punishments for criminal acts.
A school of thought, believes that Manusmriti was not written by Manu at all. It was written by a nameless person, and ascribed it to Manu, for its acceptance. For example, Patrick Olivile notes in his, “Law Code of Manu”, that, “The eponym 'Manu', of course, is not the name of the historical author of this text. The name, however, was an astute choice. The ancient vedic text Taittiriya Samhita (2.2.10.2) records what appears to have been a proverbial saying: ‘Whatever Manu has said is medicine.’ Numerous legal maxims were ascribed to Manu, who must have been viewed by later generations as an ancient law giver.” (pg xxi) Another school believes that, Manu or whoever actually wrote Manusmriti, wasn’t really giving any rules to be followed, but was actually recording the social rules, that had already begun to exist in the society. In that sense, it comes close to being somewhat of a historical record. But then again, that is a different debate altogether.
Let us now examine the arguments, mentioned earlier.
a) Hindu texts actually fall under two categories. “Sruti” (what is heard of) and “Smriti” (what is remembered). “Sruti” refers to the texts that were revealed to the sages, while “Smriti” refers to the ones, that were written by the sages on their own understanding of the religion and society at large. Since, “Smriti” is the result of human endeavor, it is therefore subject to error while “Sruti”, being of divine source, is not. “Sruti” therefore has preponderance over “Smriti”. “Sruti” includes all the four Vedas, including their respective “samhitas”, “brahmanas”, “aranyakas” and “upanishads". “Smriti” includes everthing else. All the puranas, the rest of upanishads, sutras etc. A sub-category of “Smriti” is called “Itihasas” (history), which includes the epics, Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Gita.
The argument, that Manusmriti is to be rejected because it is a “Smriti”, is inherently, a flawed argument. Because, in that case, it stops no one from rejecting all the puranas, all the Upanishads, the Gita, the MBH and Ramayana. In fact every single text, connected with, or written about Hinduism, that doesn’t suite one’s fancy or point of view, can be rejected on this ground. But that is certainly not the case. Current Hinduism, as I have argued before, is more Upanishadic and Puranic than it is vedic. Several important Hindu sects, like, Shaivism (worshippers of Lord Shiva) or Vaishnavism (worshippers of Lord Krishna, e.g. ISCKON) or Shakaism (worshippers of Shakti) do not even have vedic origin. Shaivism, for example, consider Shiva Purana more authoritative than Gita while, for a Vaishnav, Gita is the more authoritative.
The question then arises, can we pick and choose a text, or rather a “Smriti”, and reject it ? Adi Sankaracharya, while criticizing Kapila-smriti, comments, in his Vedanta Sutras, that, “There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and asramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.)
Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)
Lets move on to the next argument, that, Manusmriti was never authoritative or that it was never a part of Hinduism.
b) & c) The argument of Manusrmiti, not being authoritative or influential, in a sense, do not exactly deny that Manusmriti, was a part of Hinduism, or that it was accepted, at least, by certain section of Hindus. On the question of authority, it can however be proved, that Manusmriti was indeed influential. In his, “Brief History of Dharmasastra”, S.C.Bannerji notes, “The Manusmriti is the most authoritative work among Dharmasastras. In the traditional list of writers on dharma, contained in the Yajnavalkya Smriti (i.4-5), Manu is mentioned first of all.” (Pg 32-33).
With the exception of Gita, no other “Smriti” can boast as many commentaries, as Manusmriti can. S.C.Bannerji observes, in the same book, that, “Manusmriti has been commented upon by a number of scholars. Perhaps, no single smriti has got so many commentators.” There are commentaries by Medhatithi (the oldest of all commentaries on Manusmriti), Kullukabhatta, Govidaraja, Narayana, Raghavananda, Nandana and Ramachandra. Although, only Medhatithi and Kulluka’s commentaries are most of the time referred to. Had it been an unimportant text, there certainly wouldn’t have been so many commentaries. There are references of Manusmriti, in literary works of Sudraka (Mrcchakatika), Vatsayan (Kamasutra) etc. We have echo of some of the laws of Manu, in MBH and Gita and independent treatise like Kautilya’s Arthasastra. We have Adi Shankaracharya, Dawananda Swaraswati, Vivekananda, profusely quoting Manu in their lectures and other works.
S.N.Sen notes in “History of the Freedom Movement in India”, that, “IfRammohan appealed to the Upanishads, Bankim to the Gita and Vivekananda to the Advaita (of Shankara), Dayananda appealed to the Vedas (Hindu religious books). In 1875 Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83) founded the Arya Samaj. Dayananda denounced idolatry, polygamy and caste and harked back to the Vedas as the fountain of all truth and the sheet anchor of Hinduism. Manu Smriti (one of the ancient Law-books of India) formed the basis of Dayananda's ethics for daily conduct.” (pg 77) Dayanada went to include over a quarter of the total law codes of Manusmriti, in his magnum opus, “Satyarth Prakash”. Vivekanda, in his famous lecture, “The Work Before Us”, notes “Says our great law-giver, Manu: "Receive some good knowledge even from the low-born, and even from the man of lowest birth learn by service the road to heaven." We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)
I have already quoted Shankaracharya, a little earlier.
Manu’s fame even went beyond the borders of India. Law books of Burma and Thailand ascribe to Manusmriti. The early Burmese law book, Wagaru Dhamma, contains 18 titles of law, which are dealt with in Manusmriti. The other ancient Burmese texts, that borrow heavily from Manusmriti, are Dhammavilasa, Dhammasatta, Manuyin etc. In Cylon a work in Pali, makes direct references to Manusmriti as well. Tests in Bali, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. all show, some influence of Manusmriti, in one form or the other.
Attempting to mention all such references and influences in all the texts, is futile. I hope I have been able to give the idea, that Manusmriti has never been, just another Hindu text, neither in its influence, nor in its fame.
Below are some of the references in some of the holy texts of Hindus. These references are ,by no means, exhaustive.
===============
w.r.t Rg Veda
But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. (M 1.31)
Purusha Sukta, RV 10.90.12
The brahmana (priest) was his mouth, If his two arms were made the rajanya (kshatriya - warrior),
His two thighs the vaishya (merchant and agriculturist), From his feet the shudra (laborer class) was born.
Comment: The verse from Rg Veda, is considered by most scholars as later additions. Most of book 1 and 10 are. In any case, Manu’s mentioning of creation of caste was simply, a reference to the Rg Veda, and was not of his own articulation. This again, goes on to prove, that Manu’s position was never contrary to the Vedas.
===========
w.r.t Gita
Manusmriti
The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to study (the Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land. (M 1.90)
Among the several occupations the most commendable are, teaching the Veda for a Brahmana, protecting (the people) for a Kshatriya, and trade for a Vaisya. (M 10.80)
If it be asked, ’How shall it be, if he cannot maintain himself by either (of these occupations?’ the answer is), he may adopt a Vaisya’ s mode of life, employing himself in agriculture and rearing cattle. (M 10.82)
One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes. (M 1.92)
Gita
Agriculture, cattle-rearing and trade are the duties of the Vaishya (merchant class), born of (their own) nature; and action consisting of service is the duty of the Sudra (servant class), born of (their own) nature. (G 18.44)
========
Manusmriti
It is better (to discharge) one’ s own (appointed) duty incompletely than to perform completely that of another; for he who lives according to the law of another (caste) is instantly excluded from his own. (M 10.97)
Gita
Better is one’s own duty (though) destitute of merits, than the duty of another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own nature incurs no sin. (G 18.44)
========
w.r.t Mahabharata
But in consequence of the omission of the sacred rites, and of their not consulting Brahmanas, the following tribes of Kshatriyas have gradually sunk in this world to the condition of Sudras; (M 10.43)
(Viz.) the Paundrakas, the Kodas, the Dravidas, the Kambogas, the Yavanas, the Sakas, the Paradas, the Pahlavas, the Kinas, the Kiratas, and the Daradas. (M 10.43)
“It is in consequence of the absence of Brahmanas from among them that the Sakas, the Yavanas, the Kamvojas and other Kshatriya tribes have become fallen and degraded into the status of Sudras. The Dravidas, the Kalingas, the Pulandas, the Usinaras, the Kolisarpas, the Mahishakas and other Kshatriyas, have, in consequence of the absence of Brahmanas from among their midst, become degraded into Sudras.” [MBH, Anusasana Parva (13.35)]
Comments: The “Pahlavas” refer to Persians, while, “Yavanas” to Greeks, “Shakas” to Scythians.
==============
These races, (which originate) in a confusion (of the castes and) have been described according to their fathers and mothers, may be known by their occupations, whether they conceal or openly show themselves. (10.40)
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as--of what caste so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice. Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite. [Aranya Parva, (3.179)]
Comment: The predicament, that gripped Manu, seemed to have gripped Yudhishthira as well. How to determine caste of a person born of parents, belonging to different castes. Both Manu and Yudhishthira, appear to consider that in such cases of intermingling, birth shouldn’t be the basis of caste.
================
In modern Hindu society, the biggest bane is its caste system. Not surprisingly, the same caste system gets sanctioned in Manusmriti pretty unambiguously. The disparaging attitude towards the female sex, is also pretty common in Hindu society. Rampant female feticide is one fall out of that perversion.
Let us further examine, if Manu’s laws, other than caste, had/have any bearing on contemporary/modern Hindu society. I have selected some of the laws, that are pretty much visible, even today. The following, needless to say, is not exhaustive.
Keep in mind this law, for the phrase “twice born” will be mentioned quite a number of times:
10.4. Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya castes (varna) are the twice-born ones, but the fourth, the Sudra, has one birth only; there is no fifth (caste).
1st birth is the natural birth, while the 2nd birth refers to upanayana or if you want to be more liberal, education.
General Practices:
Non-violence and vegetarianism:
5.15. He who eats the flesh of any (animal) is called the eater of the flesh of that (particular creature), he who eats fish is an eater of every (kind of) flesh; let him therefore avoid fish.
5.43. A twice-born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in (his own) house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress, cause an injury (to any creature) which is not sanctioned by the Veda.
5.48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.
5.49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.
Comments: To this day, a huge community of Hindus are vegetarians and do not eat fish (except for Eastern India, e.g. Bengal, Orissa). Manu, however, makes exception for two specific fishes, Pathina and Rohita. He also sanctions eating meat, only when in distress and is a matter of survival, or for sacrificial purpose, only to the extent and in the manner permitted by the Vedas.
==============
Prohibition of garlic/onion eating:
5.5. Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and (all plants), springing from impure (substances), are unfit to be eaten by twice-born men.
Comment: This is typical of Hindu vegetarianism. No onion. Again, sanctioned by Manu. Followed even today.
==============
Rules for OM:
2.74. Let him always pronounce the syllable Om at the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in) the Veda; (for) unless the syllable Om precede (the lesson) will slip away (from him), and unless it follow it will fade away.
Comment: A religious Hindu almost always pronounces “OM”, at least before the beginning of anything, that s/he considers to be important. Sanctioned by Manu.
==============
Rules of Charansparsh (prostrating before the revered):
2.71. At the beginning and at the end of (a lesson in the) Veda he must always clasp both the feet of his teacher, (and) he must study, joining his hands; that is called the Brahmangali (joining the palms for the sake of the Veda).
2.72. With crossed hands he must clasp (the feet) of the teacher, and touch the left (foot) with his left (hand), the right (foot) with his right (hand).
Comment: Average Hindu does a shorter version of it, using one hand, preferably the right hand. But in classical rituals, and traditional festivities, most of the Hindus follow this rule of charansparsh.
Inheritance:
9.104. After the death of the father and of the mother, the brothers, being assembled, may divide among themselves in equal shares the paternal (and the maternal) estate; for, they have no power (over it) while the parents live.
9.130. A son is even (as) oneself, (such) a daughter is equal to a son; how can another (heir) take the estate, while such (an appointed daughter who is even) oneself, lives?
Comments: The two rules, combined, imply, that parental property is to be divided equally between the sons and daughters. Something, which is enshrined in our current Hindu law, with very little modification.
==============
Cow Urine:
5.121. A man who knows (the law) must purify conch-shells, horn, bone and ivory, like linen cloth, or with a mixture of cow’s urine and water.
11.90. A twice-born man who has (intentionally) drunk, through delusion of mind, (the spirituous liquor called) Sura shall drink that liquor boiling-hot; when his body has been completely scalded by that, he is freed from his guilt;
11.91. Or he may drink cow’ s urine, water, milk, clarified butter or (liquid) cow dung boiling-hot, until he dies;
Comment: Regardless of its supposed therapeutic value as per Ayurveda, cow urine is still considered as holy and a purifying agent.
===============
Panchagavya (Five products of cow):
11.165. (To swallow) the five products of the cow (pankagavya) is the atonement for stealing eatables of various kinds, a vehicle, a bed, a seat, flowers, roots, or fruit.
Comment: The five products are, milk, curd, butter, urine and dung. Swallowing of these five products, is a form of prayaschitta (penance) for certain sins. This belief is still prevalent among the hardcore Hindus.
==============
Ritual Practices (sanctioned by Manu):
5 daily performances:
3.70. Teaching (and studying) is the sacrifice (offered) to Brahman, the (offerings of water and food called) Tarpana the sacrifice to the manes, the burnt oblation the sacrifice offered to the gods, the Bali offering that offered to the Bhutas, and the hospitable reception of guests the offering to men.
Comment: These are collectively called “mahayajnas”. Individually these are called “brahmayajna”, “pitryajna”, “devayajna”, “bhutayajna” and “manusyayajna” respectively. The most famous of these performances is the “pitryajna”. This is described in detail in Srautasutra, but it is Manu, who calls it “tarpana”, by which it is more popularly known as.
=============
5 sacrifices:
3.74. Ahuta (not offered in the fire) is the muttering (of Vedic texts), Huta the burnt oblation (offered to the gods), Prahuta (offered by scattering it on the ground) the Bali offering given to the Bhutas, Brahmya-huta (offered in the digestive fire of Brahmanas), the respectful reception of Brahmana (guests), and Prasita (eaten) the (daily oblation to the manes, called) Tarpana.
Comment: These are followed, in almost all religious ritual.
=============
Feeding at least on Brahmin, during Sraddh:
3.83. Let him feed even one Brahmana in honour of the manes at (the Sraddha), which belongs to the five great sacrifices; but let him not feed on that (occasion) any Brahmana on account of the Vaisvadeva offering.
Comment: Needless to say, how this is adhered to, still today.
================
Sanctioning inaudible and mental recitation of prayers:
2.85. An offering, consisting of muttered prayers, is ten times more efficacious than a sacrifice performed according to the rules (of the Veda); a (prayer) which is inaudible (to others) surpasses it a hundred times, and the mental (recitation of sacred texts) a thousand times.
=================
Prayascittas (Penance):
11.46. A sin unintentionally committed is expiated by the recitation of Vedic texts, but that which (men) in their folly commit intentionally, by various (special) penances.
Comments: He prescribes five types of penances, Pahchagavya, mentioned earlier, being one of those.
================
Upanayana:
2.42. The girdle of a Brahmana shall consist of a of a triple cord of Munga grass, smooth and soft; (that) of a Kshatriya, of a bowstring, made of Murva fibres; (that) of a Vaisya, of hempen threads.
2.43. If Munga grass (and so forth) be not procurable, (the girdles) may be made of Kusa, Asmantaka, and Balbaga (fibres), with a single threefold knot, or with three or five (knots according to the custom of the family).
2.44. The sacrificial string of a Brahmana shall be made of cotton, (shall be) twisted to the right, (and consist) of three threads, that of a Kshatriya of hempen threads, (and) that of a Vaisya of woollen threads.
2.48. Having taken a staff according to his choice, having worshipped the sun and walked round the fire, turning his right hand towards it, (the student) should beg alms according to the prescribed rule.
2.49. An initiated Brahmana should beg, beginning (his request with the word) lady (bhavati); a Kshatriya, placing (the word) lady in the middle, but a Vaisya, placing it at the end (of the formula).
2.50. Let him first beg food of his mother, or of his sister, or of his own maternal aunt, or of (some other) female who will not disgrace him (by a refusal).
2.51. Having collected as much food as is required (from several persons), and having announced it without guile to his teacher, let him eat, turning his face towards the east, and having purified himself by sipping water.
2.53. Let a twice-born man always eat his food with concentrated mind, after performing an ablution; and after he has eaten, let him duly cleanse himself with water and sprinkle the cavities (of his head).
=============
References:
Manusmriti
Mahabharata (English translation by K.M. Ganguli
Gita (Translations and commentaries by Prabhupada & Sivananda)
Encyclopaedia of Hinduism by N.K. Singh.
History of Dharmasastra by P.V. Kane
A Brief History of Dharmasastra by S.C. Bannerji
Law Code of Manu by Patrick Olivile
The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanda
History of the Freedom Movement in India by S.N. Sen
Satyarth Prakash by Dawanada Saraswati
====================
ERRATA: Patrick "Olivile" shall read Patrick "Olivelle"
Last edited:
karnivore
in your face..
OK, I am briefly back from my brief hiatus. Now where were we.
Besides, I did reply to your idiocy.
Status: Proved, lock, stock and barrel.
2nd bold sentence: Another lie. You are disassociating your religion not because of what you are trying to say here. If you had, then we wouldn’t have been debating for this long. You would have then agreed to the following comments.
rhitwick #1009
“U didn't even understood what "all religions are same" means. It does not mean that all the verses, quotes from their Gurus (I'm generalizing the source of that religion) have to be exact word by word, letter by letter, punctuation by punctuation (font color, size, smilies etc)
"Same" means the theme, the purpose it was created for. Its the ultimate GOAL which unites all these different religions[FONT="].”[/FONT]
Earlier, I had said, in post #996
“All theistic religions are indeed same, in their core belief. Where they differ, is how they go about their business.”
You were, obviously trying to prove something else. You started by judging other religions by saying:
“I feel, when "hatred" is innate in a religion, i.e specified by the holy books themselves, which specifically gives itself a name (for religion) and asks its followers to glorify and embrace itself etc, then the meaning isn't short of an "organization".”
Then you go on to assert:
“And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc.”
That was a lame way of saying, my Gita is better than their holy books.
2nd bold: Isn’t the fact that Buddhism is a non-theistic “religion”, enough of a proof of his rejection Hindu theism and henotheism (not the pantheistic part though), which is enshrined in the vedas?
3rd bold: What excerpts ?
4th bold: Please tell me that you know of Adi Shankaracharya and his antics relating to Buddhism. Anyway, for the time being make do with Dayananda Saraswati.
Anyway, read post #1072. For a brief rebuttal. Any other person with reason, and I would expect to see the last of this nonsense, after that. But with you…
The “wrong way” relates to verse 9.23, not 9.22, the commentary of which you had given. Now, what do the commentaries on verse 9.23, on that site say. I quote one by one, only editing for brevity.
Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods, worship Me only, O Arjuna, but by the wrong method! (9.23)
Sridhara Swami
“As the reality is that there is only one Supreme Lord and that is Lord Krishna and that the worship of any of the demigods who manage universal creation are all His devotees as well; then needless to say the worship of any other lesser god unconnected to Him is superfluous. ”
Madhvacarya
“Lord Krishna speaks this verse to alleviate any doubt that He is the sole recipient and ultimate goal of all Vedic yagnas or offering and propitiation as enjoined in the Vedas.
-snipped-
The worship of Brahma or Shiva or the demigods is also worship of the Supreme Lord as it is He who they are worshipping but it is indirect.”
Ramanuja
“Lord Krishna confirms that everyone who worships the demigods like Brahma or Shiva as prescribed in traividya or the karma kanda or fruitive reward sections of the Vedas; as well as worship of lesser divinities such as Indra and Surya and also worship of impersonal conceptions of god are all in reality propitiation to the Supreme Lord but offered in an unconscious, indirect way. ”
Kesava Kasmiri
“The astute can perceive that if all the demigods comprise the Supreme Lord Krishna's transcendental body and that He resides within each and every one of them as paramatma the Supreme Soul as He does in all sentient beings; then worship of them is indirect worship of Him and also that all the demigods devotees are indirectly the Supreme Lords devotees. ”
Verse 9.23 is therefore a supremacist one, ingeniously declaring all other gods and every other faiths to be inferior to the megalomaniac Mr Kishen Kanaihya. I guess now you know why I asked you to ask a Shaivite priest, if he would agree with you or me.
These interpretations are in complete sync with what I had said in post #1004. In any case, I was using Praphupada’s commentaries as reference.
“BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).”
But I should have quoted this one as well.
“I am the father of this universe, the mother…” (9.17)
“Know that these two (My higher and lower Natures) are the womb of all beings. So, I am the source and dissolution of the whole universe.” (7.6)
“I am the source of all; from Me everything evolves; understanding thus, the wise, endowed with meditation, worship Me.” (10.8 )
“Whatever forms are produced, O Arjuna, in any womb whatsoever, the great Brahma is their womb and I am the seed-giving father” (14.4)
In Gita, Krishna claims to be the creator, the creation (pantheism), the protector, the provider and the destroyer (theism). You have selected only the part where he claims to be the creation and quietly sidestepped the other parts. That’s called “intellectual treason”, to borrow the term from Professor Dawkins.
Regarding Krishna not being an individual.
“For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.” (6.8 )
This famous verse talks of incarnation of Krishna (Vishnu). If Krishna is not an individual (divine in human form), what does his incarnation, and particularly this verse, mean ? It was you who claimed that Buddha is Vishnu’s incarnation, perhaps continue to do so. Now, Buddha is a historical figure, someone who actually existed in flesh and blood. So, what do you make of it. Please explain to us, how Krishna’s (Vishnu’s) incarnation fits in the selective definitions that you have provided.
Besides, if Krishna is not an individual, then what metaphor did he assume in the entire epic of MBH ?
All these pieces are tied in single string, much like dominos. One falls, and it takes all the other with it. If you define Krishna ONLY as “nature” or “knowledge” or “wisdom”, the other dominos will come tumbling down. If he is not considered as a divine in HUMAN form, an individual in his own rights, then the whole story of incarnation goes bust, the whole epic of MBH falls apart.
And come to think of it, you accuse me of not looking at Gita holistically. Some kidder you are.
2nd bold: “Always glorifying Me, striving, firm in vows, prostrating before Me, they worship Me with devotion, ever steadfast.” (Gita:9.14).
I guess this verse in Gita should be expunged. So much for, “Reverance does not mean either prayer or ritual”. The “glorification” or “reverence”, is very much an integral part of a mantra. It is, to put it lightly, divine azz licking.
It never was.
But of course. You, accusing me of plagiarism, without providing any proof, makes for a perfect debating point. I, disputing your accusation, automatically become a “troll” and a “whiner”. Wonderful. And I guess this is also a whine.
Nastik.
Besides, I did reply to your idiocy.
me said:
Theorem: Prove that mediator is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Status: Proved, lock, stock and barrel.
1st bold sentence: Lie. What you said, in post #983 was: “Some call hinduism as a way of life and some call it a religion” and then went on to assert that you prefer to call it a religion. “I call my self religious coz basically Hinduism is percieved as a religion.” In other words, YOU perceive it as a religion.
2nd bold sentence: Another lie. You are disassociating your religion not because of what you are trying to say here. If you had, then we wouldn’t have been debating for this long. You would have then agreed to the following comments.
rhitwick #1009
“U didn't even understood what "all religions are same" means. It does not mean that all the verses, quotes from their Gurus (I'm generalizing the source of that religion) have to be exact word by word, letter by letter, punctuation by punctuation (font color, size, smilies etc)
"Same" means the theme, the purpose it was created for. Its the ultimate GOAL which unites all these different religions[FONT="].”[/FONT]
Earlier, I had said, in post #996
“All theistic religions are indeed same, in their core belief. Where they differ, is how they go about their business.”
You were, obviously trying to prove something else. You started by judging other religions by saying:
“I feel, when "hatred" is innate in a religion, i.e specified by the holy books themselves, which specifically gives itself a name (for religion) and asks its followers to glorify and embrace itself etc, then the meaning isn't short of an "organization".”
Then you go on to assert:
“And Gita is a whole subject on that "duty" of what, how and where one should act diligently, carefully, morally, intelligently etc.”
That was a lame way of saying, my Gita is better than their holy books.
You just called Krishna boastful. Besides, like the word “plagiarism”, you should also look up the meaning of the word “chauvinism”.
1st bold: You know wrong then. Thank you for clarifying. Brahmanic tyranny was indeed the catalyst, which finally ended up in Buddha’s rejection of Hindu theistic principles.
2nd bold: Isn’t the fact that Buddhism is a non-theistic “religion”, enough of a proof of his rejection Hindu theism and henotheism (not the pantheistic part though), which is enshrined in the vedas?
3rd bold: What excerpts ?
4th bold: Please tell me that you know of Adi Shankaracharya and his antics relating to Buddhism. Anyway, for the time being make do with Dayananda Saraswati.
“If the worship of the senses and the mind (i.e., becoming a slave to them) is held to be the means of attaining, what difference is there, then, between the Buddhists and the sensualists? When the Buddhists did not escape being slaves to the senses, how could they ever attain salvation? People who are slaves to their senses can never have an idea of what salvation really is. What a wonderful progress have hey (i.e., the Buddhists) made in ignorance? They have really no equal in this respect. It is certain that this is the result of their opposing the Veda and God. First they imagined that in the whole world there was nothing but sorrow and suffering and then they formulated this doctrine of Dwadashayatanapuja consist in worshipping objects which are outside the world? If this mode of worship could lead to salvation, we should think a man, with closed eyes, could as well find diamonds.
These people have come to believe in such stupid things by rejecting the Veda and God. Even now if they seek happiness, they should lean on the Veda and God and thereby realize the true aim of human life. ”
-Satyarth Prakash (pg. 517-518 )
5th bold: Really. But you have rejected Praphupada’s commentary. He, last time I checked, is still considered as the authority on Gita. So basically, if a site “gives scriptures in proper comprehension and order”, there is still a chance you may reject it on the plea that it doesn’t suite your fancy. These people have come to believe in such stupid things by rejecting the Veda and God. Even now if they seek happiness, they should lean on the Veda and God and thereby realize the true aim of human life. ”
-Satyarth Prakash (pg. 517-518 )
Anything that makes you uneasy, automatically becomes something extraneous to Hinduism. MBH, I remember, became unquotable because, Karna couldn’t be wished away by you.
Anyway, read post #1072. For a brief rebuttal. Any other person with reason, and I would expect to see the last of this nonsense, after that. But with you…
I should have checked that link that you had provided earlier. I regret that. I could have ended this stupid debate then and there only. Anyway. Its never late. What say you ?
The “wrong way” relates to verse 9.23, not 9.22, the commentary of which you had given. Now, what do the commentaries on verse 9.23, on that site say. I quote one by one, only editing for brevity.
Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods, worship Me only, O Arjuna, but by the wrong method! (9.23)
Sridhara Swami
“As the reality is that there is only one Supreme Lord and that is Lord Krishna and that the worship of any of the demigods who manage universal creation are all His devotees as well; then needless to say the worship of any other lesser god unconnected to Him is superfluous. ”
Madhvacarya
“Lord Krishna speaks this verse to alleviate any doubt that He is the sole recipient and ultimate goal of all Vedic yagnas or offering and propitiation as enjoined in the Vedas.
-snipped-
The worship of Brahma or Shiva or the demigods is also worship of the Supreme Lord as it is He who they are worshipping but it is indirect.”
Ramanuja
“Lord Krishna confirms that everyone who worships the demigods like Brahma or Shiva as prescribed in traividya or the karma kanda or fruitive reward sections of the Vedas; as well as worship of lesser divinities such as Indra and Surya and also worship of impersonal conceptions of god are all in reality propitiation to the Supreme Lord but offered in an unconscious, indirect way. ”
Kesava Kasmiri
“The astute can perceive that if all the demigods comprise the Supreme Lord Krishna's transcendental body and that He resides within each and every one of them as paramatma the Supreme Soul as He does in all sentient beings; then worship of them is indirect worship of Him and also that all the demigods devotees are indirectly the Supreme Lords devotees. ”
Verse 9.23 is therefore a supremacist one, ingeniously declaring all other gods and every other faiths to be inferior to the megalomaniac Mr Kishen Kanaihya. I guess now you know why I asked you to ask a Shaivite priest, if he would agree with you or me.
These interpretations are in complete sync with what I had said in post #1004. In any case, I was using Praphupada’s commentaries as reference.
“BG 9.23 (there are many more such verses) means that no matter, which god one prays to, one, in effect, prays to Me (Krishna), but being of other faith, the procedure of prayer (rather faith) is “improper”. The flip side: one’s god doesn’t have separate existence without Krishna and following it is being faithless to Me (Krishna).”
But I should have quoted this one as well.
You are not as good a spin doctor as you think you are. You selectively quoted the part where he claims to be “the creation”. What about the parts where he claims to be the “creator” and “destroyer”.
“I am the father of this universe, the mother…” (9.17)
“Know that these two (My higher and lower Natures) are the womb of all beings. So, I am the source and dissolution of the whole universe.” (7.6)
“I am the source of all; from Me everything evolves; understanding thus, the wise, endowed with meditation, worship Me.” (10.8 )
“Whatever forms are produced, O Arjuna, in any womb whatsoever, the great Brahma is their womb and I am the seed-giving father” (14.4)
In Gita, Krishna claims to be the creator, the creation (pantheism), the protector, the provider and the destroyer (theism). You have selected only the part where he claims to be the creation and quietly sidestepped the other parts. That’s called “intellectual treason”, to borrow the term from Professor Dawkins.
Regarding Krishna not being an individual.
“For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.” (6.8 )
This famous verse talks of incarnation of Krishna (Vishnu). If Krishna is not an individual (divine in human form), what does his incarnation, and particularly this verse, mean ? It was you who claimed that Buddha is Vishnu’s incarnation, perhaps continue to do so. Now, Buddha is a historical figure, someone who actually existed in flesh and blood. So, what do you make of it. Please explain to us, how Krishna’s (Vishnu’s) incarnation fits in the selective definitions that you have provided.
Besides, if Krishna is not an individual, then what metaphor did he assume in the entire epic of MBH ?
All these pieces are tied in single string, much like dominos. One falls, and it takes all the other with it. If you define Krishna ONLY as “nature” or “knowledge” or “wisdom”, the other dominos will come tumbling down. If he is not considered as a divine in HUMAN form, an individual in his own rights, then the whole story of incarnation goes bust, the whole epic of MBH falls apart.
And come to think of it, you accuse me of not looking at Gita holistically. Some kidder you are.
Strawman. I didn’t quote the verses that you have done in this post. I had quoted Verse 7.7, 7.15, 9.11, 9.22 and now I add one more, 9.23. These are indeed boastful and supremacist. And I have already explained, why the verses that I had quoted earlier are boastful and disgustingly supremacist.
LoL, the same whose-dad-is-Sita ? I have given a complete sequence of our conversation. Nowhere, did you come close to proving me wrong. You only got busy with 9.22 and 9.23, and forgot that the other verses continue to hold fort, and continue to forget.
1st bold: Shocking, isn’t it. Don’t see any rule where it says that atheists can’t learn about the religion.
2nd bold: “Always glorifying Me, striving, firm in vows, prostrating before Me, they worship Me with devotion, ever steadfast.” (Gita:9.14).
I guess this verse in Gita should be expunged. So much for, “Reverance does not mean either prayer or ritual”. The “glorification” or “reverence”, is very much an integral part of a mantra. It is, to put it lightly, divine azz licking.
I have replied to that at least twice.
Actually my fingers hurt. My brain hurts too.
me said:
Fun? Really? You are probably the only person in the whole wide world who is amused, when he is being proved wrong. One more confirmation of your cognitive dissonance.
Given the fact that this “helpless illiterate” proved you wrong, not once, not twice, but many times over, puts you in an even worse position. Anyway, I thought, you thought, that I got “help” from “critique sites”. So you see, even in your punch line you make logical error (that is expected of someone who is suffering from cognitive dissonance), and I, the “helpless illiterate”, again, point that out. Really embarrassing, isn’t it. O wait a minute. Embarrassment is also not your “cup of tea” either.
It never was.
karnivore
in your face..
I completely forgot about your post, amitash.
Perhaps, I understand what you are trying to say. However, if you use the word “dharma” to determine your righteousness, you actually bring in some excess baggage with it, and it is inevitable. If you are an atheist, you should know, that to be righteous, you don’t need to refer to a bloody holy book.
Remember what I had said, earlier: “Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts.”
The aryurvedic principle is based on the hindu belief, that the entire universe is made up of 5 elements. Earth, Air, Space (also called Aether), Fire, Water. (Some say, that it was actually copied from the Greeks with 1 element added. Incidentally, the Greeks believed the there were 4 elements, Earth, Wind, Water and Fire.) Ayurveda further believes that the biological form of the 5 elements is Vata, Pitta and Kapha (together they are known as Tridosha). None of which is supported by science.
2nd Bold: I actually had the book that started this mumbo jumbo. But for your eyes, here is a pamphlet issued by certain luminaries, refuting the so called Vedic mathematics. If you want, I can give you more detailed refutation. On second thought, no, I guess I won’t. This pamphlet is enough to raise doubts in your mind. If you want to learn, you will have to find it.
3rd bold: No you didn’t. A mere mention of a sun or a moon or a planet or a constellation, that can be observed through naked eye is not “proved science”.
4th bold: The reason, I mentioned of other civilizations, is to give you a perspective, that every ancient civilization had its own methods, and knowledge base. As I have said just now, a mere mention of something doesn’t make it unique in any sense. If it did, then marvel comics series also a contain lot of science. Harry Potter also contains science. Heck, every book contains science. And since I mentioned of moon and sun and earth, in this very post, I guess it also contains science. Is that how you are going to argue?
You still haven’t provided me any specific verse/hymn/prose from any of the Vedas to support your claim, that Vedas spoke of science.
When I asked you to cite one change, all you could do is come up with an absurd example.
I know, I never made any claim that I couldn’t support. This an open forum. Search and find me something that I have said and couldn’t support.
Celebrating accomplishment is not illogical, neither is celebrating a day on which one or one’s kid is born. But celebrating puberty, or beginning of education is illogical in any way you want to look at it.
If you do, then you are doing a Buddha. You are actually rejecting the Hindu principle of Karma, and accepting the Buddhist principle of Karma. It is not as easy as you think it is.
You are now redefining the whole Hindu karmic principle. Hindu karmic principle is not about your mental disposition, it is very much about materialistic and of course, spiritual gains, rather returns for your good deeds. What you have described, is again, the Buddhist principle of karma.
What you have done is again ended up redefining concepts. How do you suppose you will select one part and reject the other, particularly when all are inclusive. In Hindu, theistic philosophy, the concept of “righteousness” is very much intertwined with the concept of “dharma”. Without resorting to “dharma” you just can’t define “righteousness”. Example, for a sudra it is “righteous” to clean toilet, because, serving is sudra’s dharma. For Brhamin, it is a “sin”.
Perhaps, I understand what you are trying to say. However, if you use the word “dharma” to determine your righteousness, you actually bring in some excess baggage with it, and it is inevitable. If you are an atheist, you should know, that to be righteous, you don’t need to refer to a bloody holy book.
Except that it happened to your Hinduism as well, with the advent of Buddhism, and before that, Jainism. If you read the treatise written in post-Buddhist period, till the advent of Adi Sankaracharya, you will realize, how, these religions were demeaned.
Remember what I had said, earlier: “Only with the advent of Buddhism, did vedic hinduism face some serious competition. Post Buddha texts, thus talk of conflicts.”
1st bold: I guess I know, what Atharvaveda is, thank you very much. It mostly talks of magical healing etc. Ayurveda has its own treatise.
The aryurvedic principle is based on the hindu belief, that the entire universe is made up of 5 elements. Earth, Air, Space (also called Aether), Fire, Water. (Some say, that it was actually copied from the Greeks with 1 element added. Incidentally, the Greeks believed the there were 4 elements, Earth, Wind, Water and Fire.) Ayurveda further believes that the biological form of the 5 elements is Vata, Pitta and Kapha (together they are known as Tridosha). None of which is supported by science.
2nd Bold: I actually had the book that started this mumbo jumbo. But for your eyes, here is a pamphlet issued by certain luminaries, refuting the so called Vedic mathematics. If you want, I can give you more detailed refutation. On second thought, no, I guess I won’t. This pamphlet is enough to raise doubts in your mind. If you want to learn, you will have to find it.
3rd bold: No you didn’t. A mere mention of a sun or a moon or a planet or a constellation, that can be observed through naked eye is not “proved science”.
4th bold: The reason, I mentioned of other civilizations, is to give you a perspective, that every ancient civilization had its own methods, and knowledge base. As I have said just now, a mere mention of something doesn’t make it unique in any sense. If it did, then marvel comics series also a contain lot of science. Harry Potter also contains science. Heck, every book contains science. And since I mentioned of moon and sun and earth, in this very post, I guess it also contains science. Is that how you are going to argue?
You still haven’t provided me any specific verse/hymn/prose from any of the Vedas to support your claim, that Vedas spoke of science.
Only you know, where I have agreed with you. Anyway. Sati was abolished in one generation, actually a little less than a couple of decades, by a certain Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and a certain colonial power, through enactment of a certain Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act of 1987.
When I asked you to cite one change, all you could do is come up with an absurd example.
Can you make a wild guess, who claimed not to know about certain things and then go on arguing on those certain things, and committing one faux pas followed by another.
I know, I never made any claim that I couldn’t support. This an open forum. Search and find me something that I have said and couldn’t support.
mediator
Technomancer
Equality
The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular
(RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8 )
Manusmiriti : "Veda is the foundation of entire Dharma."
It reconfirms that the supreme authority of law is the shruti i.e. Vedas.
I wonder why you forget what the link says...
I feel like yawning reading your posts now. But neways, lets toy with you a lil more.....
Bold => Yes, and the logic reasons have been given in the previous article I linked, that I have given to you to read word by word infinte number of times and yet ignored by you.
Since its your old habit that when unable to accept the truth, you start ignoring it and then later post your trollic, childish trademark i.e "you said this and I said this debate, so here it is in case you missed.....again!
While the translation of griffith is different. It says "Brahman was his mouth". How can Brahman become the mouth? In this context, the meaning assumes "by birth" definition.
And so while first translation defines "by karma", griffith mistranslation defines "by birth".
Coming to Gita, like I said "born of their own nature" is defining karma only. I dunno why ur serotonins continue to jitter on this one.
Every person has a nature. That nature defines his karma and that karma (actions) defines the class of the person. And so the verse clearly tells the duties of a Vaishya. It does not say a person born of Vaishya father, is a Vaishya!
And so I explained this before as I do now. All you do is repeat this verse without opening your eyes to my explanations........Yawn!
I know u r desperate and frustrated but ateast point to the correct verse. The verse you stated is not 18.44 but 18.47!
Much of the science in Vedas is in agreement with modern science. Much of the principles of Vedas are similar to Buddhism and Jainism. A person who does not believe in "good deeds", science, mathematics and moral principles can naturally be termed as foolish. Are you tring to imply that Jains and Buddhists are "foolish"?
It is for this very reason I asked the statement in the bold. Like I said nastik means not believing and it is usually used in context of God. And hence it is not all Hindus who are saying anything to Jains or Buddhists neither are the hindu scriptures saying that they have anything against Jains and Buddhists and nor the Buddhist scriptures saying that they have anything against "Hinduism" of Jainism. Buddha is not sayng I'm the best. It is only the religion haters and scripture illiterates like u who are acting "foolishly"!
Like I said you are very bad at logic. It seems you need straight replies and statements for your spoon feeding. Oh well, here I state in straight forward fashion for my lil dumb apprentice => "Hinduism is a philosophy of life"!! Happy now?
2) lol, trying to take help of ur comrade? Guess u have been reduced to taking help of other people now.
Never knew u wud be mocking urself that badly!
I have given my understanding of what a religion is. I rever Buddhism, I rever Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. I further stated from the very start that you may or may not agree with any verse of any scripture. Further, I asked, where are these scriptures talking to "kill" people of other religions or stating they are the best? I don't see GITA saying that Gita is the best or krishna saying krishna is the best or buddha saying buddha is the best or gurunanak saying the same etc etc.
Ur imagination followed by ur compilation of ur childish comprehension in terms of written form here is only mocking u further and further.
2) Ur imagination mocks you one more time. Like I said before, I remain an atheist. It doesn't mean I have to take any side with either a theist or an atheist or blindly believe anyone. You may or may not accept any part of Vedas you don't understand or find it hard to understand. It doesn't mean you have to hate Vedas.
2) Second I already stated it is humans who generalise and talk of other religions and not the scriptures of the religion I stated.
And with this, it only proves how desperately you are chickening out from my question => "here are these scriptures talking to "kill" people of other religions or stating they are the best? I don't see GITA saying that Gita is the best or krishna saying krishna is the best or buddha saying buddha is the best or gurunanak saying the same etc etc."
Further, stating what other people think of other religions is only adding to ur mockery. It once again proves my point in all glory on how you avoid the scriptures itself and only state what others think of it. Perhaps u shud start using dig.com articles.
The gita verse 18.47 reflects on u loud and clear..
""It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.""
You are only quoting what "others" think, ignoring the verses themselves & the entire conversation i.e GITA. You are not engaged in ur own occupation.
Second, I don't care who is an authority on Gita. If I can understand it myself, then it is even better. I guess I'm in direct agreement with 18.47 both in "karma" and "comprehension", whereas u r in direct disagreement in "karma"!!!
1) Who all called him shudra.
2) Give the exact verses where he was called shudra.
This question u asked is quite typical of critics and hence ur plagiarization proved again. Its not the plagiarization of exact statements I was talking of but the questions also and their little retarted speeches containing the same old designs of ignorance. Seems u show "herd instinct" in criticism toooo.
Wrong manner is when a person is worshipping or revering Sun God "only" and not caring about the nature and trees. The wrong manner reflects when a person exploits mankind and the nature, uses knowledge for his own greedy means to exercise control and brutality and still worships the god of wealth faithfuly. Many of the gods are only the personfication of elements. All the elemets are a subset of this universe and everything that exists in this universe. One cannot be apathetic to any of the factors that supports human life. And hence the verse clearly says "in a wrong manner" that if you are worshipping any of the demi-gods then you are worshipping "him" only but not in "entirety" or in simple terms worshipping incorrectly/ unauthorised manner/indirectly/improperly .
The quote does not say anything about Brahma. But Brahma is a representation of all the material world in Hinduism, he sole abode of consciousness in this otherwise unconscious Universe. That Brahma was created from a lotus is confirmed in the Brahma Samhita, chapter 5, verse 22:
evam sarvatma-sambandham nabhyam padmam harer abhut
tatra brahmabhavad bhuyas catur-vedi catur-mukhah
Translation : The divine lotus which sprung from the navel of Vishnu is in every way related to the spiritual communion of all souls in existence and is the origin of the four-faced Brahma versed in the four Vedas.
The Vedic scriptures confirm that creation is cyclic and lasts for a lifetime of Brahma. These calculations are measured by a system known as kalaganana which is determined by the astronomical calibrations and movements of celestial stars and planetary bodies in interlocking galaxies and universes. One day and one night of Brahma is 8 billion 640 million Earth years. One year of Brahma is 360 days of Brahma equaling 3 trillion, 110 billion and 400 million Earth years. One lifetime of Brahma is 100 of these years of Brahma equating to 311 trillion and 40 billion years.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/vyasa.html
From all the commentaries, I find myself agreeing with that of "Madhavcarya" , "Kesava Kasmiri" and "Ramanuja" commentaries. The only part that I don't find agreeable with "sridhar's commentaries" is again the inclusion of the name "Krishna". The name "Krishna" is simply meaningless!
Similarly, Brahma is called by many names.
Rig Veda 1.164.46
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly- winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."
Like I said, you may or may not accept or believe it. Its ur choice. But where is the intolerance or the demand to kill people of other faiths?
The verse you put in bold is not "6.8", but "4.7". It again shows how you are only plaguirizing the critic's site and then lying that you have read Gita. This is the second time you put the verse no. incorrect! I wonder where u source ur illiteracy from.
The second bold amplifies ur illiteracy. I don't think a religion hater or a biased atheist can ever understand the meaning of an "avatar". I hope you know that Krishna showed his "divine form" "viraat roop" to Arjun where Sanjay could also see it. The avatar was indeed a human form, but what he defines in GIta is his true form.
I don't think my lil dum apprentice can ever graduate on this one. The third bold confirms it!!
It reminds me ur childish example of "brahmin becoming kshatriya by defending himself against thieves".
Further do tell who said what and where!
Lets see now you are not able to give
1) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
2) verses where all the religions i.e sikhism, hindism, buddhism, jainism etc are asking to kill people of other religions and again where gurunanak saying is the best etc!
You can't even quote the correct verse numbers properly and are impotent to read the truth about Manusmriti. Your troll is meaningless, for the topic bet. me and amitash has been ignored by you from the start with repetitions galore! Lets see how further you can mock urself continuing ur baseless hatred against religion. People tend to follow religious scriptures and our religion hater, helpless illiterate follows critic sites.
Forgive me if I completely get bored by ur mindless belabor and stop posting at anytime now.
The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular
(RV Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8 )
Manusmiriti : "Veda is the foundation of entire Dharma."
It reconfirms that the supreme authority of law is the shruti i.e. Vedas.
I wonder why you forget what the link says...
*www.hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/283.htmarticle said:
I feel like yawning reading your posts now. But neways, lets toy with you a lil more.....
Korrect! But what did Manu really say? It would be stupid to imagine that entire Manusmiriti is a reflection of Manu's own words! Manusmriti was compiled at a time when brahminism was at rise. It was rejected by dharma sansad and it gives authority to Vedas in case of conflicts.karnivore said:
Italics => more like generalization from a critic's site. If its your comprehension, then you continuing with your own mockery!karnivore said:
Bold => Yes, and the logic reasons have been given in the previous article I linked, that I have given to you to read word by word infinte number of times and yet ignored by you.
Since its your old habit that when unable to accept the truth, you start ignoring it and then later post your trollic, childish trademark i.e "you said this and I said this debate, so here it is in case you missed.....again!
article said:
May be!karnivore said:
You first call the texts of manusmriti as most racist, casteist and sexist and then say it is not contradicting Vedas?karnivore said:
Purusha sukta discussed already! And you should understand what it means instead of posting griffith's articles to add to your misery. There's a difference between the two translations. Read it again and since I know you would be adding the "you said I and me said I debate later" so here it is one more time.....karnivore said:
The nature of arms has give rise to "kshatriya", the nature of "mouth" has given rise to Brahmin and the nature of feet has given rise to Shudra. i.e by karma.article said:
While the translation of griffith is different. It says "Brahman was his mouth". How can Brahman become the mouth? In this context, the meaning assumes "by birth" definition.
And so while first translation defines "by karma", griffith mistranslation defines "by birth".
Your hopes to divert the topic to manusmriti and your nature to prove manusmriti as a part of Hinduism have already been annhilated before and this time too.karnivore said:
Coming to Gita, like I said "born of their own nature" is defining karma only. I dunno why ur serotonins continue to jitter on this one.
Every person has a nature. That nature defines his karma and that karma (actions) defines the class of the person. And so the verse clearly tells the duties of a Vaishya. It does not say a person born of Vaishya father, is a Vaishya!
And so I explained this before as I do now. All you do is repeat this verse without opening your eyes to my explanations........Yawn!
Are u trying to find comparisons to escape from ur sorry state?karnivore said:
I know u r desperate and frustrated but ateast point to the correct verse. The verse you stated is not 18.44 but 18.47!
Not giving an answer was a better option for you coz u just proved ur idiocy.karnivore said:
Much of the science in Vedas is in agreement with modern science. Much of the principles of Vedas are similar to Buddhism and Jainism. A person who does not believe in "good deeds", science, mathematics and moral principles can naturally be termed as foolish. Are you tring to imply that Jains and Buddhists are "foolish"?
It is for this very reason I asked the statement in the bold. Like I said nastik means not believing and it is usually used in context of God. And hence it is not all Hindus who are saying anything to Jains or Buddhists neither are the hindu scriptures saying that they have anything against Jains and Buddhists and nor the Buddhist scriptures saying that they have anything against "Hinduism" of Jainism. Buddha is not sayng I'm the best. It is only the religion haters and scripture illiterates like u who are acting "foolishly"!
1) Why are u crying? The second bold speaks clear how I term myself as religious i.e religious becoz Hinduism is considered as religion. Whereas, 1st bold, I stated is a broader picture. I also stated in the past that "religious" means being "dharmic" and hence in true meaning I call myself as "dharmic". This "dharmic" term in itself denotes "philosphy of life" and hence hinduism is a philosphy of life!!karnivore said:
Like I said you are very bad at logic. It seems you need straight replies and statements for your spoon feeding. Oh well, here I state in straight forward fashion for my lil dumb apprentice => "Hinduism is a philosophy of life"!! Happy now?
2) lol, trying to take help of ur comrade? Guess u have been reduced to taking help of other people now.
U actually comprehend my statement in the bold as "a lame way of saying, my Gita is better than their holy books"?????karnivore said:
Never knew u wud be mocking urself that badly!
I have given my understanding of what a religion is. I rever Buddhism, I rever Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. I further stated from the very start that you may or may not agree with any verse of any scripture. Further, I asked, where are these scriptures talking to "kill" people of other religions or stating they are the best? I don't see GITA saying that Gita is the best or krishna saying krishna is the best or buddha saying buddha is the best or gurunanak saying the same etc etc.
Ur imagination followed by ur compilation of ur childish comprehension in terms of written form here is only mocking u further and further.
1) I stated the wrong before too. Seems like u were in the state of constipation unable to understand it all.karnivore said:
2) Ur imagination mocks you one more time. Like I said before, I remain an atheist. It doesn't mean I have to take any side with either a theist or an atheist or blindly believe anyone. You may or may not accept any part of Vedas you don't understand or find it hard to understand. It doesn't mean you have to hate Vedas.
1) Please address the source the quote!karnivore said:
2) Second I already stated it is humans who generalise and talk of other religions and not the scriptures of the religion I stated.
And with this, it only proves how desperately you are chickening out from my question => "here are these scriptures talking to "kill" people of other religions or stating they are the best? I don't see GITA saying that Gita is the best or krishna saying krishna is the best or buddha saying buddha is the best or gurunanak saying the same etc etc."
Further, stating what other people think of other religions is only adding to ur mockery. It once again proves my point in all glory on how you avoid the scriptures itself and only state what others think of it. Perhaps u shud start using dig.com articles.
The gita verse 18.47 reflects on u loud and clear..
""It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.""
You are only quoting what "others" think, ignoring the verses themselves & the entire conversation i.e GITA. You are not engaged in ur own occupation.
First, Where have I rejected his commentaries? I know lie is ur innate nature, but still please enlighten us. On the contrary, I actually agreed with his commentary you linked by asking which part of his commentary u didn't understand!karnivore said:
Second, I don't care who is an authority on Gita. If I can understand it myself, then it is even better. I guess I'm in direct agreement with 18.47 both in "karma" and "comprehension", whereas u r in direct disagreement in "karma"!!!
I thought wisdom might have blessed u. But since u continue with ur illiteracy, then do tellkarnivore said:
1) Who all called him shudra.
2) Give the exact verses where he was called shudra.
This question u asked is quite typical of critics and hence ur plagiarization proved again. Its not the plagiarization of exact statements I was talking of but the questions also and their little retarted speeches containing the same old designs of ignorance. Seems u show "herd instinct" in criticism toooo.
Like I said, commentaries are meant to help. And so let me state you my understanding first putting the definition of "him" in complete GITA.karnivore said:
Wrong manner is when a person is worshipping or revering Sun God "only" and not caring about the nature and trees. The wrong manner reflects when a person exploits mankind and the nature, uses knowledge for his own greedy means to exercise control and brutality and still worships the god of wealth faithfuly. Many of the gods are only the personfication of elements. All the elemets are a subset of this universe and everything that exists in this universe. One cannot be apathetic to any of the factors that supports human life. And hence the verse clearly says "in a wrong manner" that if you are worshipping any of the demi-gods then you are worshipping "him" only but not in "entirety" or in simple terms worshipping incorrectly/ unauthorised manner/indirectly/improperly .
The quote does not say anything about Brahma. But Brahma is a representation of all the material world in Hinduism, he sole abode of consciousness in this otherwise unconscious Universe. That Brahma was created from a lotus is confirmed in the Brahma Samhita, chapter 5, verse 22:
evam sarvatma-sambandham nabhyam padmam harer abhut
tatra brahmabhavad bhuyas catur-vedi catur-mukhah
Translation : The divine lotus which sprung from the navel of Vishnu is in every way related to the spiritual communion of all souls in existence and is the origin of the four-faced Brahma versed in the four Vedas.
The Vedic scriptures confirm that creation is cyclic and lasts for a lifetime of Brahma. These calculations are measured by a system known as kalaganana which is determined by the astronomical calibrations and movements of celestial stars and planetary bodies in interlocking galaxies and universes. One day and one night of Brahma is 8 billion 640 million Earth years. One year of Brahma is 360 days of Brahma equaling 3 trillion, 110 billion and 400 million Earth years. One lifetime of Brahma is 100 of these years of Brahma equating to 311 trillion and 40 billion years.
*www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/vyasa.html
From all the commentaries, I find myself agreeing with that of "Madhavcarya" , "Kesava Kasmiri" and "Ramanuja" commentaries. The only part that I don't find agreeable with "sridhar's commentaries" is again the inclusion of the name "Krishna". The name "Krishna" is simply meaningless!
Similarly, Brahma is called by many names.
Rig Veda 1.164.46
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly- winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."
Like I said, you may or may not accept or believe it. Its ur choice. But where is the intolerance or the demand to kill people of other faiths?
Actually, I asked u to read complete GITA and you are talking of a few verses?karnivore said:
Again the signs of ur desperation and frustration are getting visible clearly.karnivore said:
The verse you put in bold is not "6.8", but "4.7". It again shows how you are only plaguirizing the critic's site and then lying that you have read Gita. This is the second time you put the verse no. incorrect! I wonder where u source ur illiteracy from.
The second bold amplifies ur illiteracy. I don't think a religion hater or a biased atheist can ever understand the meaning of an "avatar". I hope you know that Krishna showed his "divine form" "viraat roop" to Arjun where Sanjay could also see it. The avatar was indeed a human form, but what he defines in GIta is his true form.
I don't think my lil dum apprentice can ever graduate on this one. The third bold confirms it!!
IN ur dreams? I guess you can play ur trademark i.e "u said this and I said this" debate once more to show where exactly did you show that Buddha is saying I'm the best or these religion stating to kill people of other religions! I don't even feel like toying with u now.karnivore said:
And where exactly are these words copied from?karnivore said:
It reminds me ur childish example of "brahmin becoming kshatriya by defending himself against thieves".
Opining on ancient medicinal system and its terminology on the basis of "modern terminology" which came much much later is again the height of illiteracy, hatred and narrow minded bias. Let me ask do you even understand what "terminology" means?karnivore said:
Further do tell who said what and where!
karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Generalizations galore!karnivore said:
karnivore said:
And lol!karnivore_to_amitash said:
Lets see now you are not able to give
1) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
2) verses where all the religions i.e sikhism, hindism, buddhism, jainism etc are asking to kill people of other religions and again where gurunanak saying is the best etc!
You can't even quote the correct verse numbers properly and are impotent to read the truth about Manusmriti. Your troll is meaningless, for the topic bet. me and amitash has been ignored by you from the start with repetitions galore! Lets see how further you can mock urself continuing ur baseless hatred against religion. People tend to follow religious scriptures and our religion hater, helpless illiterate follows critic sites.
Forgive me if I completely get bored by ur mindless belabor and stop posting at anytime now.
rhitwick
Democracy is a myth
@karni, why do u even try? I guess u've better things to do in life than this. U know doctors can treat someone who is accidentally blind but can't who is inborn.
I've already told u about his fickle-mind. He's suffering from STML (Ghajini *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/5.png disease).
From next time look for resources titled "Mediator Puran", u may get his agreement on verses then
I've already told u about his fickle-mind. He's suffering from STML (Ghajini *s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/5.png disease).
From next time look for resources titled "Mediator Puran", u may get his agreement on verses then
karnivore
in your face..
mediator
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif
I am at total loss for words here. Frankly I do not know where to begin. Disappointed and amused all at the same time. Disappointed, because, all you have done is refer to a single web page by a single writer, and have taken him to be axiomatic. Even that site is not a direct criticism of Manusmriti, but a critique on caste from birth, where, rejecting Manusmriti has come as a necessary corollary – because of the line of reasoning adopted by the author. You have conveniently disregarded Adi Sankaracharya and Vivekanda’s quote. You have disregarded, other historians and sanskritists, who are worth a tad more than an ex-ambassador of India to Finland, particularly, with respect to the subject we are debating. You have disregarded the references of Manusmriti in other Indian texts. You have disregarded direct quotes from Manusmriti as well. That’s intellectual laziness. In spite of that, you feel, that “YOU” have somehow “annihilated” my arguments. Amused because of this chest beating. Amused, because, a person who accuses others to follow “critique sites”, himself doesn’t bat an eyelid while copy/pasting an entire website, as counter argument. Amused, also, because, the site, that has been be criticized in my post, without naming, has again been posted as counter-argument. How ridiculously bizarre can it get. Not much I guess.
Here is Adi Sankaracharya’s quote once again:
“There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and asramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.)
Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)
Here’s Vivekanada’s quote:
“We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)
Now, either Adi Sankaracharya, or Vivekanda, is wrong in his assessment, or the author of that site is. Choose your ground.
The article, the only source for your criticism, doesn’t say much about how the author has arrived at such conclusion of interpolation, except for saying “Further, the original text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones…”. Here’s what Patrick Olivelle thinks.
“A close examination of the MDh and its exquisite structure …., however, makes it abundantly clear that the text ….. is not an edition or version of a pre-existing text but an original composition written by a single individual. The kind of deep structure, so subtle yet so clear, makes it impossible to have been composed either through unconscious accumulation or through a series of editorial interventions spanning long intervals of time. This was conceived and put together by a single individual with extraordinary ability and a systematic mind.” (Law Code of Manu, pg xxii)
Wilson’s translatation is:
11. When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him?
What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called?
12. His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya,
His thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.
Griffith translation:
11. When they divided Puru[FONT="]ṣ[/FONT]a how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
12. The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.
Stephen Knapp’s translation:
(Now some questions are raised by the sages When the gods decided to (mentally) sacrifice the Viratpurusha (and produce further creation), in how many ways did they do it? What became of his face or mouth? What became of his two arms? What became of His two thighs? What were (the products of) the two feet called?
From His face (or the mouth) came the brahmanas. From His two arms came the rajanya (the kshatriyas). From His two thighs came the vaishyas. From His two feet came the shudras.
The author has ingeniously tried to put a spin saying, “Wilson says objective of (X.90.11) was 'to immolate Purusa;' and, Griffith says 'to divide Purusa.' This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to immolate/sacrifice/kill the Purusa…”. This is intellectual treason. Wilson’s translation is clear about the division. It was “when they immolated it” that the “division” of Purusa was made. Even that part is irrelevant. What is however relevant is what happened to the severed body parts of the Purusa, not withstanding the “objective”. Verse 12 states: “brahma[FONT="]ṇ[/FONT]o asya mukhamasid bahu rajanya[FONT="]ḥ[/FONT] k[FONT="]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT="]ḥ[/FONT] | urutadasya yad vaisya[FONT="]ḥ[/FONT] padbhya[FONT="]ṃ[/FONT] sudro ajayata”. This part, they both interpreted correctly.
The author has an agenda. He wants to show that Manu was wrong in interpreting the verse, and hence contradicting the Rg Veda and hence that verse is to be rejected. Two things stand out.
1) Even if, for argument’s sake we consider Manu was wrong in interpreting the objective of creation of caste and hence should be rejected, the verse in Rg Veda, continues to stand, in support of creation of caste. Whether from birth or otherwise, that can be debated later. Verse 12, in no ambiguous term mentions the birth of 4 varnas. The author, in his zeal to first deny that Rg Veda supports caste, and then to deny Manu, his credibility, has tried in vain to explain this verse as an example of, “even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed/killed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated. ” Nothing can be more wrong. The Purusa Shukta actually describes how the visible Universe was created out of the primordial man, Purusa. Thus, it is from him that the 4 varnas were born, as were the sun, the moon, the sky, the earth, Indra, Agni, Vayu etc. It was through his “immolation”, that this visible Universe was created.
He quotes another translator, no one has ever heard of, in another attempt to redefine the verses. He notes that the mention of the 4 varnas is allegorical reference to a perfect body, where the body is another allegory for society. He thinks that it means, that, “Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as close harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work.” He therefore denies the entire act of division and in that sense, contradicting Verse 12, which clearly mentions of “creation” of 4 Varnas. If “creation” is denied in verse 12, then the entire Purusa Shukta falls apart, because, it describes “creation”. How then would one define, how Purusa’s mind became moon, eyes became Sun, feet became earth, sky coming from head. Verse 14 ends mentioning, “thus the worlds were formed”. Why would verse 12 be any different from the rest ?
Contrary to what you (actually your favourite author), are implying, that caste is based on “nature”, the reference in verse 12, is of “duties” (which btw, means “dharma” here), not nature. Mouth represents Brahmin, because they are to study and preach the words of Vedas. Arms represent Kshatriyas, because they are for protection and fighting. Thighs hold the torso, and thus represent Vaisyas, who are to be traders and agriculturist. Feet, make the entire body move. Hence Sudras get to be the feet, because they are supposed to do the most menial tasks, so that the society can move. The allegory is lucid, but not for idiots.
In spite of all the mental gymnastics, the author still hasn’t been able to deny the creation and existence of the varnas. He has merely sugarcoated it and redefined the whole objective of creation of varnas. Typical of apologists.
2) Manu, was of course, not incorrect in his translation. Purusa Shukta, for the umpteenth time, is about creation of visible universe. Manu, begins his Smriti, by describing this creation. He mentions of creation of Virag, the 7 Manus, the 10 sages, nature, animals, insects etc. as also the creation of the 4 varnas. It is perfectly in sync with the verses Rg Veda.
The author then goes on to quote from, virtually all over the Vedas. In doing so, he assumes, that the vedic texts are homogenous in its content and authorship. Book 1 and 10 are later additions. Book 10 is believed to be even younger than Book 1 and is believed to have been added, as late as the times when Upanishads were being written. Michael Witzel notes in Blackwell’s Guide to Hinduism, that, “Book 9 is a separate fairly late collection containing the texts of Saman hymns to be sung during the Soma ritual. Book 10 and part of book 1 are even later additions.” (pg 69). This again, is intellectual treason, on that author’s part. He forgets to mention the most important piece of the puzzle, that the verses he was quoting was written long before, Purusa Shukta even made its appearance.
Besides, he just misleads readers in more ways than one. For example, he assumes the revelation of Vedas happened before 5000 BC, just because, cotton was not mentioned in Vedas, and Merhgarh yielded cotton seeds. He forgot, that Vedas describe a pastoral society, while Merhgarh, which is believed to belong to earliest IVC period, was not. The burial rituals, the religious rituals were all different. More importantly, Vedas are full of references to horses. No horses, that can be dated before 1700 BC can be found in the entire IVC.
Authors like the one you have mentioned thrive on internets, due to gullible lazy bones such as yourself, who would rather be couch potatoes than pay a tiny visit to a library.
I haven’t been able to go through the rest of your gibberish. Probably will not be able to do so, anytime soon. My BS meter *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/BSmeter-Exploding.gif has gone bust. Let me fix it first. May be then.
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gif
I am at total loss for words here. Frankly I do not know where to begin. Disappointed and amused all at the same time. Disappointed, because, all you have done is refer to a single web page by a single writer, and have taken him to be axiomatic. Even that site is not a direct criticism of Manusmriti, but a critique on caste from birth, where, rejecting Manusmriti has come as a necessary corollary – because of the line of reasoning adopted by the author. You have conveniently disregarded Adi Sankaracharya and Vivekanda’s quote. You have disregarded, other historians and sanskritists, who are worth a tad more than an ex-ambassador of India to Finland, particularly, with respect to the subject we are debating. You have disregarded the references of Manusmriti in other Indian texts. You have disregarded direct quotes from Manusmriti as well. That’s intellectual laziness. In spite of that, you feel, that “YOU” have somehow “annihilated” my arguments. Amused because of this chest beating. Amused, because, a person who accuses others to follow “critique sites”, himself doesn’t bat an eyelid while copy/pasting an entire website, as counter argument. Amused, also, because, the site, that has been be criticized in my post, without naming, has again been posted as counter-argument. How ridiculously bizarre can it get. Not much I guess.
Here is Adi Sankaracharya’s quote once again:
“There is indeed room (a raison d'etre) for Smritis like the Manusmriti, which give information about matters connected with the whole body of religious duty, characterised by injunction and comprising the agnihotra and similar performances. They tell us at what time and with what rites the members of the different castes are to be initiated; how the Veda has to be studied; in what way the cessation of study has to take place; how marriage has to be performed, and so on. They further lay down the manifold religious duties, beneficial to man, of the four castes and asramas.” He then goes on to explain why Kapila-smriti and such other similar texts or smritis are to be rejected. “The Kapila Smriti, on the other hand, and similar books are not concerned with things to be done, but were composed with exclusive reference to perfect knowledge as the means of final release. If then no room were left for them in that connection also, they would be altogether purposeless; and hence we must explain the Vedanta texts in such a manner as not to bring them into conflict with the Smritis mentioned.”(The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.)
Any Smriti that contradicts Sruti, is to be disregarded, while, if there is no contradiction, then Smriti is to be considered as authoritative (Mimamsa Sutra I.3.3). Manusmriti, doesn’t contradict the Vedas. In fact, it goes on to assert the authority of Vedas, and, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable text. This is attested, without any ambiguity, by Sankaracharya. “…that the system of Kapila contradicts the Veda, and the doctrine of Manu who follows the Veda, by its hypothesis of a plurality of Selfs also, not only by the assumption of an independent pradhana.” (pg 295)
Here’s Vivekanada’s quote:
“We, therefore, as true children of Manu, must obey his commands and be ready to learn the lessons of this life or the life hereafter from any one who can teach us.” (The Complete Works of Vivekanda, Vol. 3)
Now, either Adi Sankaracharya, or Vivekanda, is wrong in his assessment, or the author of that site is. Choose your ground.
First, I have myself quoted Patrick Olivelle regarding its authorship. That should have been the end of it. Second, Manusmriti was never rejected by any text or any authority. I have quoted Sankaracharya and Vivekanda on this. I have mentioned of several ancient texts that actually either directly quoted Manusmriti or echoed many of his laws. Third, reference of Manu in TS and TMB are not to the Manu of Manusmriti, but to all Manus. Idiot.
Can’t see the italics. Therefore can’t comment. But rest assured, that no web site, except for sacred-text.com, for referencing MBH, is involved in my write up.
The article, the only source for your criticism, doesn’t say much about how the author has arrived at such conclusion of interpolation, except for saying “Further, the original text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones…”. Here’s what Patrick Olivelle thinks.
“A close examination of the MDh and its exquisite structure …., however, makes it abundantly clear that the text ….. is not an edition or version of a pre-existing text but an original composition written by a single individual. The kind of deep structure, so subtle yet so clear, makes it impossible to have been composed either through unconscious accumulation or through a series of editorial interventions spanning long intervals of time. This was conceived and put together by a single individual with extraordinary ability and a systematic mind.” (Law Code of Manu, pg xxii)
Manusmriti can be all of that – and so it is – and yet not contradict the Vedas. In fact, what Manu does is, give his midas touch to everything, that the Vedas are silent of. Silence is neither confirmation nor contradiction. Manu was a clever dick, more clever than your favourite author.
Actually, there is no difference between the translations, except for their style of writing and choice of words. “Immolation” is probably a better choice of word for “vyadadhuh”. Stephen Knapp, interprets it as “sacrifice” (see below). However, there are many other sanskritist, who apparently prefer to translate the word “vyadadhuh” as “that they divided” (refer Purusha Shukta Bhasya by Ranganatha Muni). In any case, both the translations, end up implying the same thing – creation of 4 varnas. But first a clarification: this debate has nothing to do with caste. You are turning it into one. The reason is obvious. The web page you are using is a critique on caste, and hence, almost all the arguments are made with caste on mind. Anyway.
Wilson’s translatation is:
11. When they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him?
What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called?
12. His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya,
His thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.
Griffith translation:
11. When they divided Puru[FONT="]ṣ[/FONT]a how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?
12. The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced.
Stephen Knapp’s translation:
(Now some questions are raised by the sages
When the gods decided to (mentally) sacrifice the Viratpurusha (and produce further creation), in how many ways did they do it? What became of his face or mouth? What became of his two arms? What became of His two thighs? What were (the products of) the two feet called?From His face (or the mouth) came the brahmanas. From His two arms came the rajanya (the kshatriyas). From His two thighs came the vaishyas. From His two feet came the shudras.
The author has ingeniously tried to put a spin saying, “Wilson says objective of (X.90.11) was 'to immolate Purusa;' and, Griffith says 'to divide Purusa.' This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to immolate/sacrifice/kill the Purusa…”. This is intellectual treason. Wilson’s translation is clear about the division. It was “when they immolated it” that the “division” of Purusa was made. Even that part is irrelevant. What is however relevant is what happened to the severed body parts of the Purusa, not withstanding the “objective”. Verse 12 states: “brahma[FONT="]ṇ[/FONT]o asya mukhamasid bahu rajanya[FONT="]ḥ[/FONT] k[FONT="]ṛ[/FONT]ta[FONT="]ḥ[/FONT] | urutadasya yad vaisya[FONT="]ḥ[/FONT] padbhya[FONT="]ṃ[/FONT] sudro ajayata”. This part, they both interpreted correctly.
The author has an agenda. He wants to show that Manu was wrong in interpreting the verse, and hence contradicting the Rg Veda and hence that verse is to be rejected. Two things stand out.
1) Even if, for argument’s sake we consider Manu was wrong in interpreting the objective of creation of caste and hence should be rejected, the verse in Rg Veda, continues to stand, in support of creation of caste. Whether from birth or otherwise, that can be debated later. Verse 12, in no ambiguous term mentions the birth of 4 varnas. The author, in his zeal to first deny that Rg Veda supports caste, and then to deny Manu, his credibility, has tried in vain to explain this verse as an example of, “even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed/killed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated. ” Nothing can be more wrong. The Purusa Shukta actually describes how the visible Universe was created out of the primordial man, Purusa. Thus, it is from him that the 4 varnas were born, as were the sun, the moon, the sky, the earth, Indra, Agni, Vayu etc. It was through his “immolation”, that this visible Universe was created.
He quotes another translator, no one has ever heard of, in another attempt to redefine the verses. He notes that the mention of the 4 varnas is allegorical reference to a perfect body, where the body is another allegory for society. He thinks that it means, that, “Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and work in as close harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and feet of any healthy person work.” He therefore denies the entire act of division and in that sense, contradicting Verse 12, which clearly mentions of “creation” of 4 Varnas. If “creation” is denied in verse 12, then the entire Purusa Shukta falls apart, because, it describes “creation”. How then would one define, how Purusa’s mind became moon, eyes became Sun, feet became earth, sky coming from head. Verse 14 ends mentioning, “thus the worlds were formed”. Why would verse 12 be any different from the rest ?
Contrary to what you (actually your favourite author), are implying, that caste is based on “nature”, the reference in verse 12, is of “duties” (which btw, means “dharma” here), not nature. Mouth represents Brahmin, because they are to study and preach the words of Vedas. Arms represent Kshatriyas, because they are for protection and fighting. Thighs hold the torso, and thus represent Vaisyas, who are to be traders and agriculturist. Feet, make the entire body move. Hence Sudras get to be the feet, because they are supposed to do the most menial tasks, so that the society can move. The allegory is lucid, but not for idiots.
In spite of all the mental gymnastics, the author still hasn’t been able to deny the creation and existence of the varnas. He has merely sugarcoated it and redefined the whole objective of creation of varnas. Typical of apologists.
2) Manu, was of course, not incorrect in his translation. Purusa Shukta, for the umpteenth time, is about creation of visible universe. Manu, begins his Smriti, by describing this creation. He mentions of creation of Virag, the 7 Manus, the 10 sages, nature, animals, insects etc. as also the creation of the 4 varnas. It is perfectly in sync with the verses Rg Veda.
The author then goes on to quote from, virtually all over the Vedas. In doing so, he assumes, that the vedic texts are homogenous in its content and authorship. Book 1 and 10 are later additions. Book 10 is believed to be even younger than Book 1 and is believed to have been added, as late as the times when Upanishads were being written. Michael Witzel notes in Blackwell’s Guide to Hinduism, that, “Book 9 is a separate fairly late collection containing the texts of Saman hymns to be sung during the Soma ritual. Book 10 and part of book 1 are even later additions.” (pg 69). This again, is intellectual treason, on that author’s part. He forgets to mention the most important piece of the puzzle, that the verses he was quoting was written long before, Purusa Shukta even made its appearance.
Besides, he just misleads readers in more ways than one. For example, he assumes the revelation of Vedas happened before 5000 BC, just because, cotton was not mentioned in Vedas, and Merhgarh yielded cotton seeds. He forgot, that Vedas describe a pastoral society, while Merhgarh, which is believed to belong to earliest IVC period, was not. The burial rituals, the religious rituals were all different. More importantly, Vedas are full of references to horses. No horses, that can be dated before 1700 BC can be found in the entire IVC.
Authors like the one you have mentioned thrive on internets, due to gullible lazy bones such as yourself, who would rather be couch potatoes than pay a tiny visit to a library.
Once again, missed the forest, to hit the tree. The reason why quoted Gita is not to debate on Gita or caste, but to show, how Gita has echoes of Manusmriti. As with “annihilation” of my arguments, you are many orders of magnitude far from it. Anyway, I will now respond to this BS, by quoting another Sankaracharya. This time, of Kanchi. You will find the references HERE and HERE
I rest my case. Given your penchant for completely ignoring direct quotes of Sankaracharyas and other “holly” men, I won’t be surprised, if this quote is completely disregarded. O, btw, THIS is the official web site of Kanchi Math, not a critique site – in case you are confused.Late Sankaracharya of Kanchi said:
I stand corrected. The point, continues to stand though. Echoes of Manusmriti in Gita.
I haven’t been able to go through the rest of your gibberish. Probably will not be able to do so, anytime soon. My BS meter *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/BSmeter-Exploding.gif has gone bust. Let me fix it first. May be then.
karnivore
in your face..
You are correct. You can take a donkey to the well. Can't make it drink. Can you now ? I won't be surprised if Adi Sankaracharya and Sankaracharya of Kanchi turn out to be fake brahmins.
Now that will be....*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/bean_laughing_hb.gif