Can you eat beef and still be a "Hindu?"

[A chauhan]

Hindus do have heads like Sri Adi Sankracharya, he established skahtipeeths where there is a head of each peeth.
That is wrong Sanatana dharma is hinduism,i know my religion .Hindus dont know hinduism is the bias raised by left liberals and Abrahamic faiths to make it look
as though hinduism and hindus are headless chicken without any direction therefore the need to be converted to true religion,that is the basis of all
their debunking of hinduism and calling it doesn't exist.

That appears to be the real case.

 

[parijataka]

Hindus do have heads like Sri Adi Sankracharya, he established skahtipeeths where there is a head of each peeth.
That is wrong Sanatana dharma is hinduism,i know my religion .Hindus dont know hinduism is the bias raised by left liberals and Abrahamic faiths to make it look
as though hinduism and hindus are headless chicken without any direction therefore the need to be converted to true religion,that is the basis of all
their debunking of hinduism and calling it doesn't exist.

Well said. If you talk about eating beef with even the poorest Hindu in my native place they will come after you with a big stick.

Intellectuals and communist/socialist type have a general disdain for any Hindu customs and traditions and will try to run them down whether good or bad.

Catch them saying anything critical about any other religion - they dont have the courage.

 

[Singh]

Hindus do have heads like Sri Adi Sankracharya, he established skahtipeeths where there is a head of each peeth.

One member batting here for Hinduism, was abusing a Shankaracharya of one of the Peeths.

 

[drkrn]

"Hindus" never had a religious head at any time in history.

No one even knows what "Hinduism" is, including "Hindus" themselves. How can you be the leader of something that you can't define?

any comment regarding saptarshis??

thats the greatness of adi sankaracharya,who brought every one under one umbrella.he is the first leader of hinduism,and his parampara follows.every sect of hinduism has its own leader.ex for vaishnavas-china jeeyar swamy,for saivas-some one else etc.

for these religious heads____________ saraswathi's

 

[drkrn]

No such thing.

already evolved,still no prophet to propagate.wanna try??

 

[Singh]

any comment regarding saptarshis??

thats the greatness of adi sankaracharya,who brought every one under one umbrella.he is the first leader of hinduism,and his parampara follows.every sect of hinduism has its own leader.ex for vaishnavas-china jeeyar swamy,for saivas-some one else etc.

for these religious heads____________ saraswathi's

Asaram is part of which Sampradaya and head of which branch of Hindus ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[pkroyal]

Hinduism is a complex yet sophisticated religion. It lays stress on "Jivatma" ( Individual Soul). All other religions which do not have their roots in India are organized religions with a titular head ( jesus / prophet /moses) or later Pope etc. This organization was required to avoid un necessary bloodshed in primitive societies. Every civilization goes through u/m phases of evolvement :-
1. Tribal Society (primitive)
2. Serfdom
3. Theocracy
4. Aristocracy
5. Democracy
6. Individualism
Hinduism talks about up lifting of Individual Soul, it is far too evolved. It also is about individual empowerment not collective thinking.

 

[civfanatic]

You should have replied only after reading the link carefully, but you didn't. The "way of life" is a phrase which has a broad meaning and scope, and it was long and tough job to define it, which was out of the purview of the SC regarding the case presented before it, but it rejected the Hinduism as a religion in narrow Abrahmic terms. Here by narrow the SC means a well defined set of rules and traditions which can not be overlooked or the rules which can not be violeted, a Muslim can be punished with capital punishment (beheading) if he commits apostate. A way of life can mean many things like collection of faith, belief systems, way of worshiping the concerned Gods, ways in which the personal beliefs are treated like personal law, customs, traditions which is a long time consuming job, hence the SC didn't go into the depths, because it was unnecessary in the eyes of the SC. If it were necessary the SC wouldn't have left that undefined. And I don't think I'll do the time consuming job of defining the "way of life" to a person like you who does not know what is what, but is still maliciously interested.

The SC didn't define what a "way of life" meant because the purpose of that judgement was not to define "Hinduism". Which is why I don't understand why you even posted it, because it's not really relevant to this discussion.

The SC said that "Hinduism" could not be defined "narrowly", yet it also continued to use the term "religion" to describe Hindu practices.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has "NO"definition of who a Hindu is. The points which @The Messiah has quoted are from the section 2 of the Act, which determines as to whom the Act applies, so the title of the section is "Application of Act" which are the guiding rules which only talks about the religion of the Parents of the person in the question (religion i.e. Hindu by birth or by conversion), the Definitions are mentioned in the section 3 of the Act which has no definition of Hindu/Hinduism. And that is why the dispute as to who is a Hindu occurred, and the dispute was determined by the SC in the case of "Sastri Yagnapurushdasji...1966". The views expressed by the SC have an effect of enacted law, and that is mentioned in the Constitution itself, kindly do not ask me to quote the Constitution (online available) or you will make a Popat of yourself which you already have. Since you are talking about the Hindu law Now, let me tell you that I can remain a Hindu as per the above mentioned law even if I eat a Beef, but if you provide me any SC judgement regarding beef eating I'll accept it. So far as the Buddhists and Sikhs are concerned, currently Hindu law applies to them, they are Hindu at least legally until they get separate personal laws, but after that they wont be considered a Hindu.

When I was talking about "legal Hindus", I was talking about the people to whom the Act applies, which includes Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains as well as "Hindus". I am aware that the term "Hindu" itself was not defined there, but as far as the application of the law is concerned, even Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains would be considered "Hindus" (even if they don't consider themselves as such).

Perhaps you missed a case which the SC has followed in the link I provided, that assesment is based on the judgment of "Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya" case, which is the real case where the court has discussed the matter. In short the features of Hindu religion recognized by the court in Shastri Yaganapurushdasji (supra) ( Complete judgement of the Supreme Court of India - In-Depth Issues - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine Sastri Yagnapurushadji And ... vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And ... on 14 January, 1966 ) are:

But the SC in the case of "Sastri Yagnapurushdasji And ... vs Muldas...1966" has set some guiding features to decide who is a Hindu and who is not, I'll be quoting them later in this very post.

So even after Hinduism is not taken as a religion by the SC, the SC accepted some of the practices as guiding features of Hinduism, which clearly excludes the Abrahmic faiths i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism; and Zoroastrianism etc. I should make it simple so that you can understand here the term "reverence" doesn't equate to the "obligation".

Why didn't you post this case first, instead of the irrelevant 1995 ruling?

Though even here, the SC doesn't actually define "Hinduism". The list of features you posted are so broad that most of them can be easily applied to several other religions.

Very good, I said that because I don't like the religious extremism, to defeat an enemy we do not need to butcher them, we just need to defeat them. I do not agree with you assertion that Hindus should have butchered the Invaders, defeating and punishing rigorously would have done the job. However thanks for saying so. But if we had done that the leftists would have no place in the modern India? leftists ka kya hota?

I highly doubt you even know what a "leftist" or "rightist" is. The very use of these terms in the Indian context is stupid and meaningless.

And defeating invaders implies that some "butchering" occurs. It has nothing to do with "religious extremism". You can't defeat invaders by handing out rakhis and sweets.

I mentioned that to show the peaceful nature of Hindus, who even after lots of invasions and blood shed remained peaceful, on the other hand your beloved Buddhists have become extremists in Myanmar without any invasion and butchering your another beloved i.e. Muslims.

The fact that Hindus remained submissive after invasions and bloodshed is a sign of weakness, not some great achievement. The fact that Buddhists in Burma have engaged in such bloodshed and genocidal behavior is unfortunate and I won't defend that, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Also, how in the world did you divine that Muslims are my "beloved", when many of my posts in this forum (even on this very thread) are against Islam? You self-proclaimed confused "Hindus" seem to think that anyone who doesn't like you must automatically love Muslims and Christians

You are saying that today because the Abrahmics have gone through the renaissance period (except Islam). At the point of the History that 'we were talking about' almost all the Abrahmic religions were extremists unlike Hinduism.

I don't know what history 'we were talking about'. I don't recall mentioning a particular time frame when I made that statement. Societies change over time, and what is acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. Even Islamic society in the Middle Ages was much more liberal than it is now; in one of my posts on this thread I mentioned some atheist and rationalist philosophers of the Medieval Islamic world like Abul Ala Al-Ma'arri and Ibn al-Rawandi. There were scholars living in the Medieval Islamic World who could openly criticize Islam, but nowadays they would be persecuted for making such statements. Islamic society regressed over time and saw rationalism being replaced with religious dogma, whereas the West saw the opposite development (religious dogma being replaced with rationalism). And that is why the West is dominant today, while most of the modern Islamic World is a shithole.

Anyway, my point stands that Abrahamic societies need not engage in massacre of religious minorities, as the obvious example of America since the 18th century shows. Americans are overwhelmingly Christian (Abrahamic) and relatively religious, but there has never been persecution of religious minorities. You cannot change this fact regardless of whatever excuses you make.

The difference between countries like America and countries like Burma is that America is a well-established democracy where individual rights (incl. freedom of religion) are enshrined and enforced by Law (the Constitution), whereas Burma is an authoritarian dictatorship that persecutes its minorities. Any authoritarian dictatorship would be oppressive and not just one where Buddhists form the majority.

Did you mean that the outcastes could "Never" gather in the same temple and participate in all the same religious activities? Never - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Never means "Not at any time". Perhaps you forgot what you said in post # 144 :- "Until fairly recently, no one would have dared to socially mingle with outcastes, and no they could not visit the same temples."

Which was utter nonsense and a BS as usual.

My statement is accurate. There may be a few odd exceptions, but overall social mingling between outcastes and upper castes was certainly not allowed by societal norms, until fairly recently. By "fairly recently", I mean since the last century.

This is exactly the point where you are mistaking again and again, read your thread title "Can you eat beef and still be a Hindu?" then read the above bold part of your statement, Hinduism is not a religion in a narrow definition but it can not be compared with merely a caste-system, which you are doing here, and that is why there is no apostate in Hinduism. I can leave my caste and easily mingle with other castes and still be a Hindu. And NO it is not a similar thing, in Apostate a person leaves the religion and the Gods too, accepts his new religious Gods, e.g. a Hindu turns a Muslim. If you do not believe my words then kindly try to enter into the Sun temple of the Konark, you will be kicked out if you are not a Hindu. To make it easy for you to understand.

Are you capable of understanding English? I am not saying that expulsion from caste means that someone ceases to be a "Hindu" (I don't even know what a "Hindu" is, remember?). I am saying that both Abrahamic and "Hindu" society have ways of punishing members that violate certain social/religious norms (like eating beef). Expulsion from caste is a way of punishing people for breaking certain religious "rules" (at least those that are accepted by the particular caste). Similarly, Abrahamic societies also punish people that break religious rules, such as by excommunication from the Church. So, I am saying that excommunication and expulsion from the caste are similar in this particular sense, i.e. as a way of punishing people.

As for the first bold sentence, I have already mentioned several times that my thread title is flawed and not precise enough, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up again.

Hinduism is neither a religion nor merely a caste

As per the SC decided no Hindu is "tied down to any definite set of rules and concepts", hence it depends on the person and varies Hindu by Hindu.

The SC still continued to use the term "religion" to describe "Hinduism". This is what the SC said regarding the term "religion":

The word `religion' has not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. In an American case [Davis v. Benson, 133 US at 342] it has been said `that term `religion' has reference to one's views of his relation to his Creator and to the obligations they impose of `reverence' for His Being and character and of obedience to His will. It is often confounded with cults of form or worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter.' We do not think that the above definition can be regarded as either precise or adequate. Articles 25 and 26 of our Constitution are based for the most part upon article 44(2) of the Constitution of Eire and we have great doubt whether a definition of `religion' as given above could have been in the minds of our Constitution makers when they framed the Constitution. Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conductive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe ritual and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of look and dress

The SC indeed also says that definite rules/concepts cannot be applied to the term "Hindu". So here, the SC agrees with me that there is no real definition of "HInduism", and that it is largely a function of geography.

No wonder! you are here to mock and troll Hindus, and you will continue your job of BS producing. But I wonder if you are getting sallery for this from any missionary or Islamic institutions.

Many of my posts criticize and mock Christians and Muslims, so if I get a "sallery" (I guess you mean "salary". It is a word that even a 3rd standard kid should be able to spell properly) for doing this, then the joke is on them.

What I find really fascinating, however, is that many of you so-called "Hindus" automatically assume that anyone who dares to question or attack your "beliefs", must have some ulterior motive. You cannot fathom that a simple rationalist finds your beliefs worthy of nothing but disdain.

My dear you are at a Defence forum and you do not understand the basics We adopted from British armed forces because it was the system we were having and accustomed for many years.

British were having superior military technology as "Rifles", they didn't bring their westernized structures with them. And with that you have dragged the politics in a religious debate.

Are you actually serious?

The command hierarchy (General, Lt. General, Brigadier, etc.), unit organization (Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.), military drill and training, military ethos, basic military uniform, military classification, etc. etc. of the present Indian Armed Forces is derived from the British/Western model.

As for our political system, I shouldn't need to go into detail there, because it should be obvious to anyone that our parliamentary democracy is based on that of Britain.

And finally you accepted my assertion that "we are having westernized structures because we were slaves for a long time."
Why didn't you accept that at the time when I said so? But Thank you.

We didn't accept them because "we were slaves for long time", we accepted them because they were the best model available. India in the 1940s still had many semi-autonomous princely states run by traditional dynasties and using traditional methods of governance. As I said, we had the option of keeping all the maharajas and running India the good old traditional way. But hardly anyone considered that option, because it was retarded.

What about the examples of Bangladesh and Pakistan which I gave to you ? Were you claiming that we are poor because we were Hindus ?

I give up. I seriously doubt you can comprehend English.

First of all, Spain is a small country with a very small population (only 4.5 Crores as of 2013), Greece is even more smaller than the Spain ( with only 1 crore population) and Turkey has only 7.5 crores as of now. My dear let me remind you that Indian population is almost about 124 crores, which is the prime reason of poverty.

Good, so you agree that Muslim rule had nothing to do with the impoverishment of India?

Now explain to me why a tiny country like Spain (which was even smaller in medieval times, as it was divided into different kingdoms), which had just a tiny fraction of the population and resources of India, was able to thoroughly repulse Muslims, while a large number of Indians remained under Muslim rule for centuries.

It shows that you do not understand what we were discussing, as I have already told you that Chhatrapati Shivaji kicked the Mughals, just like the Christian armies kicked Muslims in the Spain.

What ! a ! blind argument !! Shivaji fought with almost half the numbers of soldiers against Mughals in many wars, still he managed to win the wars. The least number of armymen and the victories itself proves your argument that "Mughals lost due to their own faults" isa complete BS. On one hand you praise and see whatever trivial is non-Hindu, on the other hand you are reluctant to praise big accomplishments by Hindus or Hinduism.

You're a tool. You probably don't even know that Shivaji died in 1680 itself, which is 27 years before Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji played almost no role in the collapse of the Mughal Empire, which was a self-caused collapse caused by Aurangzeb's overstretching of the administration and failing political structures and institutions. The main targets of Aurangzeb's Deccan campaign was not even the Marathas, but the sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda (ruled by Shi'as and hence perceived as kafirs by Aurangzeb).

You also still haven't answered by question regarding why the Nizam of Hyderabad (a second-rate monarch) was able to rule the districts of Aurangabad, Nanded, Beed, and Parbhani districts in Marathwada, just a few kilometers from Pune and the Maratha homeland itself. Why couldn't the great Marathas annex Hyderabad State, whose borders encroached right onto their heartland?

Who will tell the readers about the First Anglo Maratha war in which British had to sign the Treaty of Wadgaon, who will tell that Tipu Sultan was defeated in the battle of Gajendragadh. And by your logic British forces HAD poor structure because Marathas forced them to sign the Treaty of Wadgaon in the first war. Since you are malicious against Hindus you will not mention them. Since Marathas successfully stopped British in the first war their structure can not be called poor. Moreover having greater number of guns and forces doesn't equates to poor structure.

The British even lost a battle against the Zulus in 1879, who fought with spears against British riflemen. But what do a few cases like these show? The important fact is that the Marathas lost against the British in the end, and they could never make major gains against Mysore despite Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan fighting on multiple fronts against Marathas, Hyderabad, EIC, and in Kerala.

Marathas lost with the British because they were having superior military structures and not because of the Hinduism. Period.

So you finally agree that Indians (Marathas) had poorer structures than the British? Good.

I have seen the way you escaped my question on beef eating and the question on your religion because you were locked in a Tight corner, so I am now confirmed you are not a Hindu, that is why you have contempt against 'proud' Hindus and so you pose questions against them in every second Hinduism related thread; so now the onus of proof is on you, either you prove with citations of the SC judgments that after eating a beef I will legally cease to be a Hindu, or you leave it.

I cannot be a Hindu, because as I said before, I don't know what a "Hindu" is. How can I be something that I can't define?

 

[civfanatic]

Hindus do have heads like Sri Adi Sankracharya, he established skahtipeeths where there is a head of each peeth.
That is wrong Sanatana dharma is hinduism,i know my religion .Hindus dont know hinduism is the bias raised by left liberals and Abrahamic faiths to make it look
as though hinduism and hindus are headless chicken without any direction therefore the need to be converted to true religion,that is the basis of all
their debunking of hinduism and calling it doesn't exist.

By "religious heads" I am referring to people like the Pope (for Catholic Christianity) and the Caliph (for Islam). Adi Shankara was certainly not a "Hindu" equivalent of the Pope or Caliph in any way. He was never accepted by the "Hindus" as their universal religious head.

An unorganized religion can't have a religious head in the first place. It's not possible.

 

[wolfpackx1]

One member batting here for Hinduism, was abusing a Shankaracharya of one of the Peeths.

Then he is ill-informed if he was batting for Hinduism, and at the same time abusing Shakaracharya.As Sakthi peeth heads called Peetadhipathi, are heads of Right hand path of hinduism.He must have been deluded into thinking about the recent Kanchi Sankaracharya case where he was arrested it was all a political conspiracy, where there was no case against him and he was proven innocent.
If people who vouch for hinduism have their opinions about the heads of knowledge like Sankaracharya so easily swayed and changed then the media spin doctors have done a fine job in spreading false propaganda.

 

[wolfpackx1]

By "religious heads" I am referring to people like the Pope (for Catholic Christianity) and the Caliph (for Islam). Adi Shankara was certainly not a "Hindu" equivalent of the Pope or Caliph in any way. He was never accepted by the "Hindus" as their universal religious head.

An unorganized religion can't have a religious head in the first place. It's not possible.

FYI, every Sankaracharya when elected gets greeting messages from all heads of religions all over the world,even pope sends greeting messages, that itself is a recognition of a religious head, its like a president wishing another country counterpart for getting elected to that office.

Who says he was never accepted as a Hindu by other Hindus?He was the one responsible for reviving Hinduism from dark age where it degraded.He was the one who defeated his opponents in a debate and therefore converting them to hindus and his disciples, Mandana Mishra was possibly the greatest Buddhist Scholar at that time, he was defeated by Adi Sankaracharya in a debate and therefore he became his disciple and hindu.

if Hinduism was Unorganized how come every hindu knows how to assemble peacefully and partake in Maha khumb mela(the biggest human congregation in history of earth) and go without any untoward incident?Who regulates them? who tells them what to do and what not to do?
The western notion of Unorganized is different from Eastern notion of Unorganized.According to them, there are set hierarchies and rigid rules which cant be broken, while here the rules evolve and new rules written with time while the basic tenets are universal that is essence of eastern religions.




Which western religions can say such thing or give you liberty to question ? they cannot as they are rigid in their definition, they cannot fathom can people even exist like this ,just because they have a different functioning when compared to them.

According to west, India is a chaos and continuing anarchy which somehow manages to retain itself, but do we feel our country is chaos?the problem lies in West asking everyone to view the world only through their colored glasses and refusing to view the world from others perspective.
You cannot form a opinion unless you have not seen both sides, only one side opinion is called BIAS!

Hinduism is not unorganized there are rules for everything and it has been observed and carried out since time immemorial that is why Hindu Civilization still stands the test of time, while other have vanished in time.

 

[wolfpackx1]

The SC didn't define what a "way of life" meant because the purpose of that judgement was not to define "Hinduism". Which is why I don't understand why you even posted it, because it's not really relevant to this discussion.

The SC said that "Hinduism" could not be defined "narrowly", yet it also continued to use the term "religion" to describe Hindu practices.




When I was talking about "legal Hindus", I was talking about the people to whom the Act applies, which includes Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains as well as "Hindus". I am aware that the term "Hindu" itself was not defined there, but as far as the application of the law is concerned, even Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains would be considered "Hindus" (even if they don't consider themselves as such).






Why didn't you post this case first, instead of the irrelevant 1995 ruling?

Though even here, the SC doesn't actually define "Hinduism". The list of features you posted are so broad that most of them can be easily applied to several other religions.




I highly doubt you even know what a "leftist" or "rightist" is. The very use of these terms in the Indian context is stupid and meaningless.

And defeating invaders implies that some "butchering" occurs. It has nothing to do with "religious extremism". You can't defeat invaders by handing out rakhis and sweets.




The fact that Hindus remained submissive after invasions and bloodshed is a sign of weakness, not some great achievement. The fact that Buddhists in Burma have engaged in such bloodshed and genocidal behavior is unfortunate and I won't defend that, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Also, how in the world did you divine that Muslims are my "beloved", when many of my posts in this forum (even on this very thread) are against Islam? You self-proclaimed confused "Hindus" seem to think that anyone who doesn't like you must automatically love Muslims and Christians




I don't know what history 'we were talking about'. I don't recall mentioning a particular time frame when I made that statement. Societies change over time, and what is acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. Even Islamic society in the Middle Ages was much more liberal than it is now; in one of my posts on this thread I mentioned some atheist and rationalist philosophers of the Medieval Islamic world like Abul Ala Al-Ma'arri and Ibn al-Rawandi. There were scholars living in the Medieval Islamic World who could openly criticize Islam, but nowadays they would be persecuted for making such statements. Islamic society regressed over time and saw rationalism being replaced with religious dogma, whereas the West saw the opposite development (religious dogma being replaced with rationalism). And that is why the West is dominant today, while most of the modern Islamic World is a shithole.

Anyway, my point stands that Abrahamic societies need not engage in massacre of religious minorities, as the obvious example of America since the 18th century shows. Americans are overwhelmingly Christian (Abrahamic) and relatively religious, but there has never been persecution of religious minorities. You cannot change this fact regardless of whatever excuses you make.

The difference between countries like America and countries like Burma is that America is a well-established democracy where individual rights (incl. freedom of religion) are enshrined and enforced by Law (the Constitution), whereas Burma is an authoritarian dictatorship that persecutes its minorities. Any authoritarian dictatorship would be oppressive and not just one where Buddhists form the majority.




My statement is accurate. There may be a few odd exceptions, but overall social mingling between outcastes and upper castes was certainly not allowed by societal norms, until fairly recently. By "fairly recently", I mean since the last century.




Are you capable of understanding English? I am not saying that expulsion from caste means that someone ceases to be a "Hindu" (I don't even know what a "Hindu" is, remember?). I am saying that both Abrahamic and "Hindu" society have ways of punishing members that violate certain social/religious norms (like eating beef). Expulsion from caste is a way of punishing people for breaking certain religious "rules" (at least those that are accepted by the particular caste). Similarly, Abrahamic societies also punish people that break religious rules, such as by excommunication from the Church. So, I am saying that excommunication and expulsion from the caste are similar in this particular sense, i.e. as a way of punishing people.

As for the first bold sentence, I have already mentioned several times that my thread title is flawed and not precise enough, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up again.




The SC still continued to use the term "religion" to describe "Hinduism". This is what the SC said regarding the term "religion":


The SC indeed also says that definite rules/concepts cannot be applied to the term "Hindu". So here, the SC agrees with me that there is no real definition of "HInduism", and that it is largely a function of geography.




Many of my posts criticize and mock Christians and Muslims, so if I get a "sallery" (I guess you mean "salary". It is a word that even a 3rd standard kid should be able to spell properly) for doing this, then the joke is on them.

What I find really fascinating, however, is that many of you so-called "Hindus" automatically assume that anyone who dares to question or attack your "beliefs", must have some ulterior motive. You cannot fathom that a simple rationalist finds your beliefs worthy of nothing but disdain.




Are you actually serious?

The command hierarchy (General, Lt. General, Brigadier, etc.), unit organization (Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.), military drill and training, military ethos, basic military uniform, military classification, etc. etc. of the present Indian Armed Forces is derived from the British/Western model.

As for our political system, I shouldn't need to go into detail there, because it should be obvious to anyone that our parliamentary democracy is based on that of Britain.




We didn't accept them because "we were slaves for long time", we accepted them because they were the best model available. India in the 1940s still had many semi-autonomous princely states run by traditional dynasties and using traditional methods of governance. As I said, we had the option of keeping all the maharajas and running India the good old traditional way. But hardly anyone considered that option, because it was retarded.






I give up. I seriously doubt you can comprehend English.




Good, so you agree that Muslim rule had nothing to do with the impoverishment of India?

Now explain to me why a tiny country like Spain (which was even smaller in medieval times, as it was divided into different kingdoms), which had just a tiny fraction of the population and resources of India, was able to thoroughly repulse Muslims, while a large number of Indians remained under Muslim rule for centuries.





You're a tool. You probably don't even know that Shivaji died in 1680 itself, which is 27 years before Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji played almost no role in the collapse of the Mughal Empire, which was a self-caused collapse caused by Aurangzeb's overstretching of the administration and failing political structures and institutions. The main targets of Aurangzeb's Deccan campaign was not even the Marathas, but the sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda (ruled by Shi'as and hence perceived as kafirs by Aurangzeb).

You also still haven't answered by question regarding why the Nizam of Hyderabad (a second-rate monarch) was able to rule the districts of Aurangabad, Nanded, Beed, and Parbhani districts in Marathwada, just a few kilometers from Pune and the Maratha homeland itself. Why couldn't the great Marathas annex Hyderabad State, whose borders encroached right onto their heartland?




The British even lost a battle against the Zulus in 1879, who fought with spears against British riflemen. But what do a few cases like these show? The important fact is that the Marathas lost against the British in the end, and they could never make major gains against Mysore despite Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan fighting on multiple fronts against Marathas, Hyderabad, EIC, and in Kerala.




So you finally agree that Indians (Marathas) had poorer structures than the British? Good.




I cannot be a Hindu, because as I said before, I don't know what a "Hindu" is. How can I be something that I can't define?

Ok you cant be a hindu since you can't define, but can you define yourself?if you can't you cannot exist since you cannot define yourself.

Western Definition of religion is fixed,therefore, those in servitude of them will call all others as non-religion and theirs as only one true religion, that is the reason for crusades as "MY god is the only real god and yours is false".Perhaps you affiliate yourself to such religion i guess then no amount of reasoning will make "A person who pretends to sleep cannot be woken up".That will be your case.

Regarding your superior western values and economy here is a video to show the reality of west and east.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRloJjKQa70

 

[A chauhan]

Then he is ill-informed if he was batting for Hinduism, and at the same time abusing Shakaracharya.As Sakthi peeth heads called Peetadhipathi, are heads of Right hand path of hinduism.He must have been deluded into thinking about the recent Kanchi Sankaracharya case where he was arrested it was all a political conspiracy, where there was no case against him and he was proven innocent.
If people who vouch for hinduism have their opinions about the heads of knowledge like Sankaracharya so easily swayed and changed then the media spin doctors have done a fine job in spreading false propaganda.

Actually he is talking about me, as I pointed out some days back that Shankaracharya of a peeth came to my city about a year ago and he didn't let non-Brahmins to touch his feet and blessed from a distance, and so I do not take him as a religious head of my religion. However I was not talking about the Shankaracharya who did great jobs for Hinduism in the past.

 

[A chauhan]

One thing I have understood about you, you are posting for the sake of posting, you have no job except creating useless disputes.

The SC didn't define what a "way of life" meant because the purpose of that judgement was not to define "Hinduism". Which is why I don't understand why you even posted it, because it's not really relevant to this discussion.

The SC said that "Hinduism" could not be defined "narrowly", yet it also continued to use the term "religion" to describe Hindu practices.

The SC used the term religion so that it can understood by the people who are used to use that term, the term religion has also been used in many Acts, but what the SC says have an effect of law.

When I was talking about "legal Hindus", I was talking about the people to whom the Act applies, which includes Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains as well as "Hindus". I am aware that the term "Hindu" itself was not defined there, but as far as the application of the law is concerned, even Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains would be considered "Hindus" (even if they don't consider themselves as such).

It was you who was quoting that as if it was a definition, lol!.

Why didn't you post this case first, instead of the irrelevant 1995 ruling?

1966 judgement + 1995 judgement together are considered landmark judgments in this regard. You can not argue on Hinduism or Hindus without quoting them.

Though even here, the SC doesn't actually define "Hinduism". The list of features you posted are so broad that most of them can be easily applied to several other religions.

The SC has defined the prime features of Hinduism and Hindus and the courts in India are deciding all the Hinduism related case with that guideline, so your excuse of "broad" features is simply useless.

I highly doubt you even know what a "leftist" or "rightist" is. The very use of these terms in the Indian context is stupid and meaningless.

Actually I am not interested in the leftists.

And defeating invaders implies that some "butchering" occurs. It has nothing to do with "religious extremism". You can't defeat invaders by handing out rakhis and sweets.

Well I didn't say that we should tie Rakhis and sweets to the rapist invaders.

The fact that Hindus remained submissive after invasions and bloodshed is a sign of weakness, not some great achievement. The fact that Buddhists in Burma have engaged in such bloodshed and genocidal behaviour is unfortunate and I won't defend that, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

I have already said that I mentioned Myanmar to show the peaceful nature of Hindus.

Also, how in the world did you divine that Muslims are my "beloved", when many of my posts in this forum (even on this very thread) are against Islam? You self-proclaimed confused "Hindus" seem to think that anyone who doesn't like you must automatically love Muslims and Christians

Ok, Muslims are not your beloved ! satisfied?

I don't know what history 'we were talking about'. I don't recall mentioning a particular time frame when I made that statement. Societies change over time, and what is acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. Even Islamic society in the Middle Ages was much more liberal than it is now; in one of my posts on this thread I mentioned some atheist and rationalist philosophers of the Medieval Islamic world like Abul Ala Al-Ma'arri and Ibn al-Rawandi. There were scholars living in the Medieval Islamic World who could openly criticize Islam, but nowadays they would be persecuted for making such statements. Islamic society regressed over time and saw rationalism being replaced with religious dogma, whereas the West saw the opposite development (religious dogma being replaced with rationalism). And that is why the West is dominant today, while most of the modern Islamic World is a shithole.

It will be off topic if I reply to this.

Anyway, my point stands that Abrahamic societies need not engage in massacre of religious minorities, as the obvious example of America since the 18th century shows. Americans are overwhelmingly Christian (Abrahamic) and relatively religious, but there has never been persecution of religious minorities. You cannot change this fact regardless of whatever excuses you make.

On the other hand I gave you the example of KSA which itself shows that how far can an organized religion can go, Christianity itself was full of extremism at some points of History, if you are quoting the good you should be ready to accept the bad as well.

The difference between countries like America and countries like Burma is that America is a well-established democracy where individual rights (incl. freedom of religion) are enshrined and enforced by Law (the Constitution), whereas Burma is an authoritarian dictatorship that persecutes its minorities. Any authoritarian dictatorship would be oppressive and not just one where Buddhists form the majority.

I wont comment on this since it will be off topic.

My statement is accurate. There may be a few odd exceptions, but overall social mingling between outcastes and upper castes was certainly not allowed by societal norms, until fairly recently. By "fairly recently", I mean since the last century.

I shown you two examples of how one outcast person was mingled with other caste, you see here in Chhattisgarh caste system plays an important role in daily life and I counter such incidents very often, that is why I said that outcaste can mingle with other castes, they pay certain "fee" to the Caste-Samaj in which they want to mingle and after that the Samaj accepts them.

Are you capable of understanding English? I am not saying that expulsion from caste means that someone ceases to be a "Hindu" (I don't even know what a "Hindu" is, remember?). I am saying that both Abrahamic and "Hindu" society have ways of punishing members that violate certain social/religious norms (like eating beef). Expulsion from caste is a way of punishing people for breaking certain religious "rules" (at least those that are accepted by the particular caste). Similarly, Abrahamic societies also punish people that break religious rules, such as by excommunication from the Church. So, I am saying that excommunication and expulsion from the caste are similar in this particular sense, i.e. as a way of punishing people.

I'll repeat that I only wanted to say that an apostate and an outcaste are not comparable, because apostate person leaves the entire religion and the Gods, while an outcaste does not.

As for the first bold sentence, I have already mentioned several times that my thread title is flawed and not precise enough, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up again.

I didn't bring that to show you the fault in the title, I showed that to make it easy to understand.

The SC still continued to use the term "religion" to describe "Hinduism". This is what the SC said regarding the term "religion":

That is a way to say the things, while the SC explicitly said that Hinduism can not be defined in narrow definition of a religion, then it doesn't leave any chances of confusion.

The SC indeed also says that definite rules/concepts cannot be applied to the term "Hindu". So here, the SC agrees with me that there is no real definition of "Hinduism", and that it is largely a function of geography.

The SC has given guiding features of Hinduism and a Hindu, which is sufficient to determine who is a Hindu and what is Hinduism, it does not need to have a law like apostate because apostasy is a sign of narrow organized religions. I have also said that it is tough to define Hinduism because there are many aspects but you were asking for a definition, so the SC has given a broad but basic guiding features of the same. And now no court is confused in this regard, your confusions does not matter.

Many of my posts criticize and mock Christians and Muslims, so if I get a "sallery" (I guess you mean "salary". It is a word that even a 3rd standard kid should be able to spell properly) for doing this, then the joke is on them.

Who knows!

What I find really fascinating, however, is that many of you so-called "Hindus" automatically assume that anyone who dares to question or attack your "beliefs", must have some ulterior motive. You cannot fathom that a simple rationalist finds your beliefs worthy of nothing but disdain.

What is "so called" in that ? I am a Hindu, and I don't need a certificate form you for the same. When there is a judgement by the constitutional bench of the SC, there is no reason to to question one's belief, but you are are continuously doing that from many threads, hence such criticism is necessary.

Are you actually serious?

The command hierarchy (General, Lt. General, Brigadier, etc.), unit organization (Corps, Division, Brigade, etc.), military drill and training, military ethos, basic military uniform, military classification, etc. etc. of the present Indian Armed Forces is derived from the British/Western model.

Do you even understand why I said so? I said that when they were fighting with the Hindus did they were just fighting, they established their structures here after the victory. We inherited their structure when they left India. Did you get it now?

As for our political system, I shouldn't need to go into detail there, because it should be obvious to anyone that our parliamentary democracy is based on that of Britain.

We didn't accept them because "we were slaves for long time", we accepted them because they were the best model available. India in the 1940s still had many semi-autonomous princely states run by traditional dynasties and using traditional methods of governance. As I said, we had the option of keeping all the maharajas and running India the good old traditional way. But hardly anyone considered that option, because it was retarded.

It shows that you lack the basic understanding, India was ruled by British through various presidencies, except few princely states that you are mentioning here, and it was a highly expensive job to change the system of entire country, while the people of India were expecting a self rule i.e. a democracy so we just "kept" what we already had and modified it as per our needs, we enacted a Constitution which borrowed concepts from other country's constitutions to make our democracy better for Indian conditions.

I give up. I seriously doubt you can comprehend English.

Pakistan was majority of times ruled under Muslim rulers and that is a fact, while India had many parts so it varied with the time. But you didn't understand it.

Good, so you agree that Muslim rule had nothing to do with the impoverishment of India?

when did I said that? and how did you interpret that idiotic interpretation ?

Now explain to me why a tiny country like Spain (which was even smaller in medieval times, as it was divided into different kingdoms), which had just a tiny fraction of the population and resources of India, was able to thoroughly repulse Muslims, while a large number of Indians remained under Muslim rule for centuries.

Compare Spain with the land which Marathas took back from the Mughals, it will be 10 times bigger territory. lol ! India is a big - a way big county than Spain now the rest can be understood by any idiot. You are comparing an apple with watermelon and it shows that there is an inherent problem with your basic understanding.

You're a tool. You probably don't even know that Shivaji died in 1680 itself, which is 27 years before Aurangzeb died in 1707. Shivaji played almost no role in the collapse of the Mughal Empire, which was a self-caused collapse caused by Aurangzeb's overstretching of the administration and failing political structures and institutions. The main targets of Aurangzeb's Deccan campaign was not even the Marathas, but the sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda (ruled by Shi'as and hence perceived as kafirs by Aurangzeb).

When did I say that Shivaji killed Aurangzeb ? Without Shivaji there could be no Maratha Empire, so he played a very important role in the collapse of Mughals, he was the source of the Maratha Empire and inspiration for the Marathas, when he was alive he fought many wars with Mughal forces inspite of having very less numbers of soldiers, he started the war against Mughals, so it is said so. and those were great achievements.

You also still haven't answered by question regarding why the Nizam of Hyderabad (a second-rate monarch) was able to rule the districts of Aurangabad, Nanded, Beed, and Parbhani districts in Marathwada, just a few kilometers from Pune and the Maratha homeland itself. Why couldn't the great Marathas annex Hyderabad State, whose borders encroached right onto their heartland?

WTF! WTF! you are still ranting ! for the sake of understanding of the members who are reading the thread I am posting a map of Maratha empire from WIki, such a large (almost 10 times the size of spain and greece) Empire can not be built by a Poor Structure Army :-




Source : Wikipedia

And if you still do not understand what I am trying to convey then you seriously need a doctor.

The British even lost a battle against the Zulus in 1879, who fought with spears against British riflemen. But what do a few cases like these show? The important fact is that the Marathas lost against the British in the end, and they could never make major gains against Mysore despite Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan fighting on multiple fronts against Marathas, Hyderabad, EIC, and in Kerala.

There are 10s of wars which Marathas fought and won, above posted Map is a witness and evidence of the same. But as I said earlier you wont post them.

So you finally agree that Indians (Marathas) had poorer structures than the British? Good.

Thanks for accepting that the Marathas defeated Mughals. I always disputed the Muslim invaders, and I have successfully proved that Marathas had better structures and strategies than the Mughals which you were continuously denying.

I cannot be a Hindu, because as I said before, I don't know what a "Hindu" is. How can I be something that I can't define?

You can not be a Hindu because you are not a Hindu, when you can not understand the clear judgments of the SC then it's not any Hindu's problem. You can not define something because you lack the intellectual ability to define it. So simple.

BTW you again escaped my questions, you are the thread opener regarding beef eating, I have answered you quoting the SC judgement that there is nothing which prohibits me from eating a beef and being a Hindu afterwards, But you have not proved that whether I will cease to be a Hindu after that or not ??

If you do not know and define Hinduism (that isn't your forte) then why don't you tell me the religion which you are following in the real life ? are you afraid of telling it? your username "civfanatic" doesn't make any sense.

 

[drkrn]

???

..................

i mean non believers are on raise globally,do you wish to be their prophet
just kidding

 

[wolfpackx1]

Actually he is talking about me, as I pointed out some days back that Shankaracharya of a peeth came to my city about a year ago and he didn't let non-Brahmins to touch his feet and blessed from a distance, and so I do not take him as a religious head of my religion. However I was not talking about the Shankaracharya who did great jobs for Hinduism in the past.

I understand your predicament,but you have to understand the mystic side of hinduism, where they only let satvic people touch them as they think their aura might be affected by tamo rajs guna peopleand besides not every shankaracharya can let people touch his feet.As according to mystics when you take blessings from a great person they are absolving your karma and not everyone can take others karma and bear it.
That requires someone on the scale of Shiridi sai Baba or avatar, as only they can bear the burden of karmas of everyone.
Even Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once complained his feet were hot and paining due to him letting others touch his feet.
I can explain more in this regard if you wish, but yes some of the Sankaracharyas just mere adhipatis not Avatars.So therefore they have a rigid set of beliefs unlike some.
But soon even these things will go as hindus get more united, that is what i am saying.Hinduism can rewrite rules,this flexbility is always there.Or should i say rules were misinterpreted by some and that tradition continued on.

 

[wolfpackx1]

By "religious heads" I am referring to people like the Pope (for Catholic Christianity) and the Caliph (for Islam). Adi Shankara was certainly not a "Hindu" equivalent of the Pope or Caliph in any way. He was never accepted by the "Hindus" as their universal religious head.

An unorganized religion can't have a religious head in the first place. It's not possible.

You have played a lot of Civilization Games --by sid meier's games, it's time for you to show your thing with proofs or else you are just a attention seeker!

 

[civfanatic]

One thing I have understood about you, you are posting for the sake of posting, you have no job except creating useless disputes.

Thank you for honoring my useless thread by making highly useful contributions to it.

The SC used the term religion so that it can understood by the people who are used to use that term, the term religion has also been used in many Acts, but what the SC says have an effect of law.

And here, you already contradicted yourself. First you said that "Hinduism" is not a religion, now you are saying that the SC used the term "religion" so that "it can be understood by the people who are used to that term" (whatever that means). Your statement here actually contradicts the ruling of the SC itself, which said that "Hinduism" cannot be defined narrowly in the traditional idea of "religion". So it actually cannot be understood "by the people are used to the term", because the the concept of religion that is understood by most people is not entirely applicable to "Hinduism" (as per the SC itself).

Instead, the SC is using "religion" is a more elastic sense, the definition of which I have already provided:

The word `religion' has not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. In an American case [Davis v. Benson, 133 US at 342] it has been said `that term `religion' has reference to one's views of his relation to his Creator and to the obligations they impose of `reverence' for His Being and character and of obedience to His will. It is often confounded with cults of form or worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable from the latter.' We do not think that the above definition can be regarded as either precise or adequate. Articles 25 and 26 of our Constitution are based for the most part upon article 44(2) of the Constitution of Eire and we have great doubt whether a definition of `religion' as given above could have been in the minds of our Constitution makers when they framed the Constitution. Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conductive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine or belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe ritual and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and observances might extend even to matters of look and dress.

It is in the context of the above that the SC says that "Hinduism" is a religion.

It was you who was quoting that as if it was a definition, lol!.

Actually, I explicitly said that it was only a legal term, and nothing more. I said in the same post that there was no cultural definition of a "Hindu".

1966 judgement + 1995 judgement together are considered landmark judgments in this regard. You can not argue on Hinduism or Hindus without quoting them.

The 1995 judgement is irrelevant to this discussion, because it doesn't define what "Hinduism" is. Its main point was to say that "Hinduism" and "Hindu" can also be used to refer India and Indians in general, regardless of religion, and not necessarily the "Hindu" religion. But since I am concerned explicitly with the Hindu "religion", and not the more elastic, non-religious use of the term "Hindu", this judgement is no relevance to the debate.

The SC has defined the prime features of Hinduism and Hindus and the courts in India are deciding all the Hinduism related case with that guideline, so your excuse of "broad" features is simply useless.

The SC has given guiding features of Hinduism and a Hindu, which is sufficient to determine who is a Hindu and what is Hinduism, it does not need to have a law like apostate because apostasy is a sign of narrow organized religions. I have also said that it is tough to define Hinduism because there are many aspects but you were asking for a definition, so the SC has given a broad but basic guiding features of the same. And now no court is confused in this regard, your confusions does not matter.

Actually, of the seven "features" that you posted, only the very first (acceptance of the Vedas) is unique to "Hinduism". All the others are non-specific, and some are not even "features" so much as lack of features (like the lack of a definite set of philosophical concepts).

Actually I am not interested in the leftists.

Lmao, then why mention them in the first place?

Well I didn't say that we should tie Rakhis and sweets to the rapist invaders.

Then how do you suggest that invaders be "defeated", if not by butchering them?

I have already said that I mentioned Myanmar to show the peaceful nature of Hindus.

And I have already mentioned America to show the peaceful nature of Christian Abrahamics.

It will be off topic if I reply to this.

I wont comment on this since it will be off topic.

This discussion is already quite OT, so I don't understand why you are suddenly concerned about that now.

On the other hand I gave you the example of KSA which itself shows that how far can an organized religion can go, Christianity itself was full of extremism at some points of History, if you are quoting the good you should be ready to accept the bad as well.

Do you still remember the original statement that I made?

Religious minorities existed (and still exist) in plenty of societies that follow Abrahamic religions.

That is all that I said. I am fully aware of barbaric, intolerant states like KSA, but their existence does not contradict my point, because I never claimed that all societies that follow Abrahamic religions are tolerant. I simply claimed that tolerant ones exist, like the U.S.A.

I shown you two examples of how one outcast person was mingled with other caste, you see here in Chhattisgarh caste system plays an important role in daily life and I counter such incidents very often, that is why I said that outcaste can mingle with other castes, they pay certain "fee" to the Caste-Samaj in which they want to mingle and after that the Samaj accepts them.

Go read my original statement again. It is getting tiring explaining the same thing over and over again.

I'll repeat that I only wanted to say that an apostate and an outcaste are not comparable, because apostate person leaves the entire religion and the Gods, while an outcaste does not.

They ARE comparable, in the specific sense that I described (as a means of punishment). Both Abrahamic and "Hindu" societies have ways of punishing members that break religious rules. I am not talking about leaving the religion or not.

Who knows!

Maybe you are actually the illegitimate child of a Muslim, who was given away to a "Hindu" family as a baby.

Who knows!

What is "so called" in that ? I am a Hindu, and I don't need a certificate form you for the same. When there is a judgement by the constitutional bench of the SC, there is no reason to to question one's belief, but you are are continuously doing that from many threads, hence such criticism is necessary.

You can call yourself a "Hindu" or the "King of England" or "Ruler of Mars" or anything else you wish. It is of no particular concern to me.

Do you even understand why I said so? I said that when they were fighting with the Hindus did they were just fighting, they established their structures here after the victory. We inherited their structure when they left India. Did you get it now?

It shows that you lack the basic understanding, India was ruled by British through various presidencies, except few princely states that you are mentioning here, and it was a highly expensive job to change the system of entire country, while the people of India were expecting a self rule i.e. a democracy so we just "kept" what we already had and modified it as per our needs, we enacted a Constitution which borrowed concepts from other country's constitutions to make our democracy better for Indian conditions.

You again show that you don't know what you are talking about. We DID NOT just "keep" what we already had. In the 1940s, prior to Independence, India was a combination of directly British-ruled territories and semi-autonomous Princely States that were several hundred in number. The Princely States had their own traditional political structures, some dating back to medieval times. When the Princely States were annexed/integrated into the Indian Union, we replaced their traditional structures with a centralized, Westernized one. Also, the British Raj was not a "democracy"; the Western-style parliamentary democracy was implemented after Independence. So we did not just "keep" things as they were, but actively adopted new Western institutions and structures, and also abolished older traditional structures (i.e. those of the Princely States).

Pakistan was majority of times ruled under Muslim rulers and that is a fact, while India had many parts so it varied with the time. But you didn't understand it.

I understand that perfectly. But you clearly don't understand English.

when did I said that? and how did you interpret that idiotic interpretation ?

If Muslim rule leads to poverty, then why aren't Spain, Greece, and Turkey poor and undeveloped? They were all ruled by Muslims even longer than India overall (except Sindh/Panjab/NWFP). So why aren't they as poor as India?

You will say that it is due to India's large population (as if having a large population automatically leads to poverty). But then I can show the example of Nepal, a glorious Hindu-Dharmic state that has never been ruled by Muslims or even the British, but is till much poorer than even India, and also has much smaller population than Turkey (which is 99% Muslim but has a per capita income over 12 times that of Nepal).

When did I say that Shivaji killed Aurangzeb ? Without Shivaji there could be no Maratha Empire, so he played a very important role in the collapse of Mughals, he was the source of the Maratha Empire and inspiration for the Marathas, when he was alive he fought many wars with Mughal forces inspite of having very less numbers of soldiers, he started the war against Mughals, so it is said so. and those were great achievements.

No, he didn't! The Marathas were not the cause for the Mughal Empire's collapse. The Marathas in the late 17th century were fighting in the Deccan, in their homelands, not in Delhi or the Indo-Gangetic Plain (the bases of Mughal power). They were only a regional power at this time.

Compare Spain with the land which Marathas took back from the Mughals, it will be 10 times bigger territory. lol ! India is a big - a way big county than Spain now the rest can be understood by any idiot. You are comparing an apple with watermelon and it shows that there is an inherent problem with your basic understanding.

WTF! WTF! you are still ranting ! for the sake of understanding of the members who are reading the thread I am posting a map of Maratha empire from WIki, such a large (almost 10 times the size of spain and greece) Empire can not be built by a Poor Structure Army :-




Source : Wikipedia

And if you still do not understand what I am trying to convey then you seriously need a doctor.

This is why I laugh at you people. You don't know history, only mythology, yet you still pretend like you know what you are talking about.

That map from Wiki is bullshit, and looks like something a kid drew on Microsoft Paint. Here is a much better map of the period:

Pay especially close attention to the light blue state in the Deccan. That is Hyderabad State, and its territory extended within a few kilometers of Pune, the Maratha capital. So, please explain to me why the great Marathas could not even take over a second-rate Mughal successor kingdom like Hyderabad, whose territories encroached right up to the Maratha heartland itself.

As for the Maratha "Empire", it would be a stretch to even call it that. There is a reason why most people use the term "Maratha Confederacy" instead. There was never a single, unified "Maratha empire" but a bunch of individual Maratha states ruled by different clans (like Gaekwads, Holkars, Scindias, etc.). The Maratha peshwa himself governed a swathe of territory that comprises modern western Maharashtra. The Peshwa and all the Maratha clans together never ruled the whole India or even a large majority of it, contrary to what the stupid Wiki map shows. The Marathas never even ruled the whole of Maharashtra itself, as most of modern Marathwada and Vidarbha/Berar was ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, as mentioned above. The Marathas could not even liberate the whole Mararashtra itself from Muslim rule, and you are talking about Marathas defeating the whole Mughal Empire.

Then, there is the other idiotic claim raised by you, concerning the relative sizes of Spain and India. Spain is over 500,000 sq. km. in area, whereas the entire Indian subcontinent is 4.4 million sq. km. And as I showed above, the Marathas came nowhere close to ruling the whole Indian subcontinent. In fact, the entire area under the effective rule of all the Maratha chiefs, plus the Peshwa, was not much larger than that of Spain itself. You should stop reading mythology and pick up a map and a real history book.

There are 10s of wars which Marathas fought and won, above posted Map is a witness and evidence of the same. But as I said earlier you wont post them.

Then please name those "10s of wars", as I am genuinely fascinated by them.

And please don't mention that useless map ever again.

Thanks for accepting that the Marathas defeated Mughals. I always disputed the Muslim invaders, and I have successfully proved that Marathas had better structures and strategies than the Mughals which you were continuously denying.

The Marathas lost to more Muslim invaders (Afghans). Find out what happened at Panipat in 1761.

You can not be a Hindu because you are not a Hindu, when you can not understand the clear judgments of the SC then it's not any Hindu's problem. You can not define something because you lack the intellectual ability to define it. So simple.

BTW you again escaped my questions, you are the thread opener regarding beef eating, I have answered you quoting the SC judgement that there is nothing which prohibits me from eating a beef and being a Hindu afterwards, But you have not proved that whether I will cease to be a Hindu after that or not ??

If you do not know and define Hinduism (that isn't your forte) then why don't you tell me the religion which you are following in the real life ? are you afraid of telling it? your username "civfanatic" doesn't make any sense.

I thought it should have been obvious by now that I am a beef- and pork-eating atheist. But since you and other "Hindus" have said several times that even an atheist can be a "Hindu", maybe I still am a "Hindu", even though I don't know what a "Hindu" is.

 

[A chauhan]

You not only failed to understand the entire judgement but have done selective reading of the same.

Thank you for honoring my useless thread by making highly useful contributions to it.

Well you deserve it. You should have done your homework before posting useless rants here, did you ever search for the 1995 Judgement? But why will you do that, you are here to troll Hindus.

And here, you already contradicted yourself. First you said that "Hinduism" is not a religion, now you are saying that the SC used the term "religion" so that "it can be understood by the people who are used to that term" (whatever that means). Your statement here actually contradicts the ruling of the SC itself, which said that "Hinduism" cannot be defined narrowly in the traditional idea of "religion". So it actually cannot be understood "by the people are used to the term", because the the concept of religion that is understood by most people is not entirely applicable to "Hinduism" (as per the SC itself).

Instead, the SC is using "religion" is a more elastic sense, the definition of which I have already provided:

Lol! I never contradicted myself, the term religion is used by the SC merely as a Label and nothing, any idiot will understand it but you wont. You have done a job of selective reading and have missed the part where the H'ble SC has said that :

that unlike other religions in the world Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God: it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept ; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; and thus when it does not appear to satisfy any of the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed, it may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more Complete judgement of the Supreme Court of India - In-Depth Issues - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine

So when I said that Hinduism is not a religion in a narrow definition of a religion in my very first post on this thread I was and am quite correct, when the SC itself has called it a "way of life and nothing more". Then only an idiot can remain confused on the same. You are willfully missing the essence and sticking to the label.

It is in the context of the above that the SC says that "Hinduism" is a religion.

Kindly read the above colored text written by the SC.

Actually, I explicitly said that it was only a legal term, and nothing more. I said in the same post that there was no cultural definition of a "Hindu".

So why did you quote that "legal" term in such an irrelevant way at all?

The 1995 judgement is irrelevant to this discussion, because it doesn't define what "Hinduism" is. Its main point was to say that "Hinduism" and "Hindu" can also be used to refer India and Indians in general, regardless of religion, and not necessarily the "Hindu" religion. But since I am concerned explicitly with the Hindu "religion", and not the more elastic, non-religious use of the term "Hindu", this judgement is no relevance to the debate.

That judgement is 100% relevant because it confirms and agrees with the 1966 judgement and answers your question regarding Hinduism as a religion.

Actually, of the seven "features" that you posted, only the very first (acceptance of the Vedas) is unique to "Hinduism". All the others are non-specific, and some are not even "features" so much as lack of features (like the lack of a definite set of philosophical concepts).

Keep finding definite set of philosophical concepts, if you wish so.

Lmao, then why mention them in the first place?

I was making a joke on the leftists.

Then how do you suggest that invaders be "defeated", if not by butchering them?

Defeating and punishing is sufficient, if you understand it.

And I have already mentioned America to show the peaceful nature of Christian Abrahamics.

So what ? It doesn't reject my assertion of Hindus were a peaceful community at the time others were violent.

This discussion is already quite OT, so I don't understand why you are suddenly concerned about that now.

Thanks for realizing the same.

Do you still remember the original statement that I made?

Religious minorities existed (and still exist) in plenty of societies that follow Abrahamic religions.

That is all that I said. I am fully aware of barbaric, intolerant states like KSA, but their existence does not contradict my point, because I never claimed that all societies that follow Abrahamic religions are tolerant. I simply claimed that tolerant ones exist, like the U.S.A.

There are lot historical events which proves that Abrahmics have fought with each other in the most violent ways, they all were highly intolerant at one or many points of history unlike Hinduism and that is why I objected the organized form of a religion, but you didn't understand. So simple.

Go read my original statement again. It is getting tiring explaining the same thing over and over again.

Actually I have beaten my head explaining the same thing to you.

They ARE comparable, in the specific sense that I described (as a means of punishment). Both Abrahamic and "Hindu" societies have ways of punishing members that break religious rules. I am not talking about leaving the religion or not.

Can you prove that I cease to be a Hindu after eating a beef with legal citations ? can you prove that an outcaste are considered as non-Hindus as per faith and as per the law?

Well you can't hence they are not comparable.

Maybe you are actually the illegitimate child of a Muslim, who was given away to a "Hindu" family as a baby.

Who knows!

What a rude reply, I have my family vanshavali and I can assure that I am 100% Hindu, but you are definitely not a Hindu.

You can call yourself a "Hindu" or the "King of England" or "Ruler of Mars" or anything else you wish. It is of no particular concern to me.

Well I am a Hindu by faith and by law, your trollings are useless.

You again show that you don't know what you are talking about. We DID NOT just "keep" what we already had. In the 1940s, prior to Independence, India was a combination of directly British-ruled territories and semi-autonomous Princely States that were several hundred in number. The Princely States had their own traditional political structures, some dating back to medieval times. When the Princely States were annexed/integrated into the Indian Union, we replaced their traditional structures with a centralized, Westernized one. Also, the British Raj was not a "democracy"; the Western-style parliamentary democracy was implemented after Independence. So we did not just "keep" things as they were, but actively adopted new Western institutions and structures, and also abolished older traditional structures (i.e. those of the Princely States).

Kindly read my post once again and do try to understand this time.

I understand that perfectly. But you clearly don't understand English.

Yes, I am replying in the Chinese from last 4 years. Wastage of bandwidth.

If Muslim rule leads to poverty, then why aren't Spain, Greece, and Turkey poor and undeveloped? They were all ruled by Muslims even longer than India overall (except Sindh/Panjab/NWFP). So why aren't they as poor as India?

You will say that it is due to India's large population (as if having a large population automatically leads to poverty). But then I can show the example of Nepal, a glorious Hindu-Dharmic state that has never been ruled by Muslims or even the British, but is till much poorer than even India, and also has much smaller population than Turkey (which is 99% Muslim but has a per capita income over 12 times that of Nepal).

Kindly read my post again with reference to Population, Poverty and Economics. Then why Mauritius a Hindu majority country has a per capita income almost 7 times higher than India and one of the highest in the Africa ??

No, he didn't! The Marathas were not the cause for the Mughal Empire's collapse. The Marathas in the late 17th century were fighting in the Deccan, in their homelands, not in Delhi or the Indo-Gangetic Plain (the bases of Mughal power). They were only a regional power at this time.

There were many wars which Marathas fought with Mughals with almost half the numbers of the soldiers than that of Mughals, which Marathas won, it proves that Mughals did not lose because of their own fault. Read :-

The main outside force contributing to the destruction of the Mughal Empire was the Hindu Maratha Empire. Chatrapati Shivaji declared "Hindu Swarajya" (Independence for Hindus) and raised an army that could outfight the larger Mughal armies. Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav, one by one, eliminated most of the Mughal generals. Mountstart Elphinstone call this period a demolishing period for "Mussalmans" with many of them losing spirit to fight against the Maratha army. Aurangzeb lead Mughals in the war of 27 years with Marathas in which Mughal suffered defeat with heavy losses... Mughal Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why I laugh at you people. You don't know history, only mythology, yet you still pretend like you know what you are talking about.

That map from Wiki is bullshit, and looks like something a kid drew on Microsoft Paint. Here is a much better map of the period:

Pay especially close attention to the light blue state in the Deccan. That is Hyderabad State, and its territory extended within a few kilometers of Pune, the Maratha capital. So, please explain to me why the great Marathas could not even take over a second-rate Mughal successor kingdom like Hyderabad, whose territories encroached right up to the Maratha heartland itself.

As for the Maratha "Empire", it would be a stretch to even call it that. There is a reason why most people use the term "Maratha Confederacy" instead. There was never a single, unified "Maratha empire" but a bunch of individual Maratha states ruled by different clans (like Gaekwads, Holkars, Scindias, etc.). The Maratha peshwa himself governed a swathe of territory that comprises modern western Maharashtra. The Peshwa and all the Maratha clans together never ruled the whole India or even a large majority of it, contrary to what the stupid Wiki map shows. The Marathas never even ruled the whole of Maharashtra itself, as most of modern Marathwada and Vidarbha/Berar was ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, as mentioned above. The Marathas could not even liberate the whole Mararashtra itself from Muslim rule, and you are talking about Marathas defeating the whole Mughal Empire.

Lol! Your map too shows that Maratha empire was the largest empire of its era of India, so what I said was correct, a poor structure Army can not create such a vast empire. Now you must have got it. So far as the accuracy of your map is concerned there are 10s of different maps on the internet which shows the size of Maratha Empire at more or less same size, but Almost all of them shows Marathas as the biggest Empire in India os that time I can post all those maps here if you wish. Here is a one for you :-

Then, there is the other idiotic claim raised by you, concerning the relative sizes of Spain and India. Spain is over 500,000 sq. km. in area, whereas the entire Indian subcontinent is 4.4 million sq. km. And as I showed above, the Marathas came nowhere close to ruling the whole Indian subcontinent. In fact, the entire area under the effective rule of all the Maratha chiefs, plus the Peshwa, was not much larger than that of Spain itself. You should stop reading mythology and pick up a map and a real history book.

you have already lost the debate, First of all the Area of Spain is 505,992 km2 while the Area of present India is 3,287,590 km2. Marathas at their peak were encompassing 2.8 million km2 i.e. 2,800,000 km2 [ Maratha Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]. Marathas have ruled a way bigger area than that of the Spain if not ten times. Now do your math.

Then please name those "10s of wars", as I am genuinely fascinated by them.

And please don't mention that useless map ever again.

I have not taken "Theka" of enlighting you, I am mentioning one of such wars i.e. Battle of Kolhapur where 5000 Marathas cavalry won against the army of 10,000 soldiers, Your are insulting a force which fought the Longest war in the History of India for 27 years against Mughals.Read their other wars here:- Battles involving the Maratha Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Marathas lost to more Muslim invaders (Afghans). Find out what happened at Panipat in 1761.

I thought it should have been obvious by now that I am a beef- and pork-eating atheist. But since you and other "Hindus" have said several times that even an atheist can be a "Hindu", maybe I still am a "Hindu", even though I don't know what a "Hindu" is.

I have realized that you wont answer any of my questions, because you don't have the answers. On the other hand I have provided you the judgements of the H'ble SC in this regard and pointed the main points in the judgement, which you have failed to understand. The SC judgements read together with the existing Laws and the constitution makes it very easy to understand.

Please do not reply to me until you prove with SC citations that I will cease to be a Hindu after eating a Beef.

 

[ashdoc]

modern hinduism as practiced in cities like mumbai is liberal enough to accept even beef eaters as hindus . i have tried beef on a couple of occasions and told my parents about it and they were okay about it---though they wouldn't touch beef themselves .