Why Rajapaksa's victory a setback for India but good for Pakistan

[Smarana Mitra]

Muslim power stopped at the North of Tamil Nadu near Arcot, they did not extend into the whole Tamil Nadu. Nayaks controlled the majority of Tamil Nadu not Muslims. So tell me why there were no Buddhists there but only in SL?

In 1200-1300 itself muslims had reached TN. Areas Madurai was directly conquered while southern TN came under subsidiary alliance or vassaldom. Buddhists all over India were pacifists. They lost prestige and began to be seen as cowards when they were incapable of fighting muslims and hence lost followers, many of whom called themselves some caste in Hinduism and became Hindus. Lanka was hard to cross due to small strip of ocean separating it and hence was spared.

 

[Han Patriot]

In 1200-1300 itself muslims had reached TN. Areas Madurai was directly conquered while southern TN came under subsidiary alliance or vassaldom. Buddhists all over India were pacifists. They lost prestige and began to be seen as cowards when they were incapable of fighting muslims and hence lost followers, many of whom called themselves some caste in Hinduism and became Hindus. Lanka was hard to cross due to small strip of ocean separating it and hence was spared.

Your logic does not make sense, they could have became Muslim right if they wanted prestige? And still doesn't explain the total extermination of Buddhists from India. As i told you being vassals does not mean direct Muslim control. Even after 1000 years there are still so many hindus. As per historical records Buddhist were exterminated even before Islam came south.

 

[Protest_again]

Your logic does not make sense, they could have became Muslim right if they wanted prestige? And still doesn't explain the total extermination of Buddhists from India. As i told you being vassals does not mean direct Muslim control. Even after 1000 years there are still so many hindus. As per historical records Buddhist were exterminated even before Islam came south.

Right. Buddhism lost favor with masses because Buddhists deviated from five precepts of lord buddha. They abandoned the path of absolution, went for material wealth. They courted kings and rajas for favors. They became new brahmins.

India witnessed hindu renaissance with bhakthi movements which relegated brahminical vedanta to dust. They preached love for God as atmost reverence irrespective of their birth, origin, age, sex etc. India had taken into that idea.
P.S Islam was always seen as alien to the land by the masses. Those who took up Islam did so by coersion initially and then later for political reasons.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Your logic does not make sense, they could have became Muslim right if they wanted prestige? And still doesn't explain the total extermination of Buddhists from India. As i told you being vassals does not mean direct Muslim control. Even after 1000 years there are still so many hindus. As per historical records Buddhist were exterminated even before Islam came south.

Buddhism was there in 800 AD and Hindus leaders like AdiShankara campaigned that Dharma is superior to buddhism and defeated buddhists in debates, thus bringing many to dharma. But that did not end buddhism and buddhism existed even in 1200 when islamic invasion happened.

The final nail came when Islam came and Buddhists were too weak to fight. Converting to Islam was meaningless as people never accepted Islam and Islamic scholars were never able to outreason Brahmans. So, Islam was always considered inferior. It was just that hindus did not have unity and there was significant infighting because of which there was no united front to Islam, leading to Islam gaining major foothold. Nevertheless, Hindus survived and were the majority at all times and showed ability to defend themselves, though in a local manner. Buddhists would not defend themselves and hence lost respect.

 

[Han Patriot]

Right. Buddhism lost favor with masses because Buddhists deviated from five precepts of lord buddha. They abandoned the path of absolution, went for material wealth. They courted kings and rajas for favors. They became new brahmins.

India witnessed hindu renaissance with bhakthi movements which relegated brahminical vedanta to dust. They preached love for God as atmost reverence irrespective of their birth, origin, age, sex etc. India had taken into that idea.
P.S Islam was always seen as alien to the land by the masses. Those who took up Islam did so by coersion initially and then later for political reasons.

So you are telling me power hungry racist abd caste crazy Hindus are more enlightened? Until today people of lower caste are raped and killed. Do you want to start a debate? I have hindu texts telling me to pour molten lead into the penises of lower caste who touched an upper caste. Please dont make me start, Hindus are full of hypocrisy, they create arguments to justify their weaknesses. No wonder India is a shit hole. You worship a demon god with skulls for gods sake...and an elephant chimera. Enlightened me... You pour milk on a stone penis lingam for god sake... The freaking bowl with a lingam is basically a dick penetrating a vagina.... Do you get it genius?

From saying islam destroyed Buddhism, now you said they converted to Hinduism because Budhist are too peaceful, i doubt you read the history of Thailand or Lanka, if your logic is correct, wouldnt the lankans be Hindus by now? . Asoka must be rolling in his grave at this dark age of India. Hinduism is Indias biggest weakness.

 

[Protest_again]

So you are telling me power hungry racist abd caste crazy Hindus are more enlightened? Until today people of lower caste are raped and killed. Do you want to start a debate? I have hindu texts telling me to pour molten lead into the penises of lower caste who touched an upper caste. Please dont make me start, Hindus are full of hypocrisy, they create arguments to justify their weaknesses. No wonder India is a shit hole. You worship a demon god with skulls for gods sake...and an elephant chimera. Enlightened me..

Stop insulting religion when you only know it from afar. Yes, Hinduism is old and it has its vices. No one is denying it. Yet a billion of us follow the religion. So called racist were brahmins of the time. Their population is only 5% in India today. Rest are all oppressed 95% still in the religion for its openness and spirituality. When you are commenting on ganesha, you are only commenting on superficiality of it. I could explain the significance of that elephant chimera but I know you are an idiot who can't grasp it. So I suggest you to stfu and don't need to parade your ignorance.

Manusmriti suggests pouring molten lead into ears (not penises) for those lower castes who indulge in veda and its recitation. It's a rotten text ignored some 500 years ago.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Stop insulting religion when you only know it from afar. Yes, Hinduism is old and it has its vices. No one is denying it. Yet a billion of us follow the religion. So called racist were brahmins of the time. Their population is only 5% in India today. Rest are all oppressed 95% still in the religion for its openness and spirituality. When you are commenting on ganesha, you are only commenting on superficiality of it. I could explain the significance of that elephant chimera but I know you are an idiot who can't grasp it. So I suggest you to stfu and don't need to parade your ignorance.

Manusmriti suggests pouring molten lead into ears (not penises) for those lower castes who indulge in veda and its recitation. It's a rotten text ignored some 500 years ago.

Don't talk if you don't understand anything. Brahmans were racists? From where did you obtain that? Dalits and other lower caste were formed due to Islamic invasion and the turmoil between Islam Dharma & Buddhism. If Brahmans were intent on creating dalits, there would have been dalits prior to 800AD itself. Secondly, Veda means knowledge. So, what Manusmriti says is that a person who is not intelligent or of sound character, that is, a "Neecha", who pretends to be a scholar and genius and indulges in half-speak must be killed for being a traitor. It is simply a rule to ensure that traitors are not able to get away. There is nothing racist about it.

 

[Protest_again]

Don't talk if you don't understand anything. Brahmans were racists? From where did you obtain that? Dalits and other lower caste were formed due to Islamic invasion and the turmoil between Islam Dharma & Buddhism. If Brahmans were intent on creating dalits, there would have been dalits prior to 800AD itself. Secondly, Veda means knowledge. So, what Manusmriti says is that a person who is not intelligent or of sound character, that is, a "Neecha", who pretends to be a scholar and genius and indulges in half-speak must be killed for being a traitor. It is simply a rule to ensure that traitors are not able to get away. There is nothing racist about it.

That's not what manusmriti says. It says neechas are not even supposed to hear vedas. If they do so, the punishment was to pour lead into their ears. Please stop romanticizing the religion.

Manu smriti is a superior text to understand one's moral duties. Even the caste system described is more or less equivalent to today's class system. But the treatment of outcasts described in the book are outright abominable.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

That's not what manusmriti says. It says neechas are not even supposed to hear vedas. If they do so, the punishment was to pour lead into their ears. Please stop romanticizing the religion.

Manu smriti is a superior text to understand one's moral duties. Even the caste system described is more or less equivalent to today's class system. But the treatment of outcasts described in the book are outright abominable.

Show me evidence of outcaste in Manusmriti. There is no mention of outcaste in Manusmriti. It is simply that you are misinterpreting or mistranslating intentionally with an agenda. If you don't understand, it is better that you keep quiet and let others handle it. If you realy understood, then give me evidence of "outcaste" in manusmriti.

Neechas are people with poor character (guna) and low intellect (buddhi). They can be anyone; even a son of a Brahman can be neecha.

 

[Protest_again]

Show me evidence of outcaste in Manusmriti. There is no mention of outcaste in Manusmriti. It is simply that you are misinterpreting or mistranslating intentionally with an agenda. If you don't understand, it is better that you keep quiet and let others handle it. If you realy understood, then give me evidence of "outcaste" in manusmriti.

Neechas are people with poor character (guna) and low intellect (buddhi). They can be anyone; even a son of a Brahman can be neecha.

You seem you have romanticized notion of Hinduism.

There are so many Codes of the Manu Smriti against the Shudras which are below:

1. For the welfare of humanity the supreme creator Brahma, gave birth to the Brahmins from his mouth, the Kshatriyas from his shoulders, the Vaishyas from his thighs and Shudras from his feet. (Manu's code I-31,)
2. God said the duty of a Shudra is to serve the upper varnas faithfully with devotion and without grumbling. (Manu 1-91) Manu is not satisfied with this. He wants this servile status of the Shudras to be expressed in the names and surnames of persons belonging to that community. Manu says:
3. Let the first part of a Brahman’s name denote something auspicious, a Kshatriya’s be connected with power, and a Vaishyas with wealth but a Shudra’s express something contemptible. (Manu II. 31.)
4. The second part of a Brahmin’s name shall be a word implying happiness, of a Kshatriya’s (a word) implying protection, of a Vaishya’s a term expressive of thriving and of a Shudra’s an expression denoting service. (Manu II. 32.)
5. A hundred year old Kshatriya must treat a ten year old Brahmin boy as his father. (Manu 11-135)
6. The Brahmin should never invite persons of other varnas for food. In case, the latter begs the Brahmin for food, the Brahmin may give them some left-over. Even these left-over must be served not by the Brahmin but by his servants outside the house. (Manu II2).
7. He who instructs Shudra pupils and he whose teacher is a Shudra shall become disqualified for being invited to a shradha. (Manu III. 156.)
8. A Shudra is unfit of receive education. The upper varnas should not impart education or give advice to a Shudra.It is not necessary that the Shudra should know the laws and codes and hence need not be taught. Violators will go to as amrita hell. (Manu IV-78 to 81)
9. "Let him not dwell in a country where the rulers are Shudras." (Manu IV. 61)
10. He must never read the Vedas in the presence of the Shudras. (Manu IV. 99.)
11. Any country, where there are no Brahmins, of where they are not happy will get devastated and destroyed. (Manu VIII-20 to 22)
12. A Brahmana who is only a Brahman by decent i.e., one who has neither studied nor performed any other act required by the Vedas may, at the king’s pleasure, interpret the law to him i.e., act as the judge, but never a Shudra (however learned he may be). (Manu VIII. 20.)
13. The Kingdom of that monarch, who looks on while a Shudra settles the law, will sink low like a cow in the morass. (Manu VIII. 21.)
14. Any Brahmin, who enslaves or tries to enslave a Brahmin, is liable for a penalty of no less than 600 PANAS. A Brahmin can order a Shudra to serve him without any remuneration because the Shudra is created by Brahma to serve the Brahmins. Even if a Brahmin frees a Shudra from slavery the Shudra continues to be a slave as he is created for slavery. Nobody has the right to free him. (Manu VIII-50,56 and 59)
15. A Shudra who insults a twice born man with gross invectives shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (Manu VIII. 270.)
16. If he mentions the names and castes of the (twice born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth. (Manu VIII. 271.)
17. If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears. Manu VIII. 272.)
18. A Shudra who has an intercourse with a woman of the higher caste guarded or unguarded shall be punished n the following manner; if she was unguarded, he loses the offending part; if she was guarded then he should be put to death and his property confiscated." (Manu VIII. 374.)
19. A Brahman may compel a Shudra, whether bought or unbought, to do servile work for he is created by the creator to be the slave of a Brahmana. (Manu VIII. 413.)
20. No Shudra should have property of his own, He should have nothing of his own. The existence of a wealthy Shudra is bad for the Brahmins. A Brahman may take possession of the goods of a Shudra. (ManuVIII-417 & X129)
21. A Brahman may seize without hesitation, if he be in distress for his subsistence, the goods of his Shudra. The Shudra can have only one occupation. This is one of the inexorable laws of Manu. says Manu. (Manu VIII. 417)
22. A Shudra who wants to just fill his stomach may serve a Vaishya. If he wants a permanent means of living he can serve a Kshatriya. But if he wants to go to heaven or wants higher or superior birth in the next generation he must serve a Brahmin. (ManuIX334 & 335)
23. The most sacred duty of a Shudra is to serve the Brahmins, always, reciting the words "Brahman" with utmost devotion. Such a Shudra will get salvation. Otherwise he will die a worst death and will go to the worst hell. (Manu X-121)
24. But let a (Shudra) serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven, or with a view to both (this life and the next) for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends. (Manu X. 122.)
25. The service of Brahmans alone is declared (to be) an excellent occupation for a Shudra for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear him no fruit. (Manu X. 123.)
26. They must allot to him out of their own family (property) a suitable maintenance, after considering his ability, his industry, and the number of those whom he is bound to support. (Manu X. 124.)
27. Brahmins to give Shudras food leftovers, old torn clothes, spoiled grain and old utensils (Manu X-125)
28. No superfluous collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he has power to make it, since a servile man, who has amassed riches, becomes proud, and, by his insolence or neglect, gives pain to Brahmins. (Manu X. 129.
29. A Brahmin shall never beg from a Shudra, property for (performing) a sacrifice i.e., for religious purposes. All marriages with the Shudra were prescribed. Marriage with a woman belonging to any of three other classes was forbidden.

India was governed through manusmriti till British came up with English common law. It was treated as Hindu law code till 1757. Yes, Brahmins were racist in the sense they differentiated among people. May be 'racist' isn't the right word. They were the most discriminatory, they were casteist (this word should generate worse feeling than racist). They are the reason why India and it's people never developed nationalistic feelings unlike in Europe. Indian raja had soldiers because he could afford to pay them, that's all.

This is what Mahatma Gandhi on manusmriti said:

The rejection of Manusmriti by Gandhi on the grounds that it would cause moral anarchy makes him one of the earliest leaders of India who found it unacceptable because of its features which he found repugnant to morality. On December 25, 1920, exactly seven years before Dr Ambedkar burnt Manusmriti, Gandhi while speaking at Antyaj Conference in Nagpur said that it would not be difficult to put an end to Satanism of the British empire because it was worldly in nature whereas the Satanism of untouchability had taken the colour of religion.

While accepting all that was good in Manusmriti, he was categorical in asserting that it contained a lot of injustice to women and lower castes. His acceptance of good aspects of Manusmriti can be juxtaposed with Dr Ambedkar's invocation of it for the cause of women's right to property when he explained the provisions of the Hindu Code Bill and pleaded for its passage.

Gandhi's exposition on Manusmriti brings out his critical faculty and open mind to accept all that is in harmony with reason and morality and reject all that is repugnant to truth and non-violence. He wrote in "My Experiments with Truth" that "Manusmriti at any rate did not teach me ahimsa".

 

[Smarana Mitra]

India was governed through manusmriti till British came up with English common law. It was treated as Hindu law code till 1757. Yes, Brahmins were racist in the sense they differentiated among people. May be 'racist' isn't the right word. They were the most discriminatory, they were casteist (this word should generate worse feeling than racist). They are the reason why India and it's people never developed nationalistic feelings unlike in Europe. Indian raja had soldiers because he could afford to pay them, that's all.

This is what Mahatma Gandhi on manusmriti said:

Brahmans were not some magical or alien beings. Brahmans were traditionally the most talented and strong charactered people. But due to some natural circumstances, the situation deteriorated and other forms like Buddhism came which weakened Brahmans and lead to chaos. When Brahmans were ruling, there was no problem of evil. But when Buddhism came, people became weak and cowardly, paving way for invasion.

Brahmans were discriminatory but that is because God does not create people equally. Brahmans only discriminated on merit, not on their whims. So, it was in a way, "good discrimination". Only evil is indiscriminate, going against natural creation. Brahmans were never casteist except after islamic invasion whereby the combination of buddhist cowardice and Islamic menace caused a seriously fragmented society and the quality of Brahmans also deteriorated due to continual war and lack of source of knowledge. The root cause of Indian problem is Buddhism which caused severe weakness and cowardice. Brahamns are the reason why anything is left at all.

 

[Protest_again]

Brahmans were not some magical or alien beings. Brahmans were traditionally the most talented and strong charactered people. But due to some natural circumstances, the situation deteriorated and other forms like Buddhism came which weakened Brahmans and lead to chaos. When Brahmans were ruling, there was no problem of evil. But when Buddhism came, people became weak and cowardly, paving way for invasion.

Brahmans were discriminatory but that is because God does not create people equally. Brahmans only discriminated on merit, not on their whims. So, it was in a way, "good discrimination". Only evil is indiscriminate, going against natural creation. Brahmans were never casteist except after islamic invasion whereby the combination of buddhist cowardice and Islamic menace caused a seriously fragmented society and the quality of Brahmans also deteriorated due to continual war and lack of source of knowledge. The root cause of Indian problem is Buddhism which caused severe weakness and cowardice. Brahamns are the reason why anything is left at all.

Fine. Close your eyes. Hopefully one day you'll be open and honest enough to understand our real history. Till then let's agree to disagree.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Keep insisting that whatever you say is right without any proper reasoning, history or understanding. There is no coherence except simply insisting that it was your way without any basis.

Fine. Close your eyes. Hopefully one day you'll be open and honest enough to understand our real history. Till then let's agree to disagree.

 

[Protest_again]

Keep insisting that whatever you say is right without any proper reasoning, history or understanding. There is no coherence except simply insisting that it was your way without any basis.

Brother, I am not here to teach you anything. I don't expect you to teach me either. I have enough confidence in my understanding of our history to feel assured. I think you are either unaware or have an romanticized view of our history. We were not rolling in honey before British arrived. It's the ruling class that was prosperous.

So I suggest you mind your business from here on. Don't patronize me again.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Brother, I am not here to teach you anything. I don't expect you to teach me either. I have enough confidence in my understanding of our history to feel assured. I think you are either unaware or have an romanticized view of our history. We were not rolling in honey before British arrived. It's the ruling class that was prosperous.

So I suggest you mind your business from here on. Don't patronize me again.

India was ruled by Mughals till British arrived. Though kingdoms like Marathas, Sikhs etc rose up, they were only recent ones that rose in 1700s jsut before British came (1757). Calling Brahmans as ruling class in such era of turmoil is a joke.