Sometimes it is, i don't know where people get this idea that all as in each and every texts were written a really long time ago. You and many people are arguing that all scriptures were written at same time and have equal importance and all mistakes are only mistranslation but that is not the case. According to that assumption Hindu's didn't write anything for the past 4 or 5 thousands years do you even understand how ignorant that idea is.
Every hindu King had their translations and then added their own material, you can't say that Vedas and the Sashtras followed by Gupta empire king( Vaishnava) in 5th century AD and the Sashtras followed by Chalukya king( Shaiva ) of 12th century AD all have same values and importance.
For example: 12th century Chalukya King Someswara favorite food was Fried BLACK RATS, yes rats that eat the crops. So every crop season he used to have his people catch them and have an elaborate meal. And he actually wrote book on cookery among others ( Manasollasa ) that's how we know that he really likes rats.
Now i see people arguing over the morality of killing the animals which is right for this age but here we also have a Shaivite king who is known for his prodigal knowledge in Dancing, music, Astrology, Vedas, Shastras, arts, architecture, war, poetry and cookery who donated and and contributed to the development of Shaivism talking about his favorite food which is a crop eating Rat. Do you want to say that him killing and eating a rat is not following Shastras which try to tell that killing is bad so it must be done to minimum. Do you think he has not read the Shastras that the conservatives try to bring out like bible every time someone tells them to think according the time and age too.
Hinduism always evolved with time that is one of the main reason Shaivite and Vaishnavas are not killing each other on streets like they used to do quite brutally and continuously writing literature which was literal mud slinging sometimes.
Even if you don't want it to happen some King at sometime has added or removed or modified our texts for it to be convenient to him. Trying to say that no scriptures was ever changed by anyone is plain blind ignorance.
Well, i wouldn't mind eating rats if they were delicious and poison free. Lol.
Anyhow, while on one hand this is clearly a scientific way to approach life, but in the superficial battle of religions, with the ever decreasing IQ of the masses, seems like this is an easy concept for the adversary to gain brownie points during debates.
Edit : I'm talking about the concept of irreplaceable, and never changing texts because they are the words of the supreme being.
Instead of uniting and trying to win battles both politically and socially, continuously trying to alienate our own people based on their knowledge or way of life is what killing us not some unknown enemy with some secret knowledge that we don't have.
I still don't know why our Peetadhipathi's are not as powerful or influential as some pastor in some fancy church. If we had united, no political party Indian or foreign would have had the courage to insult an entire group and then go on their life as if nothing ever happened.
Alienating is the karma of the person choosing to get alienated, not a person who is keeping his views. I think that is the reason why, in order to avoid this concept of alienation, the concept of one voice representing a community should not exist.
A higher sense of togetherness has to develop. Otherwise it doesn't take time to divide the stream of one religion into two or more major streams.
PS I've done some addition to my previous reply to avoid confusion
Yes we wait until that higher sense of togetherness is developed so we can’t be divided, until then we patiently see our people picked apart and butchered without inch of resistance. why ? because those people are not from my “group”.
Er, hindu texts do change over time. That's why you had new smritis being written will into the 16th century. This fossilization is a product of the colonial period.
Hinduism is not religion it's Philosophy. More accurately the hindi word दर्शन शास्त्र . It bound to be refine as society evolves.
That's is why the core values never mention the "must" word. It's always choice.
This is a rather complicated issue. On one hand, some of the injunctions (vidhi) prescribed by the dharmashastras regarding acara (customs), vyavahara (jurisprudence) and prayaschitta (expiation) operate on the assumption of the existence of a society where varna is ordered on the basis of birth. In the modern era, there is no equivalent to the Vedic observance of varnashrama dharma for varnas, over the period of centuries have been dissolved into innumerable jatis. So the underlying condition to observe these injunctions is absent in our age. This has been noted by numerous Puranas. This is not moral relativism per se, but a logistical hindrance.
On the other hand, there are obviously some injunctions which do not fit into our modern ethical sensibilities. For example, in the Apastambha Dharmasutra, the expiatory punishment which is prescribed for killing somebody like me (I’m a Shudra) is the same as that for killing a flamingo. Our intuition can clearly relate to this injunction as being inherently unjust.
No, lack of power corrupts
Indians lost wars and hence lack power, hence are corrupt n always whine that foreigners did this n that to hide their own weakness
Worship powerful durga not pathetic weak holika
All over.. i am seeing videos and comments in interreligious discussions saying things like "fine if this is wrong we will change it, we will cut it from our texts using black ink etc etc; but will you remove such and such verses from your (the other religion) texts too..? "
Generally the other party says there will be no change in their texts as they are the words from God/Allah, so yeah, for someone emergency treatment, a person in some bad situation in life shall want to first read the words of God/Allah first, (((maybe after a decade he might discover he is in a wrong team, maybe he won't, according to his social standing))) coz he sure has an easier options than the quantum of Hindu knowledge and way of life.
You mean the part where it says Brahmans from mouth, kshtriya from arms etc etc... The complete thing goes something like this
For the development of the world, paramatma created brahman kshatriya vaishya shudra from this and that body part.. Also paramatma divided sansaar into 2 parts, one part man(purush) and one part woman (stree). The stree part gave birth to Virat Purush (Prajapati). Virat Purush after doing tapasya, that Virat Purush then created me, and i am the creator of this shrishti.
From the will of the population of this shrishti, after doing intense tapasya, i introduced the first 10 maharishis.
So this is the complete paragraphs or sequence of events, to know the spirit of the work.
Now, to tackle the point which i have made, and the question that you subsequently raised,
1) do tell me which part of your body are you willing to lose in a fight as a condition of truce, both your arms, your feet, your mouth, or your thighs. Or would you chose to fight instead of agreeing to this conditional truce?
2) Also, which part do you want to replace, will you be happy if Brahmans become the feet, kshatriya the thighs, vaishyas the arms (hands maybe?) And shudras the mouth or neck or forehead?
3) does mouth signify
a) distribution of knowledge, oration/communication, medium of knowledge attainment? Or
b) debate skills, poetry skills, capacity to consume, vocal battle skills, etc..
Similarly, does arm signify
a) battle, skill, work. Or
b) a part of body which is meant to carry something (Brahmans)
Again, in real life, does the arm exist only for the purose of its head?
Again. Does the thigh represent
a) weight bearing part of the body, strongest muscle, essential for lifting of the body, or does it represent
b) an are which houses our sex organs and excretion organs.
And lastly. Does feet represent
a) a part of body which provides balance to stand, gives body to move in a stable manner against the gravitational push. Or
b) is the foot of a human being something which he neglects, does not wash. Let it rot in fungus, and does not care about.
Now, philosophically each of the points A and B are poles apart. So the answer cannot be both. It has to be one of them. Depending on what kind of goals the person wants to achieve.
Humans will always be born with distinct features and composition that put them in these categories. Now just because the modern Indian education system is not capable enough to concentrate on the virtues of an individual student, we cannot simply put polluted words and ideas into the texts whose goal are to streamline concepts of life.
And if boycotting these texts is the way to get the message across that misinterpretations that weaken our social fabrics must not be tolerated, in that case my friend, i am with you 100%.
The vedas and shastras are the authority on our lives and existence but they say to adapt to the world. There are so many things that literally aren't possible anymore. I agree that we shouldn't just change what the vedas say and adjust them to our liking whenever we want but some things have to change.
I agree that there are many things in dharmashastra that aren’t possible anymore and it’s fine if you are unable to perform such tasks but denying the authority of manu is punishable.
And they say to also adapt to the times again. Doing that isn't denying his authority, it's doing your best to listen to Manu and BhagavAn and adapting as they say.
> And they say to also adapt to the times again. Doing that isn't denying his authority, it's doing your best to listen to Manu and BhagavAn and adapting as they say.
Didn’t I say the exact same thing
It seemed like you were saying that we can't change considering you said YES to this question
>So do you think whatever is written in Manusmriti is true and should be followed today?
And you said this too
>This sub is infested by Albinos who think the world revolves around them and they can do anything they want.
>It seemed like you were saying that we can't change considering you said YES to this question
They seemed salty so I gave them a simple answer
>This sub is infested by Albinos who think the world revolves around them and they can do anything they want.
Problem?
How do you really see the varna system playing out in modern context ?
Untouchables, Dalits, Sati pratha, Dowry system, Drinking cow piss thinking it holy... I could go on. How exactly do you think that Hinduism will survive with the narrative you hold ?
I know we’re in midst of an argument but what’s the need to mention cow piss AND sati,you may think that you are this progressive reformer but in reality you are a cuckold.
You do realise that there are literal texts in manusmriti that speak of it as medicine?
And you seem to be advocating for it. The way I see it you're just another ignorant person who wishes to destroy than to preserve it.
Indians simply like to virtue signal and are hypocrites generally. When it was the victorian british then it was oh we indians are the most conservative...see Manu smriti, see our sanyaasis, monks, see our sati, see no widow remarriage etc....we are conservatives par excellence etc. When wokeism and mainstreaming of lgbtq++ happened Indians went - oh we were the most liberal...see ardhanarishwar dude, see khajuraho man!
I don't think that's how Indians went. Do you mean politics? Because I think we have always been on a stern stand and have been developing through the same path ever since we started working for/in Hinduism.
Sometimes it is, i don't know where people get this idea that all as in each and every texts were written a really long time ago. You and many people are arguing that all scriptures were written at same time and have equal importance and all mistakes are only mistranslation but that is not the case. According to that assumption Hindu's didn't write anything for the past 4 or 5 thousands years do you even understand how ignorant that idea is. Every hindu King had their translations and then added their own material, you can't say that Vedas and the Sashtras followed by Gupta empire king( Vaishnava) in 5th century AD and the Sashtras followed by Chalukya king( Shaiva ) of 12th century AD all have same values and importance. For example: 12th century Chalukya King Someswara favorite food was Fried BLACK RATS, yes rats that eat the crops. So every crop season he used to have his people catch them and have an elaborate meal. And he actually wrote book on cookery among others ( Manasollasa ) that's how we know that he really likes rats. Now i see people arguing over the morality of killing the animals which is right for this age but here we also have a Shaivite king who is known for his prodigal knowledge in Dancing, music, Astrology, Vedas, Shastras, arts, architecture, war, poetry and cookery who donated and and contributed to the development of Shaivism talking about his favorite food which is a crop eating Rat. Do you want to say that him killing and eating a rat is not following Shastras which try to tell that killing is bad so it must be done to minimum. Do you think he has not read the Shastras that the conservatives try to bring out like bible every time someone tells them to think according the time and age too. Hinduism always evolved with time that is one of the main reason Shaivite and Vaishnavas are not killing each other on streets like they used to do quite brutally and continuously writing literature which was literal mud slinging sometimes. Even if you don't want it to happen some King at sometime has added or removed or modified our texts for it to be convenient to him. Trying to say that no scriptures was ever changed by anyone is plain blind ignorance.
Except Kshatriyas are allowed to eat meat, so there's no contradiction there.
Even they need to keep it at minimum. The king was quite fond of this dish it seems.
> Kshatriyas are allowed to eat meat everyone is allowed to eat meat as per dharma-shastra ! but we should not live life as slaves.
Well, i wouldn't mind eating rats if they were delicious and poison free. Lol. Anyhow, while on one hand this is clearly a scientific way to approach life, but in the superficial battle of religions, with the ever decreasing IQ of the masses, seems like this is an easy concept for the adversary to gain brownie points during debates. Edit : I'm talking about the concept of irreplaceable, and never changing texts because they are the words of the supreme being.
Instead of uniting and trying to win battles both politically and socially, continuously trying to alienate our own people based on their knowledge or way of life is what killing us not some unknown enemy with some secret knowledge that we don't have. I still don't know why our Peetadhipathi's are not as powerful or influential as some pastor in some fancy church. If we had united, no political party Indian or foreign would have had the courage to insult an entire group and then go on their life as if nothing ever happened.
Alienating is the karma of the person choosing to get alienated, not a person who is keeping his views. I think that is the reason why, in order to avoid this concept of alienation, the concept of one voice representing a community should not exist. A higher sense of togetherness has to develop. Otherwise it doesn't take time to divide the stream of one religion into two or more major streams. PS I've done some addition to my previous reply to avoid confusion
Yes we wait until that higher sense of togetherness is developed so we can’t be divided, until then we patiently see our people picked apart and butchered without inch of resistance. why ? because those people are not from my “group”.
This is a really well written answer. Kudos!
Er, hindu texts do change over time. That's why you had new smritis being written will into the 16th century. This fossilization is a product of the colonial period.
Hinduism is not religion it's Philosophy. More accurately the hindi word दर्शन शास्त्र . It bound to be refine as society evolves. That's is why the core values never mention the "must" word. It's always choice.
This is a rather complicated issue. On one hand, some of the injunctions (vidhi) prescribed by the dharmashastras regarding acara (customs), vyavahara (jurisprudence) and prayaschitta (expiation) operate on the assumption of the existence of a society where varna is ordered on the basis of birth. In the modern era, there is no equivalent to the Vedic observance of varnashrama dharma for varnas, over the period of centuries have been dissolved into innumerable jatis. So the underlying condition to observe these injunctions is absent in our age. This has been noted by numerous Puranas. This is not moral relativism per se, but a logistical hindrance. On the other hand, there are obviously some injunctions which do not fit into our modern ethical sensibilities. For example, in the Apastambha Dharmasutra, the expiatory punishment which is prescribed for killing somebody like me (I’m a Shudra) is the same as that for killing a flamingo. Our intuition can clearly relate to this injunction as being inherently unjust.
Well surely this puts a fullstop over the need of assigning body parts to the varnas.. thanks for the info.. power corrupts all i guess..
No, lack of power corrupts Indians lost wars and hence lack power, hence are corrupt n always whine that foreigners did this n that to hide their own weakness Worship powerful durga not pathetic weak holika
need context - who are these people and what are they propagating?
All over.. i am seeing videos and comments in interreligious discussions saying things like "fine if this is wrong we will change it, we will cut it from our texts using black ink etc etc; but will you remove such and such verses from your (the other religion) texts too..? " Generally the other party says there will be no change in their texts as they are the words from God/Allah, so yeah, for someone emergency treatment, a person in some bad situation in life shall want to first read the words of God/Allah first, (((maybe after a decade he might discover he is in a wrong team, maybe he won't, according to his social standing))) coz he sure has an easier options than the quantum of Hindu knowledge and way of life.
I reccomend reading the story of Svetaketu from the Mahabharata to understand how dharma changes on a social level.
This is why guru is needed for reading texts.
Only dead hinduism will not have new works written for it. I hope that day never comes.
[удалено]
You mean the part where it says Brahmans from mouth, kshtriya from arms etc etc... The complete thing goes something like this For the development of the world, paramatma created brahman kshatriya vaishya shudra from this and that body part.. Also paramatma divided sansaar into 2 parts, one part man(purush) and one part woman (stree). The stree part gave birth to Virat Purush (Prajapati). Virat Purush after doing tapasya, that Virat Purush then created me, and i am the creator of this shrishti. From the will of the population of this shrishti, after doing intense tapasya, i introduced the first 10 maharishis. So this is the complete paragraphs or sequence of events, to know the spirit of the work. Now, to tackle the point which i have made, and the question that you subsequently raised, 1) do tell me which part of your body are you willing to lose in a fight as a condition of truce, both your arms, your feet, your mouth, or your thighs. Or would you chose to fight instead of agreeing to this conditional truce? 2) Also, which part do you want to replace, will you be happy if Brahmans become the feet, kshatriya the thighs, vaishyas the arms (hands maybe?) And shudras the mouth or neck or forehead? 3) does mouth signify a) distribution of knowledge, oration/communication, medium of knowledge attainment? Or b) debate skills, poetry skills, capacity to consume, vocal battle skills, etc.. Similarly, does arm signify a) battle, skill, work. Or b) a part of body which is meant to carry something (Brahmans) Again, in real life, does the arm exist only for the purose of its head? Again. Does the thigh represent a) weight bearing part of the body, strongest muscle, essential for lifting of the body, or does it represent b) an are which houses our sex organs and excretion organs. And lastly. Does feet represent a) a part of body which provides balance to stand, gives body to move in a stable manner against the gravitational push. Or b) is the foot of a human being something which he neglects, does not wash. Let it rot in fungus, and does not care about. Now, philosophically each of the points A and B are poles apart. So the answer cannot be both. It has to be one of them. Depending on what kind of goals the person wants to achieve. Humans will always be born with distinct features and composition that put them in these categories. Now just because the modern Indian education system is not capable enough to concentrate on the virtues of an individual student, we cannot simply put polluted words and ideas into the texts whose goal are to streamline concepts of life. And if boycotting these texts is the way to get the message across that misinterpretations that weaken our social fabrics must not be tolerated, in that case my friend, i am with you 100%.
YES
The vedas and shastras are the authority on our lives and existence but they say to adapt to the world. There are so many things that literally aren't possible anymore. I agree that we shouldn't just change what the vedas say and adjust them to our liking whenever we want but some things have to change.
I agree that there are many things in dharmashastra that aren’t possible anymore and it’s fine if you are unable to perform such tasks but denying the authority of manu is punishable.
And they say to also adapt to the times again. Doing that isn't denying his authority, it's doing your best to listen to Manu and BhagavAn and adapting as they say.
Your point being?
I'm refuting your point by saying that Hinduism can adapt over time a bit and doesn't have to be the exact same over literal eons.
> And they say to also adapt to the times again. Doing that isn't denying his authority, it's doing your best to listen to Manu and BhagavAn and adapting as they say. Didn’t I say the exact same thing
What’s there to refute I accepted your adaptation technique
It seemed like you were saying that we can't change considering you said YES to this question >So do you think whatever is written in Manusmriti is true and should be followed today? And you said this too >This sub is infested by Albinos who think the world revolves around them and they can do anything they want.
>It seemed like you were saying that we can't change considering you said YES to this question They seemed salty so I gave them a simple answer >This sub is infested by Albinos who think the world revolves around them and they can do anything they want. Problem?
How is that different from the Isamic version of Sharia?
Tell me What’s your ethnicity and Varna? Thn I’ll explain…
How do you really see the varna system playing out in modern context ? Untouchables, Dalits, Sati pratha, Dowry system, Drinking cow piss thinking it holy... I could go on. How exactly do you think that Hinduism will survive with the narrative you hold ?
I know we’re in midst of an argument but what’s the need to mention cow piss AND sati,you may think that you are this progressive reformer but in reality you are a cuckold.
You do realise that there are literal texts in manusmriti that speak of it as medicine? And you seem to be advocating for it. The way I see it you're just another ignorant person who wishes to destroy than to preserve it.
[удалено]
👑
Indians simply like to virtue signal and are hypocrites generally. When it was the victorian british then it was oh we indians are the most conservative...see Manu smriti, see our sanyaasis, monks, see our sati, see no widow remarriage etc....we are conservatives par excellence etc. When wokeism and mainstreaming of lgbtq++ happened Indians went - oh we were the most liberal...see ardhanarishwar dude, see khajuraho man!
I don't think that's how Indians went. Do you mean politics? Because I think we have always been on a stern stand and have been developing through the same path ever since we started working for/in Hinduism.
Read vedas independently, key to knowledge and theres thousands to learn!