Recent Posts
Why do Chintus celebrate Brahmahatya ?
sYQx3l
No.739
It is the highest of the mahapatakas second only to the murder of a guru or the sin of incest.
eHKHn8
No.741
>>739(OP)
no one cares, pajeet. btw, is that thangabali from chennai express in vidrel?
Pync9j
No.759
>>739(OP)
>Why do Chintus celebrate Brahmahatya ?
They don't. Chintus is a very vast term with no basis. I know far too many people who will let me slide for my sole status of Brahmin. Given that novelty and courtesy too probably has its limits. But their is no true demographic in reality outside Dalit that will celebrate the death of the pain of a specific community, be it Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra.
S4CTHt
No.1025
>>741
Nikitin Dheer (Khatri) is the son of Karna (Pankaj Dheer) from BR Chopra's Mahabharat.
Yes he is Tangaballi.He also played Ravan in new Ramayan TV series.
Married to Kratika Sengar (Rajput).
ahmRwU
No.1026
>>739(OP)
this is a bs that gets peddled. ravan was a narbhakshi and a rakshas. it does not make sense that shriram or shiv would mourn him. it is artificially inserted into our history. keep calm and jalao ravan.
p.s.: never ever take wisdom from actors.
EEFb2X
No.1027
IDd4jN
No.1029
>>1028
basado
v4MC7D
No.1030
WduiRx
No.1031
>>1030
Brahmins are not to be killed in any circumstance
C5WYFc
No.1032
>>1031
Even if one rapes your mother ?
C5WYFc
No.1033
>>1032
Oh Reserved for mullas only
v4MC7D
No.1034
>>1031
>If a Brahmana well acquainted with the Vedas takes up arms and rushes against thee in battle for killing thee, thou mayst proceed against him for taking his life. By such an act the slayer does not become guilty of the slaughter of a Brahmana. There is a mantra in the Vedas, O son of Kunti, that lays this down, I declare unto thee only those practices that are sanctioned by the authority of the Vedas. One who slays a Brahmana that has fallen away from his own duties and that advances, weapon in hand, with intent to slaughter, does not truly become the slayer of a Brahmana. In such a case it is the wrath of the slayer that proceeds against the wrath of the slain.
-Shanti Parva, Mahabharat
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a034.htm
I'm a Brahmin btw, but what you're saying is a mockery of our ancestors
C5WYFc
No.1035
>>1034
Bhai ye chutiya pseudo intellectual se ladne ka koi fayda nahi hai. Gawar hai ye bilkul
WduiRx
No.1036
>>1034
as we know that the smritis are superior to puranas and itihaasas...
WduiRx
No.1037
>>1035
so far your only contribution in this thread has been to ridicule me.
IDd4jN
No.1038
>>1035
seethe more, bhangi. fp is right
EqvQ1e
No.1039
>>1031
>Brahmins are not to be killed in any circumstance
Attharv veda, Brahmana Shathpatha, and even Shanti Parva contradicts the translations here. Manu smriti itself claims in Raja dharma verses that a Kshatriya is allowed to kill a Baman in war, in saptha and astha segments.
>Used wislib as source
Chamaro se umeed bhi yahi rehti hai. Drawing a parallel between a war and corporal punishment is retarded, even for you.
IDd4jN
No.1040
lund lele, lundbhakt
OHQRA0
No.1041
मन्वर्थविपरीता तु या स्मृतिः मा न शम्यते ॥" which means that the Manusmriti is in absolute accordance with the Vedas and their meanings
OHQRA0
No.1042
>>1039
post source for verification
OHQRA0
No.1043
>>1041
या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतयो याश्च काश्च कुदृष्टयः ।
सर्वास्ता निष्फलाः प्रेत्य तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः ॥ ९५ ॥
Those ‘revealed texts’ that are outside the Veda, as also all the false theories, are useless, even when carried to perfection; as they have been declared to be founded on ‘darkness.’—(95
OHQRA0
No.1044
>>1043
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01002.htm#:~:text=%22In%20former%20days,all%20his%20sins.
Mahabharat runs in contradiction to Manusmriti
EqvQ1e
No.1045
>>1034
This chamar does this shit on purpose, because even a low caste couldn't be this retarded. Yaar jab hum baman hi keh rahe hai it is fine, that on terms of war, Ravana was slain it really shouldn't even need further elaboration.
Par nichi jaati humesha aukaad dikha deti hai apni. Corporal punishment for lowborn, who mistranslate scriptures needs to be brought back. I genuinely hope this is a poorly done bait, and not a moron actually thinking he suddenly is able to see some contradiction that dozen of people failed to se for centuries.
>>1036
>as we know that the smritis are superior to puranas and itihaasas...
Yaar low caste, Smriti is a category, Puranas are also part of Smirti, including mahapuranas and upapuranas, only thing superior to smriti is the Shruti and attharva veda backs up what other anon said as well. What kind of argument are you even going with here?
OHQRA0
No.1046
>>1044
Devi Bhagwatam 11:1
Where you will find differences between S’ruti, Smriti and Purânas, accept the words of the S’rutis as final proofs. Wherever Smriti disagrees with the Purânas, know the Smritis more authoritative. And where differences will crop up in the S’rutis themselves, know that Dharma, too, is of two kinds. And where the differences will crop up in the Smritis themselves, consider, then, that different things are aimed at.
EqvQ1e
No.1047
>>1042
De to diya hai smiri ke naam, padh bhi liya kar low caste
EqvQ1e
No.1050
>>1049
You being born a low caste is a brutal reality that can not be changed regardless of the words I will use. If you take offense to being a low borne, be born better next time. Your fragility is not an issue for us UC's nor for the Theology.
OHQRA0
No.1051
IDd4jN
No.1052
>>1049
sachai kadwi hoti hai, fp. in lodo ko kuch samajh nhi ayega
C5WYFc
No.1053
>>1052
Samefagging bhee ache se nahi kar pata chamar randi ka pilla
OHQRA0
No.1054
>>1050
Brahmins are non-combatants in a war. Post the verse of manusmriti which allows kiling of a brahmin in war.
OHQRA0
No.1056
>>1053
I don't need to samefag, I am posting proofs, not abusing people like you and the other guy
IDd4jN
No.1057
>>1053
i'm not fp, randi ke. sudoku karle, madarchod
OHQRA0
No.1058
C5WYFc
No.1059
>>1057
Kuch to sharam karle randi ke pille , this is probably the most obvious same fag
OHQRA0
No.1060
>>1059
areyou the same modwho accused me of samefagging that day without any proofs ?
EqvQ1e
No.1062
>>1051
I gave you chapters with the name of the said scriptures. With that in mind Picking up any of the mentioned book or two couldn't be this hard even for a low borne such as you.
>Adhyaha asttha, Vyavhara Kanda, Manusmirit
>Adhyaha Dand: Vidhi, Narada Smriti
>Vyavyarahadyay, Yajnavakkya Smriti
>Sathpatha Brahmana (with YAJUR veda)
>Dvadasa Kanda, Attharva Veda
<Padhle kabhi, aaj kal tere jaise bhi padhte hai
>Wislib again
Umeed bhi yahi rehti hai chamaro se.
OHQRA0
No.1064
you haven't posted a single verse which says that its allowed to kill Brahmins in war or which says that capital punishment is allowed to be inflicted on brahmins.
I am waiting.
IDd4jN
No.1065
>>1059
loda lele muh main, madarchod. gaand me dele mere replies
EqvQ1e
No.1066
>>1060
When the fuck would you morons understand that simply IP switching won't do shit for your ISP yaar Pajeet. Mods probably feel sad by looking at chimps who thinks they are doing anything with this.
There was that entire retard on this site who chimped out over and over and over claiming no one has any proof people he was same fagging till one of us actually just posed his IP, and he went cold later. Sudharja, keep this shit to the boards like /b/hangi, why bring this retardation here.
IDd4jN
No.1067
>>1060
ignore these bhangis, fp. they can't win so accused you of sf. bunch of low t chamars
OHQRA0
No.1068
don't worry take your time, I will wait for whole week.
Ask your guru or whatever trad bhaiya is educating on discord.
EqvQ1e
No.1071
>>1054
>Brahmins are non-combatants in a war.
>Kills son of Gardua before war even starts
Again, why do you LC bring your retardation out of /b/? The entire reason none of us is bothering is because this is equivalent of a child asking us why must "an" be used before vowels.
We have gone through this, you are allowed to feel like pseudo intellectual, but don't expect us to roll with your delusions.
>>1056
>abusing
No one is interested in molesting you, yaar low caste, few curse words are not abuse, kya laga rakha hai.
OHQRA0
No.1074
>>739(OP)
>It is the highest of the mahapatakas second only to the murder of a guru or the sin of incest.
ब्रह्महत्या सुरापानं स्तेयं गुर्वङ्गनागमः ।
महान्ति पातकान्याहुः संसर्गश्चापि तैः सह ॥ ५४ ॥
>ब्रह्महत्या
Brāhmaṇa -slaying, wine-drinking, theft, intercourse with the Preceptor’s wife,—are called the ‘heinous offences,’ as also association with these.—(54)
>Brāhmaṇa -slaying
OHQRA0
No.1075
>>1073
you have not posted any verses yet. Why are trying to run away from the topic ?
OHQRA0
No.1076
mate he is done, he is just running away here and there
EqvQ1e
No.1077
>>1072
>hello, post the verse which allows killing
I literally have you exact chapters and segment, feel free to read them yaar low caste. It couldn't be this hard for even lowborne like you.
>a brahmin in or before war
Already given, also Dashanan was not killed prior to war.
>I am waiting
5000 saal se wait hi kar rahe hai tere log. Again, if you had even the shred of intellect you think you do, you would realise why no one is taking these seriously. Sudharja.
OHQRA0
No.1078
>>1077
you haven't read any of those. You just quoted random scriptures to fiddle with me.
You are dishonest.
EqvQ1e
No.1080
>>1074
Again, proven wrong in the scriptures we shared with name and chapters,nthe lack of your ability to read of your caste doesn't make it a problem on us UC's part.
>>1075
I gave you exact chapters yaar LC. I get that you are stupid to the point you actually believe you are seeing some plot hole people didn't for many years, courtesy of your caste. But that doesn't mean you should start a self glaze.
>mate he is done, he is just running away here and there
Maan ja yaar low caste, mat karwa apni bejjati
C5WYFc
No.1081
OHQRA0
No.1082
>>1080
this guy is just beating around the bush, so far he has posted 0 verse to back his claims.
I bet he CAN"T POST A SINGLE VERSE TO BACK HIS CLAIMS. because non exist, he knows it but he is just resorting to ad-homines to save his face.
OHQRA0
No.1083
>>1081
nope I wrote that intentionally
OHQRA0
No.1084
EqvQ1e
No.1085
>>1078
>you haven't read any of those.
Yaar LC, not everyone was raised on flea bottom of their religious hierarchy.
>You just quoted random scriptures to fiddle with me.
Padha toh hai nahi? Turant aulad dikhate ho tum nichi jaat wale.
>You are dishonest.
Cope ki seema hoti hai.
>>1079
>inb4 purana
How is any of the scriptures i provided purana?
IDd4jN
No.1086
two bhangis got brvtally buck broken by fp 
OHQRA0
No.1087
OHQRA0
No.1088
>>1086
just ad-hominems. They are not R1a1a. Thats why Indra hated them. Dasyus are born dishonest.
OHQRA0
No.1089
I am going back to study this for now.
https://bharatchan.com/board/rta/thread/1006
I will check this thread tomorrow for your verses.
EqvQ1e
No.1090
>>1082
>File name
I get that meeting your own lack of importance in Varna based hierarchy is tough for you and you genuinely wish to find flaws. But chimping out outside low IQ boards like /b/ is a poor look on you.
>This guy
Who are you even talking to? Without a doubt the only person who is unintelligent enough to fight a lost argument here is you anon, there is no real audience you are trying to talk to in this fictional show you have built in your head.
>because non exist
Look at the way you are hurriedly typing for the desperate internet win that doesn't exist. This is funny on boards like b, it's really sad outside it.
Mat karwa yaar bejjati apni.
C5WYFc
No.1092
गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा ब्राह्मणं वा बहुश्रुतम् । आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन् ॥ ८.३५० ॥
C5WYFc
No.1094
>>1093
गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा ब्राह्मणं वा बहुश्रुतम् । आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन् ॥ ८.३५० ॥
C5WYFc
No.1095
>>1093
Reply? Sasti rand ke pille
IDd4jN
No.1096
>>1095
fp hasn't used a single curse word, and still won. that alone shows how much a low iq bhangi you are. abhi bhi waqt hai sudoku karle
OHQRA0
No.1097
>>1094
don't embarass yourself. You are quoting a verse from manusmriti without even knowing what it means. I have already posted a succeding verse from that same chapter.
Don't engage if you don't have proper knowledge. I haven't mocked you once.
C5WYFc
No.1098
>>1093
Translation for pseudo intellectual bhangis like you :
चाहे गुरू हो, चाहे पुत्र आदिक बालक हों, चाहे पिता आदि वृद्ध चाहे ब्राह्मण और चाहे बहुत शास्त्रों का श्रोता क्यों न हो जो धर्म को छोड़ अधर्म में वर्तमान, दूसरे को बिना अपराध मारने वाले हैं उनको बिना विचारे मार डालना अर्थात् मारके पश्चात् विचार करना चाहिए
manusmriti adhyay 8, verse 350
C5WYFc
No.1099
>>1097
This is the cope?
C5WYFc
No.1100
>>1096
Kitni samefagging karega, ab toh teri randi ammi ke madarse se aane ka time bhee hogaya hoga
IDd4jN
No.1101
>>1100
fp really butt fucked you hard, faggot. seethe more
C5WYFc
No.1102
>>1097
Provide complete explanation if you have one, to further humiliate yourself. Or just go about your day declaring yourself the winner like a randiputra.
C5WYFc
No.1103
>>1101
चाहे गुरू हो, चाहे पुत्र आदिक बालक हों, चाहे पिता आदि वृद्ध चाहे ब्राह्मण और चाहे बहुत शास्त्रों का श्रोता क्यों न हो जो धर्म को छोड़ अधर्म में वर्तमान, दूसरे को बिना अपराध मारने वाले हैं उनको बिना विचारे मार डालना अर्थात् मारके पश्चात् विचार करना चाहिए
Read more at Aryamantavya: गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा ब्राह्मणं वा बहुश्रुतम् । आततायिनं आयान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन्
EqvQ1e
No.1104
>>1092
We all are not allowed to share verses with low caste non Dwija yaar, you know this as well as I do. Which is why no one does it in the very first place. Him reading them on his won matter is a different matter entirely. Anyways, what is done is done.
>>1093
>>1097
>I gave succeeding verse
>Can't read sanskrit
Nichi jaat se umeed bhi yahi rhti hai.
C5WYFc
No.1105
I am waiting for a reply
EqvQ1e
No.1106
>>1101
Yaar same fagger, apni hi kitni chatega
C5WYFc
No.1107
>>1104
Bhai iss chamar se bhais karne ka koi fayda nahi hai maine khud hi starting me likha diya tha
EqvQ1e
No.1108
>>1105
Kya hi bolega, the entire argument neven even existed because anyone who quoted that verse would have known the next verses in the same chapter. Low caste will lose some melanin and actually think they are human beings. Absolute state. This entire thread is a joke, and should've been on /b/
C5WYFc
No.1109
>>1104
Hmm, shouldn't have done that
EqvQ1e
No.1110
>>1107
I would have quoted every verse myself, as i usually do, the irony is he is using a book as an argument that asks us to not share the verses with likes of him. Why do LC's bother trying?
Lack of intellect always outs then. Dysgenic who thinks they are evolved beings are even inferior to normal LC's.
OHQRA0
No.1111
>>1098
its meant for an assasin
it doesn't command to kill
in the succeeding chapter Manu says
ब्रह्महत्या सुरापानं स्तेयं गुर्वङ्गनागमः ।
महान्ति पातकान्याहुः संसर्गश्चापि तैः सह ॥ ५४ ॥
Manu being well versed in lawmaking won't make contradictory statements. Thats why he differentiated b/w "fight" and "kill".
C5WYFc
No.1113
I won't give dimwits like you any further reply
ब्रह्महत्या सुरापानं स्तेयं गुर्वङ्गनागमः ।महान्ति पातकान्याहुः संसर्गश्चापि तैः सह ।।11/54
यह श्लोक प्रक्षिप्त है अतः मूल मनुस्मृति का भाग नहीं है
OHQRA0
No.1114
IDd4jN
No.1117
>>1112
lmao, they're still at it? even after brvtally buck broken by you?
OHQRA0
No.1118
>>1103
tafseer by Medhatithi (agrees with me)
>That man is called a ‘desperado’ who is intent upon destroying one’s body, property, wife or children. Such a man one ‘should strike without hesitation.’
>The mention of the ‘preceptor’ and the rest is purely by way of a commendatory declamation; the sense being—‘when even such persons deserve to be struck, what of others?’ As a matter of fact, in the case of the persons named, there is to be no killing, even though they be desperados; since from what has been said under the text—‘He shall never offend the teacher who explained the Veda, etc.’ (4.162)—it is clear that the striking of the preceptor is forbidden, even if he do harm
8CORxm
No.1119
>>1026
Honestly, even beyond that Ravana would be a Varna Sankar which kind of invalidates the entire law and protection against him in the first place.
4P5dX4
No.1120
>>1119
So why was Guru Dhronacharya killed in Mahabharat?
8CORxm
No.1121
>>1111
False argument because it never uses the term such as Hanta or Kupahanta was also under the Dwija status, if we go by law of him abiding to his Varna. Manu indeed infact didn't make any contradiction.
since Ravana was killed in a war, it abides by "Hanyat" term used in the sloka that is given by other anon. You are kind of dragging it and its really sad to look at. Like we said, you could just read the verses you are using for your argument rather than relying on internet to have a false sense of intellectualism. It's just a bad look.
>>1114
Are you incapable of reading? Prashyipt has just meant these terms are interpolation and are not found in core Manusmirit.
>>1118
>tafseer
Red herring, since you are tackling philosophical element of it, but even if anyone was to factor it, opinion of low borne kind of don't matter much in Aryan theology.
>Godcha: Lc
OHQRA0
No.1122
>>1119
Ravana was a Brahmin by birth, being the son of the Brahmin sage Vishrava and the Rakshasa princess Kaikesi, which makes him a Brahma-Rakshasa. His lineage included Rishi Pulastya, one of Brahma's sons, and he was known for his deep learning and scholarship in the Vedas and other sacred texts.
You will find even passages in Mahabharata which declare Ravan as a learned Brahmin.
Anyway this discussion was more about Brahmins in general. I am not defending Ravana as you can see here >>1028
I just posted a reel in response.
and here >>1031
I diverted the conversation towards Brahmins in general.
8CORxm
No.1125
>>1122
>Ravana was a Brahmin by birth,
Nope, Varna Sankar, Kaikai was not a Brahmin that makes it entirely irrelevant.
OHQRA0
No.1127
>>1121
I concede that Ravana was not Brahmin by birth. But he wasn't varnasankara either.
एषोहिताग्निश्च महातपाश्च।
वेदन्तगः कर्मसु चाग्र्यशूरः।
एतस्य यत्प्रेतगतस्य कृत्यं।
तत्कर्तुमिच्छामि तव प्रसादात्॥ ६-१०९-२३
He was of mixed heritage, never explictly mentioned as varnasankara or Brahmin. He had almost all of the noble characterstics of a Brahmin.
But this has little to do with Brahmins and the whole conversation at this point.
I was specifically arguing about Brahmhatya.
I concede that Ravana was not Brahmin.
OHQRA0
No.1129
>>1121
>it never uses the term such as Hanta or Kupahanta was also under the Dwija status
even if I ignore medhatithi. I will still stick to my original point that there is a difference between "striking" and "killing".
As for Ravana I've already concluded my thoughts above.
>since you are tackling philosophical element of it
nope, I am tackling a technical element.
8CORxm
No.1130
>>1127
>I concede that Ravana was not Brahmin by birth. But he wasn't varnasankara either.
He is, infact he would be lower than even than 24 Varna Sankar that exist under Shudras (in also an order, where khatri are 8 steps below chamar, jaat and rors even below them) according to the Gaurama Shastra.
Again, he was of mixed heritage but that is due to his race, since Manava and Rakshasa are race and not Varnas. The issue here comes from his mother not being of Brahmin Varna, that makes him a Varna Sankar, or technically lower than one.
Regardless, while the initial point of the thread was about low borne seething about Hindus and their celebration, that's willing ignorance. Ram was punished prior hand was killing of Ravana (Saryu Dhara chronicles) being son of Brahmin,
but even beyond that like prior scriptures claim that war doesn't care for Varna, with two veda backing it up as well, along side the Brahmana: Satapatha. Regardless
>>1126
More importantly, why is such a non sensical thread even allowed to exist anywhere outside /b/ in the first place?
OHQRA0
No.1131
>>1121
>Prashyipt
and do you know who made that claim ? The modern Ambedkarite university educated scholar who go on defensive/denial mode about the treatment of shudras etc in Manusmriti and other Hindu texts.
8CORxm
No.1132
>>1129
>there is a difference between "striking" and "killing".
However since the difference is not used in the said sloka that renders the argument as red herring, making it unrelated to the discussion, and invalidating it for further use.
>>1129
>nope, I am tackling a technical element.
False sense of confidence in non existent logic of subject. The morality behind who can and can not kill is entirely philosophical. However to say project those morality is from a Non Arya faith or a non Arya (mudslimes lowbornes) will itself not be treated as anything of worth and value and by principle be considered to even devalue your argument.
OHQRA0
No.1133
>>1130
I have already concluded my thoughts on Ravana. It doesn't add anything more to the central conversation, I can go long ahead arguing with you about his status in Varna heirarchy or even outside of it but that is irrelevant at this point.
>war doesn't care for Varna, with two veda backing it up as well, along side the Brahmana: Satapatha
of which you haven't posted a SINGLE verse yet, unlike me who has given multiple verses about the fact that BRAHMINS ARE NOT BE BE KILLED.
8CORxm
No.1134
>>1131
Feel free to provide source for that, however it is not relevant regardless. Since the scriptures do clarify it is ok to kill a Brahmin based on different circumstances where he is a constant, unlike a corporal punishment (which was witnessed even in modern times were Brahmins would get killed in a war, however they would simply be asked to leave for crime as non combatant) the context for both are plain and easy different.
8CORxm
No.1135
>>1133
>of which you haven't posted a SINGLE verse yet, unlike me who has given multiple verses about the fact that BRAHMINS ARE NOT BE BE KILLED.
Entirely unrelated to original post, like i said you have been provided with the name of the book, and chapters, it can be easily tallied by you or anyone else that uses this board.
If you are not literate enough to read the said scriptures and this is a shit post, then it is fine to leave the subject. You could also fundamentally read the chapter you provided.
Again, what we are staring is a well known fact, while what you are stating is a protest making the burden of proof on you rather than rest of us. I feel like you are not literate on how argument works.
OHQRA0
No.1136
>>1132
>However since the difference is not used in the said sloka that renders the argument as red herring, making it unrelated to the discussion, and invalidating it for further use.
here is what medhatithi says about the status of assailant (in agreement with me)
That man is called a ‘desperado’ who is intent upon destroying one’s body, property, wife or children. Such a man one ‘should strike without hesitation.
>The revered teachers have declared as follows:—Though, in reality, the injunction contained in the text is that ‘one should strike the desperado,’ and all the rest is merely declamatory,—yet it has to be taken as sanctioning the striking of the preceptor and other persons mentioned. Because the mere ‘malefactor’ (who is mentioned in 4.162, as not to be offended) is something quite different from the ‘desperado’;—one who inflicts an ordinary injury, which does not involve any serious harm to the body, etc., is the ‘malefactor’; while the ‘desperado’ is something totally different;—being described in the following words.—‘Ho who has lifted the sword, who is going to strike with poison or Are, who has raised his hands for the purpose of pronouncing a curse, who is going to kill by means of magic spells, who backbites against one to the king, who violates one’s wife, who is ever intent upon finding fault with one,—all these should be regarded as desperados?
>The mention of the ‘preceptor’ and the rest is purely by way of a commendatory declamation; the sense being—‘when even such persons deserve to be struck, what of others?’ As a matter of fact, in the case of the persons named, there is to be no killing, even though they be desperados; since from what has been said under the text—‘He shall never offend the teacher who explained the Veda, etc.’ (4.162)—it is clear that the striking of the preceptor is forbidden, even if he do harm
8CORxm
No.1137
>>1131
>The modern Ambedkarite university educated scholar who go on defensive/denial mode about the treatment of shudras etc in Manusmriti and other Hindu texts.
I do not understand why you would feel like that is really going to reduce weightage of a factual opinion, specially when you and the said scholar fall in same hierarchy before most of us UC's.
By claiming his argument and claim can not be taken seriously, same can be done to yours with you being strictly inferior and most of us kind of refusing to entertain it.
Refuse to bring your internalised castiesm on the subject, a reminder this is not /b/
4P5dX4
No.1138
>>1123
but wasn't this debunked here?
>>1058
>>1128
Got it, I don’t claim to be very learned on this matter but here’s, here's something I found:
>Manusmṛti 8.348–349
शस्त्रं द्विजातिभिर्ग्राह्यं धर्मो यत्रोपरुध्यते ।
द्विजातीनां च वर्णानां विप्लवे कालकारिते ॥ ३४८ ॥
आत्मनश्च परित्राणे दक्षिणानां च सङ्गरे ।
स्त्रीविप्राभ्युपपत्तौ च घ्नन् धर्मेण न दुष्यति ॥ ३४९ ॥
“Twice-born persons may take up arms when dharma is obstructed or there is social disorder caused by the exigencies of the time. In self-defence, to protect sacrificial fees, in cases of outrages against Brāhmaṇas and women — if one strikes in the cause of right, one does not incur sin.”
it isn’t an explicit statement that a Brahmin who fights loses his varna, it’s a legal/ethical permission for defensive action. Some later commentators and other smṛtis interpret or paraphrase the legal consequences more forcefully, which is why you see statements like “a Brahmin who fights loses his protection” floating around, that’s an interpretation, not a literal quote from these two verses.
Overall, I think you are correct here.
OHQRA0
No.1139
>>1132
Its not a question of morality. Even medhatithi approached it from a purely technical POV.
Laws have a technical nature, the philosophical nature is argued outside such discussions like Medhatithi did. Because the philosophical roots originate outside of the concerned text.
We are arguing the laws in the court not in the parliament. We are approaching this as Lawyers not Lawmakers.
8CORxm
No.1141
>>1136
Again, that is a comment or which doesn't fall heavier than actuall scripture itself. Once again, the scriptures i named pretty much prove the said comment wrong and even if it is taken at face value, the commentary is kind of nothing.
Even if we accept what he says at face value, he is essentially saying that "no one can be killed, since who do we have the right to kill".
A hypothetical example of this would be with this being referenced by other anon, "what if the said brahmin rapes your mother" (violates a woman) as megaditi brings up (which pretty much does translate to none should be really struck anyone and the right to violate your mother is infact just reserved for muslims)
The idea is not a Brahmin can not be killed as he rapes your mother. The idea is a Brahmin simply is not interested in raping your mother, the said small harm (could be a slap) is different from him hitting you with an arrow that may hit you like a nuke (astra) or violate your women.
>when even such persons deserve to be struck, what of others?
Implies if brahmin won't be spared for raping your mother, you should massacre a Muzzie for doing such. I don't know why I need to explain this when this is not even in sanskrit.
OHQRA0
No.1142
>>1137
because its in Kuluka Bhatta's tika.
You are siding with an apologist (a self-hating brahmin under the influence of christian morality where everyone is born equal)
OHQRA0
No.1143
>>1141
read Medhatithi again
>It may be possible to construe the term ‘gurum’ with ‘ālatāyinam’;—hut in that case the two terms would mean ‘the great desperado’; so that the striking of desperados who are not ‘great’ would become precluded;—why?—because there is no other text (that would enjoin striking in their case).
>“But there is the next verse—‘there is no sin in killing a desperado,’ which permits the killing of all desperados in general.”
>Not so; because we do not find any injunctive word in the next verse, which, on that account is best taken as a declamatory supplement to the previous injunction (contained in the present verse).
>The revered teachers have declared as follows:—Though, in reality, the injunction contained in the text is that ‘one should strike the desperado,’ and all the rest is merely declamatory,—yet it has to be taken as sanctioning the striking of the preceptor and other persons mentioned.
>Further, the present text does not sanction the striking in one’s own defence only (in which case alone the above-mentioned meaning of the epithet would be applicable); since that has been already provided for in the foregoing verse.—(350)
a western scholar quoting Indian scholars about not killing the assailant
>“According to Kullūka the condition is that one must be unable to save one self by fight;—according to Nārāyaṇa one must not wound such a man excessively.”—Buhler.
about not "killing" Brahmins even if they attack you, now "fighting to defend oneself" is a different ball game
>This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 784), which adds the following explanation:—‘When even the Teacher and the rest, if they are assassins, may be slain—what to say of others;’—which only means that there is nothing wrong in the slaying of assassins other than the Teacher and the rest; it is not meant that these latter are to be slain; because we have the general prohibition that ‘no Brāhmaṇa shall be killed.
they align with me
kPwccL
No.1144
>>1138
>but wasn't this debunked here?
The debunk works under the idea that their is no law that has greater authority on the subject but both multiple smriti and Shruti do clarify it is fine to kill a Brahmin who is a combatant in a war.
This can be understood well by Drona being killed but no one recieving curse of shame for the said action. As it was mutually agreed war on both sides.
The sloka
>शस्त्रं द्विजातिभिर्ग्राह्यं धर्मो यत्रोपरुध्यते ।
>द्विजातीनां च वर्णानां विप्लवे कालकारिते ॥ ३४८ ॥
>आत्मनश्च परित्राणे दक्षिणानां च सङ्गरे ।
>स्त्रीविप्राभ्युपपत्तौ च घ्नन् धर्मेण न दुष्यति ॥ ३४९ ॥
Brings up wether a woman and brahmin can be defended or not, but doesn't address can one be held liable for killing a Brahmin or a woman, as it becomes irrelevant entirely, it's unrelated to the subject.
<It also doesn't mention Brahmin in the sloka but uses the term Vipra which becomes a very very specific sub class of the Varna.
>>1139
>Even medhatithi approached it from a purely technical POV.
Strawman, since he pretty much is taking the philosophical approach that most Brahmins and other Hindus understand as extension of their culture naturally.
>If a Brahmin rapes your woman
<You will defend her and kill him
>If a Muzzie rapes your woman
<Just imagine what you should do
The idea was strictly if Brahmins are held to be accountable for actions by Varna, then the law will go equally. Willingly ignoring something that is written so clearly is again, a simply bad faith argument, which is fine on /b/ and kind of really sad on other boards.
>>1139
>We are arguing the laws in the court not in the parliament. We are approaching this as Lawyers not Lawmakers.
Except I am approaching this as Lawmaker, since the laws were made my my clan and I am directly the subject this law concerns, again that is a poor argument and a red herring making it irrelevant entirely to the discussion, since this is not a discussion about a mythical race doesn't exist but about Vipra, with Vipras.
>>1140
Burden of proof, since you are protesting against a well known fact. You are not forced to do it now and you are free to do it in future or your life time. This would be me asking you to prove that Allah does exist, and you asking me to prove he doesn't, when their is obligation on me, it is well known fact already.
>>1142
You are projecting your false sense of superiority without being superior here. You assume what a Brahmin feels like on the subject without being one and I don't hold it against you.
One doesn't need to feel bad about action of anyone when i personally align with them, but that isn't due to disdain towards low caste like you but simply orthodox nature of scripture. If it asks me to do not hold them in contempt I will not and if it asks me to not share scriptures with you or not consider you lesser, i will do that.
Both do not contradict each other. Similarly even if the person has personal belief that does not align with me, it doesn't make everything that he says wrong, making him right. Confirmation bias is a poor look on anyone debating theology, and ill fitting a Dwija.
>>1143
Read it again, it serves as a disclaimer remark based on unlikely nature of the subject. That is not to say it can not be performed, but again it is rendered invalid due to other scriptures backing up that you can infact kill a said Combatant regardless of his Varna.
Also this is kind of cherry picking because it is pretty much common sense of most comments that if you can kill in defence of a desperado, it is only natural to kiss a great desperado.
Again, this is cherry picking and isn't the said scripture itself. The entire argument is poorly done because you have not quoted the actually sloka either but a translation of them, again that turns it in bad
kPwccL
No.1145
>>1143
On that subject you have not provided a single actually sloka here either, also making the entire argument irrelevant.
OHQRA0
No.1146
>>1144
>he pretty much is taking the philosophical approach
nope he is strictly being technical by quoting verses and their interpretations repeatedly from the manusmriti itself.
>The idea was strictly if Brahmins are held to be accountable for actions by Varna, then the law will go equally.
I am asking your one more time to post the exact verse to back this claim.
>laws were made by my clan
🤣
I will tackle you some other day on this claim of yours. Its irrelevant for now since it will derail the hole thread.
>since you are protesting against a well known fact
there is no well known fact that you speak of. You are just pulling your thoughts from your own dreamworld.
>asking you to prove that Allah does exist
I am not muslim but still your analogy is incorrect since you haven't even quoted any source to back your so called "well established facts".
>You are projecting your false sense of superiority without being superior here
can you quote a single pre-british brahmin scholar who claims that the specific verse is not a part of the मूल मनुस्मृति ?
By this logic you will certainly start quoting Dr. BR Ambedkar to back your weakly founded claims about Hindu scriptures.
>other scriptures backing up that you can infact kill a said Combatant regardless of his Varna
again post verse, you haven't any so far
To summarize, you didn't add anything significant to the central conversations with that wall of textof yours. It was more like directed against me like you previous comments.
I am quoting scriptures while you are just resorting to diffrent sorts of frivolous methods just to own me.
>This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 784), which adds the following explanation:—‘When even the Teacher and the rest, if they are assassins, may be slain—what to say of others;’—which only means that there is nothing wrong in the slaying of assassins other than the Teacher and the rest; it is not meant that these latter are to be slain; because we have the general prohibition that ‘no Brāhmaṇa shall be killed.
post something solid or don't reply, you are wasting my time
leSKJa
No.1200
>>1146
>nope he is strictly being technical by quoting verses and their interpretations repeatedly from the manusmriti itself.
False equivalence again. Discarded.
>>1146
>I am asking your one more time to post the exact verse to back this claim.
I have given you all the books, feel free to read it again, burden of proof is on you, not me. I do not understand why I need to repeat this.
>>1146
>I will tackle you some other day on this claim of yours.
>Its irrelevant for now since it will derail the hole thread.
Nothing of sort will happen. Using bhangimoji is a bad look, specially after shifting the goal post, trait associated to lack of intelligence.
>>1146
>there is no well known fact that you speak of. You are just pulling your thoughts from your own dreamworld.
Perhaps in your bubble that complies to your fantasies the same way NOI complies to thought of African Americans.
What I stated is very much the well known fact among Dwijas, specially the Brahmin community. You are drawing conclusion by using uneducated guess as foundation here. Bad faith argument.
>>1146
>I am not muslim
Never claimed you are.
>but still your analogy is incorrect since you haven't even quoted any source to back your so called "well established facts".
I quoted you the exact chapters and you not being able to read them, is again, intellectual barrier on your part, rendering everything you say irrelevant on the subject. This would be same as you asking me to sing to you in person since you can't read it properly on screen or look it up.
>>1146
>can you quote a single pre-british brahmin scholar who claims that the specific verse is not a part of the मूल मनुस्मृति ?
Don't need, since common belief neither needs to be documented nor well preserved. This also is contextual because Smirti are gate kept from non Dwijas, let alone non Arya's, making this a logically fallacy as well. Refrain from using it again, or i will believe you lack basic literacy.
>By this logic you will certainly start quoting Dr. BR Ambedkar to back your weakly founded claims about Hindu scriptures.
Again, by trying to use a low caste as means to demerit a statement you are similarly demeriting your entire statement, since it puts you both in same spot before Dwijas like me. I could easily use same argument that a low borne's opinion on subject is entirely irrelevant to me. (It is)
Regardless this is just strawman, as this has not much to do with Bhimrao, except for you and him being equall in authority on the subject.
>>1146
>again post verse, you haven't any so far
Again, already gave you chapters, if you don't have the scriptures or you can't read sanskrit, then you are not qualified to have an argument in the first place. I will assume you simply are going by internet in hopes of being able to counter it on the go without having read the scriptures at all.
>>1146
>To summarize, you didn't add anything significant to the central conversations
Shifted goal post, worthless opinion. Discarded.
>with that wall of textof yours. It was more like directed against me like you previous comments.
Please learn basic grammar, thread started with Ravan's death being celebrated despite it being Bramha Hatya, which being disproven lead to you shifting the goal post, making all your arguments lose any weight despite not having much.
>I am quoting scriptures
You are quoting translations, logical fallacy.
>while you are just resorting to diffrent sorts of frivolous methods just to own me.
Their is no need to own you, since their never was an argument in the first place. You are the only one clinging to idea of being right, against an established objective fact.
If anons are disagreeing with you on this board due to your status as a low borne or correcting you, refrain from taking it personally. If you are afraid of doing so, refrain from engaging in an argument you are afraid of.
>>1146
<post something solid or don't reply
<you are wasting your time
leSKJa
No.1201
>>1143
I shouldn't need to say this again but since you only have provided translation and commentary here, all four of the said commentators in the sanskrit comments do agree that it is perfectly right to defend oneself against brahmin if the said circumstances meets the criteria (already provided before)
Which is something the other anon did even reference by "what if the Brahmin rapes your mom?" Followed by a "that right is reserved for muslims", where it both raises a point that if you are ok with killing a Brahmin to defend a woman, you should be capable of doing same with the low borne's, however if you are not then who is it that you are truly qualified to kill, and it went over your head. Refer to picrel.
Madanaparajata specifically establishes that the hyperbole here is used due to unlikely nature of the said person, that would be the said Brahmin resorting to the said act here, HOWEVER since it is hyperbole from a philosophical point to set a bad, it still will apply if it were to happen literally.
The idea of hyperbole is to "set the bar" that if a Brahmin, (Drona) was raising weapon against you, you had all the rights to kill him. This would be naturally reasonable since Manusmriti also understood a Brahmin could be under the thread from another Brahmin, and Kshatriya must do what he needs to go protect his guru.
As parajata goes on to explain, the "emphasis" is not upon the idea of us brahmin being immune to consequences of our actions but rather us all being subjected to it same as others, making the same consequences significantly worse for the other Varna, specially lowbornes like you.
Kulkuka and Narayana are only one who go on to state one should try to fight them off and see if they truly do "qualify" under the classification of being "desperado" but if they do, again it is still fine to kill them.
This is more of a "avoid doing so unless" rather than "this is not exactly true" , you are basically providing commentary (translations of) on the scripture which devalues the point you are here trying to prove.
The argument is essentially non existent and it would be treated as a troll for anyone who knows what he is talking about due to lack of coherence and logical fallacy followed by shifted goal oost, but perhaps you genuinely do think this is right and are not smart enough to see why, since you didn't bother reading it, or you simply don't know how to read it, (partially being why we can't take this thread seriously, beyond the scriptures being misquoted.)
More importantly the worst false equivalence you used was by using meghaditti (translation) 8.350 was focused on idea that by allowing one to defend against a Brahmin, doesn't mean it is ok to kill a non combatant brahmin, of it is now a green light to kill us Brahmins with no hesitation and it was same as ever other life, but it does claim that that regardless of who it is that one attacks or commits crime suiting criteria shall be death to death.
>(Drona raising astra and having killed a child qualified for death, specially since the laws of the said war were broken taking away any and all form of remaining moral or spiritual immunity he may have had)
Again, the two out of three commentary that you believe are helping you win your favour are here directly contradicting the point you are making, which i am forced to believe is due to a lack of basic comprehension, it simply renders any of us from having any reason to quote scriptures to a low borne, when it contradicts it's teachings.
The commentary was also clarifying how death of brahmin kill is exception and not something that was to be done, on a frequent basis, as they were afraid that the non Brahmins and all the low borne's will mistranslate and misunderstand the quo... Oh wait... Are yaar Dada Manu
0QQJKT
No.1202
>>1200
>False equivalence again. Discarded.
😒
>Medhatithi's commentary on the Manusmriti, known as Manubhāṣya, is primarily technical rather than philosophical. Drawing heavily on the exegetical principles of the Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy, Medhatithi focuses on legal interpretation and the practical application of dharma
source:
Mimamsa in Medhatithi (study)
by A. R. Joshi | 1982
😘
>I have given you all the books, feel free to read it again
🤔
so, apparently these are your sources, but you are unable to pinpoint the exact verses in any of them (because none exist) >>1062
>Adhyaha asttha, Vyavhara Kanda, Manusmirit
>Chapter 8 Manusmriti
nowhere under ANY circumstance does it says that killing a Brahmin or subjecting him to capital punishment is permitted. All it says is that Brahmins who committed severe crimes were not executed but were instead punished with branding and banishment.
Surah 8, Ayat 124 (🤣)
न जातु ब्राह्मणं हन्यात् सर्वपापेष्वपि स्थितम् ।
राष्ट्रादेनं बहिः कुर्यात् समग्रधनमक्षतम् ॥ ३८० ॥
Manu Svāyambhuva has named ten places for punishment, where it should be inflicted in the case of the three castes; but the Brāhmaṇa shall depart unscathed.
👌
Surah 8, Ayat 379
मौण्ड्यं प्राणान्तिकं दण्डो ब्राह्मणस्य विधीयते ।
इतरेषां तु वर्णानां दण्डः प्राणान्तिको भवेत् ॥ ३७९ ॥
Tonsure has been prescribed as the death-penalty for the Brāhmaṇa; for other castes the penalty would be actual death.
😂
>Adhyaha Dand: Vidhi, Narada Smriti
Chapter on Punishments: Law, Narad Smriti
🤦♂️
first of all you should had known that not even a single version of Narad Smriti is even completely available to us as of now, but since you haven't read it I am giving you this much liberty considering your inferior birth status which has rendered you incapable to make sense of any technicalities involved in the comprehension of Hindu scriptures.
But lets dive into the available part of Narada Smriti on the treatment of convicted Brahmins for now,
>Nārada (Punishments, 41-439).—‘Let him not on any account kill a Brāhmaṇa, though convicted of all crimes; he may at pleasure cause him to be banished; let the King take his entire wealth from him, or leave a fourth part of it; for four offences of a Brāhmaṇa, branding has been ordained.
>Nārada (Punishments, 36-37).—‘Svāyambhuva Manu has declared ten spots of punishment which should be selected in punishing the lower castes; a Brāhmaṇa should remain uninjured always;—those places are the privy parts, the belly, the tongue, the two hands, and fifthly, the two feet; as well as the eye, the nose, the two ears, the property and the body.’
😘
>>Vyavyarahadyay, Yajnavakkya Smriti
Section on Behavioural Conduct, Yajnavakkya Smriti
🤷♂️
>The Brāhmaṇas use to enjoy special privileges and immunities as a result of their superior position in the society, which may be observed in the Vyavahārādhyāya of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. It is made a legal obligation on the part of the King to erect suitable buildings in the city and to settle there the Brāhmaṇas, versed in the three Vedas. Moreover, they are provided with livelihood and asked to observe or protect their own dharma
Yajnavakkya Smriti maintains a principle of varna based legislation, in which Brahmins are never to be subjected to capital punishment when convicted for ANY crime.
tulāstrībālavṛddhāndhapaṅgubrāhmaṇarogiṇām |
agnir jalaṃ vā śūdrasya yavāḥ sapta viṣasya vā || Yajnavakkya Smriti 2.98
The ordeal by balance, which is the easiest form of all the ordeals, is prescribed for the Brāhmaṇas and on the other hand, the Śūdras are subjected to the severest form of ordeal, i.e. by poison weighing seven barleycorns
😁
cauraṃ pradāpyāpahṛtaṃ ghātayodvividhairvadhaiḥ/ sacihnaṃ brāhmaṇaṃ kṛtvā svarāṣṭrādvipravāsayet// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.270
Yājñavalkya prescribes branding and banishment for the Brāhmaṇa as the highest penalty but o
0QQJKT
No.1203
>>1202
[contd...]
Yājñavalkya prescribes branding and banishment for the Brāhmaṇa as the highest penalty but other modes of punishments are recommended for other castes.
😉
>Sathpatha Brahmana (with YAJUR veda)
🤣🤣🤣🤣
lmao even this one directly mandates in my favour
Kāṇḍa 11, Adhyāya 5, Brāhmaṇa 7
>athātaḥ svādhyāyapraśaṃsā priye svādhyāyapravacane bhavato yuktamanā bhavatyaparādhīno'harahararthāntsādhayate sukhaṃ svapiti paramacikitsaka ātmano bhavatīndriyasaṃyamaścaikārāmatā ca prajñāṛddhiryaśo lokapaktiḥ prajñā vardhamānā caturo dharmānbrāhmaṇamabhiniṣpādayati brāhmaṇyam pratirūpacaryāṃ yaśo lokapaktiṃ lokaḥ pacyamānaścaturbhirdharmairbrāhmaṇam bhunaktyarcayā ca dānena cājyeyatayā cāvadhyatayā ca
Now, then, the praise of the study (of the scriptures). The study and teaching (of the Veda) are a source of pleasure to him, he becomes ready-minded, and independent of others, and day by day he acquires wealth. He sleeps peacefully; he is the best physician for himself; and (peculiar) to him are restraint of the senses, delight in the one thing, growth of intelligence, fame, and the (task of) perfecting the people. The growing intelligence gives rise to four duties attaching to the Brahmana—Brahmanical descent, a befitting deportment, fame, and the perfecting of the people; and the people that are being perfected guard the Brahmana by four duties—by (showing him) respect, and liberality, (and by granting him) security against oppression, and security against capital punishment.
>and security against capital punishment.
>security against capital punishment.
>and security against capital punishment.
>security against capital punishment.
🤭
>Dvadasa Kanda, Attharva Veda
N1gg@ really ? now you are trying to quote Vedas directly ? You do realize that your kind is hated by Indra ? Do you even realize that Brahmin haters all over consider Atharva Veda as the primary legal armament of Aryans (Brahmins), even before Manusmriti ? Even the basis of Manu's law is vastly derived from the injunctions of Atharva Veda.
but still lets see what does it have to say on this subject
🤨
Atharvaveda 12.5.62, which is a heart-felt curse directed towards the molestors of Brahma sages.
vr̥ścá prá vr̥śca sáṃ vr̥śca
dáha prá daha sáṃ daha
brahmajyáṃ devy aghnya
ā́ mū́lād anusáṃdaha
“Rip, rip on, rip all,
Burn, burn on, burn all,
Him the molestor of sage, O Devi Aghnya!
From his bottom, burn him all over”
Thats it. Atharva Veda doesn't prescribe any punishment against brahmins. It prescribes punishments only againsts the Dasyus and Mlechhas who create hurdles for the Aryans or Aryan way of life.
🥰😗😙
Now I have exhausted all of your "sources" which were apparently supposed to back your claims.
You are a typical dishonest Dasyu (ironically uses arya flag). I would have dealt with you in a different manner if we still were in those good old times.
>Using bhangimoji is a bad look
🤡
rest of your post is directed against me on a personally level, thus not worthy of addressing in this thread since I could easily put you to the task anytime on /b/. But its my nature that I don't hold a grudges against people in general and i am quick to forgive. Maintaining a gentle disposition takes primacy over anything else for me.
[contd...]
39Ibuh
No.1204
>>1203
[contd.]
now addressing this wall of text 🤞
>>1201
>Madanaparajata specifically establishes that the hyperbole here is used due to unlikely nature of the said person, that would be the said Brahmin resorting to the said act here
yes Madanaparajata establishes that the Verse 8.350 has hyperbolic intonations. Thats why he concludes-
>"it is not meant that these latter are to be slain; because we have the general prohibition that ‘no Brāhmaṇa shall be killed.’
>it still will apply if it were to happen literally
don't put your words in the author's mouth, I literally quoted him in the previous statement.
>Brahmin, (Drona)
still trying to draw conclusions based on puranas ?
read this >>1058
and this >>1128
>you had all the rights to kill him
nope, the property of hyperbolism was attributed to the Manu's verse about killing one's aggressor which Madanaparajata nullifies by stating the general prohibition against Brahmhatya.
>Manusmriti also understood a Brahmin could be under the thread from another Brahmin
never, Manusmriti has clearly defined the warfare/aggression is a duty of Kshatriyas. And even if a Brahmin commits any serious crime then-
Manusmriti Verse 8.379 comes into play-
मौण्ड्यं प्राणान्तिकं दण्डो ब्राह्मणस्य विधीयते ।
इतरेषां तु वर्णानां दण्डः प्राणान्तिको भवेत् ॥ ३७९ ॥
which indicates that a Brahmin is allowed to defend himself from an assailtant Brahmin by hitting him but still he NOT allowed to kill him.
>Kulkuka and Narayana
>This is more of a "avoid doing so unless" rather than "this is not exactly true"
clearly they don't mandate killing a Brahmin, you are just digressing from the original discussion by interpreting irrelevant (to this conversation) bits of their commentary. Remember its was your Sikkimese sidekick who mentioned Manusmriti Verse 8.350 at the first place, not me >>1094
which means that the verse was supposed to directly demolish my claims which it obviously failed to. No point in clinging to the irrelevant bits of that verse because its not central to the current discussion.
rest of your post irrelevant since I've already addressed those points.
>The commentary was also clarifying how death of brahmin kill is exception and not something that was to be done, on a frequent basis
can you point out the "exception" part from that commentary ?
Also you have logged in from a premium account. Are you a mod ?
8CORxm
No.1206
8CORxm
No.1207
>>1202
>😒
>>1202
>😘
We get it, you are an enjoyer of section 377
Also AR Joshi is drawing a commentary on the commentary, two misunderstood concepts just agreeing with each other doesn't make them all right. Poor argument, discarded.
>>1202
>nowhere under ANY circumstance does it says that killing a Brahmin or subjecting him to capital punishment is permitted. All it says is that Brahmins who committed severe crimes were not executed but were instead punished with branding and banishment.
Red herring due to war based circumstances being equated to dynamic of a ruler and his said subject. Pretty much anything i read after this will be the same but let's see.
Lack of literacy, 349, 350 and 351 contradict this. 350 claiming it's fine to do so, 351 clarifying it is not a single thus made an exception. Discarded.
>Punishment
Irrelevant to war field, false equivalence again, discarded. In this context of Drona that specially is rendered invalid, since you shifted goal post from Ravana, hai also died in war.
Both sloka are red herring since this is about a war based circumstances and military law by the basis, while sloka you provided talking about the corporal punishment between ruler and subject. You did not read the scriptures, par nichi jaat se umeed bhi yahi rehti hai.
>first of all you should had known that not even a single version of Narad Smriti
>Complains
Bad faith argument, being over sensitive over and objective fact. It's a bad look when having any argument. 17 and 18 contradicts this, again you didn't read the book. Discarded.
>Yajnavalkya
361 and 362, again irrelevant and red herring, as this is a war based scenario. Capital punishment and military law are different and operated on a different set of belief. Discarded. Like i said, you can give something solid or you are wasting time
>Sathpatha Brahmana
Again, using capital punishment when initial argument is war based. Red herring, classic misplaced confidence in non existent intellect. Discarded.
>N1gg@ really ?
I would tell you to act your race but perhaps you are.
>your kind is hated by Indra
This would have weight if it didn't come from low borne. You are taking objectively true statement very personally, and i don't blame you, i would've done the same in your shoes. It's impossible for a lowborne to fight its nature. Regardless, again, logical fallacy, it can't be helped.
>But its my nature that I don't hold a grudges against people in general and i am quick to forgive. Maintaining a gentle disposition takes primacy over anything else for me.
Someone actually wrote a self glaze on an anonymous image board. Please refer to the picrel.
>don't put your words in the author's mouth, I literally quoted him in the previous statement.
Again, false equivalence and also basic lack of comprehension skills. One can easily use the same argument for meghaditi, but this would not need to be stated usually.
>Madanaparajata nullified
It doesn't, discarded.
>clearly they don't mandate killing a Brahmin
Yes, you reiterated my point, due to lack of basic reading comprehension.
>can you point out the "exception" part from that commentary ?
Brahmins being killed is not a frequent situation as they are naturally less likely to be put into a situation of having commited heinous crime. It makes killing a Brahmin itself an exception to the general leniency given to Brahmins.
I don't understand why you went for romanised garbage rather than just sticking to devnagri, but I assumed you relied on internet for translations with number of mistakes you made. It's clearly our if your intellectual capacity, and that is fine.
gvGzFC
No.1210
>>1207
>AR Joshi is drawing a commentary on the commentary, two misunderstood concepts just agreeing with each other
so now Rishi Medhatithi and AR Joshi both are wrong and You are right.
nice one 🤣🤣🤣🤣
>349, 350 and 351 contradict this. 350 claiming it's fine to do so, 351 clarifying it is not a single thus made an exception
>349 - Twice-born persons shall carry arms: When religion is interfered with, when there is confusion among the twice-born castes caused by the exigencies of time,—(348) in his own defence, in cases of hindrance of sacrificial fees, in the case of outrages upon Brāhmaṇas and women,—if one strikes in the cause of right, he incurs no sin.
striking ≠ killing
moreover it is speaking about striking to defend oneself (आत्मनश्च परित्राणे) and not striking to kill
After that, the same series of reasoning follows.
here is what Baudhyana says on 349-
>Baudhāyana (2.4-15).—‘They quote the following—“Out of regard for the sacred law, the Brāhmaṇa and the Vaiśya may take up arms for the protection of cows and Brāhmaṇas, or when a confusion of castes threatens to take place.”’
It is clearly about self-defence and not about killing. Nowhere does it mandates to transgress the general mandate of avoidance of Brahmhatya (as confirmed by Madanparajita)
>350
i have already discussed it above in great detail with commentaries of different accomplished specialists on this subject.
>351
this comes right after 350, I have quoted Ganganath Jha's commentary where he quotes Madanapārijāta (p. 784) on the prevalence of the greater general rule against Brahmhatya over this specific law about self-defense.
It makes little sense to quote these three verse again, seems almost as if due to lack of further evidences from scriptures you are resorting to go round and round in circles again only to save your face. Don't be afraid I won't humiliate you in the end. I am a good guy who is incapable of holding personal grudges. 😘😘
>In this context of Drona that specially is rendered invalid, since you shifted goal post from Ravana, hai also died in war
The pandavas incurred Brahmhatya during the Kurukshetra for killing, so they propitiated Lord Shiva to get rid of it. The Panch Kedar Temples were built by Pandavas in gratitude for this. You don't need to ATONE if it is justified you fathead.
also, you are again pulling up Puranas for debating about legal system of the Hindu constitutonal law ? Why go in circles ?
read >>1058
and >>1128
I've already refered to the same thing above here >>1204
you seem to have a short memory span. Watching BJP reels on insta has fried your tiny brain.
>Irrelevant to war field
Brahmhatya is not allowed even in a war. I have already told you about Pandava and their atonement for the Mahapataka of Brahmhatya.
>17 and 18 contradicts this
>17 - "Judicial Matters" or Vyavahāra
>18 - "The Violation of the Law" or Prakīrṇaka
so now you are quoting laws which are meant for peacetime as opposed to wartime while you previously tried to nullify my sources for the same reason ? You really have a very short memory which is typical charcterstic feature of a Dasyu.
But still lets see what Narad Samhita says in these,
well I have already read and posted about 17 in my previous post (which you haven't read because you haven't read Narad Smriti either)
about 18,
स्थित्यर्थं पृथिवीपालेश्चरित्रविषयाः कृताः । चरित्रेभ्योऽस्य तत्प्राहुर्गरीयो राजशासनम् ॥ 24 ॥
well here Narada is quoting Manusmriti himself, clearly Manusmriti hasscriptural precedence over Narada's own Smriti.
ब्राह्मणानुपसेवेत नित्यं राजा समाहितः। संयुक्तं ब्राह्मणैः क्षात्रं मूलं लोकाभिवृद्धये ॥ 34 ॥
राजा को ब्राह्मणों के सम्मान को रक्षा के लिए नित्य- प्रति अत्यन्त सावधान रहना चाहिए । उसे यह कदापि नहीं भूलना चाहिए कि ब्राह्मणों की कृपा बने रहने पर ही राजा अपने क्षत्रिय-धर्मं का सफलतापूर्वक निर्वा
/cBOxu
No.1211
>>1210
>so now Rishi Medhatithi and AR Joshi both are wrong and You are right.
>nice one 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This but unironically 
>Misplaced arguments
>Poorly drawn conclusions
>False sense of confidence
Classic low caste, as expected their was no one would could stand against the real deal. kek yaar, you tried your best, keep trying, and you will almost pass for a UC.
TdH/Fe
No.1212
>>1210
ब्राह्यणस्यापरीहारो राजन्यासनमग्रतः। प्रथमं दर्शनं प्रातः सर्वभ्यश्चाभिवादनम्॥ 35 ॥
विचारक के रूप में न्यायपीठ पर बेठते समय राजा को ब्राह्यणो - बुद्धिजीवी शास्त्रज्ञ विद्वानों --को अपने से ऊचे आसन पर बिठाना चाहिए । इसके अतिरिक्त राजा को प्रतिदिन प्रातःकाल राज्यसभा में जाने से पूर्व ब्राह्मणों का दर्शन, उन्हें प्रणाम करना ओर उनका आशीर्वाद लेना चाहिए।
अग्रं नवभ्यः सप्तभ्यः मार्गदानं च गच्छतः । भेश्चहेतोः परागरे प्रवेशस्त्वनिवारितः ॥ 36 ॥
राजमार्ग, नोकायन तथा अन्य वाहन मार्गो पर संकरा मार्ग जआ जाने पर ब्राह्मणों-- भले ही वह सात हों अथवा नौ, अर्थात् अधिक संख्यामें ही क्यों न हं ओर इसके लिए दूसरे यात्रियों को असुविधा, कष्ट ओर विलम्ब ही क्यों न होता हो- को पहले जाने देना चाहिए । इसके अतिरिक्त भिक्षा मांगने वाले ब्राह्मण को किसी भी घर में प्रवेश करने से नहीं रोकना चाहिए।
समित्पुष्पोदकादानेष्वस्तयं स्वपरिग्रहम्। अनपेक्षः परमेभ्यः सम्भाषणञ्च परस्त्रिया ॥ 37 ॥
अपने यज्ञ-भोग तथा पूजा-पाठ के लिए समिधां, पुष्प ओर जल आदि इनके स्वामी से बिना पृष्ठे अपने आप लेने वाले ब्राह्मण पर चोरी का आरोप नहीं लगाया जा सकता। इसी प्रकार परमुखापेक्षी न बनने कौ इच्छा से पर- स्त्री से भाषण करने वाले ब्राह्मण की विरोधियों द्वारा भी निन्दा नहीं कौ जा सकती; क्योकि आचारनिष्ठ ओर चरित्रवान् होना तो ब्राह्मणत्व का प्रथम लक्षण है। 🤣🤣
This one directly demolishes your stupid claims about capital punishment of Brahmins.
नदीष्ववेतनस्तारः पूर्वमुत्तारणं तथा। तरेष्वशुल्कदानं च वाणिज्यायां भवेत् स्थितिः ॥ 38 ॥
नदी पार कराने पर ब्राह्मण से शुल्क नहीं लेना चाहिए ओर उसे नौका मं सबसे पहले उत्तम स्थान पर बिठाना ओर सबसे पहले उतारना चाहिए । ब्राह्मण द्वारा वाणिज्य-व्यापार कौ वस्तुओं कौ खरीद पर भी उससे सीमा-शुल्क तथा बिक्रीकर आदि वसूल नहीं करने चाहिए।
अथिनां भूरिभावाच्य देयत्वाच्च महात्मनाम्। श्रेयान् परिग्रहो राज्ञां सर्वेषां ब्राह्यणाहते ॥ 41 ॥
राजा को याचको को प्रतिदिन दान देने वाले उदार धनिको, महात्माओं तथा ब्राह्यणो को छोडकर शेष सभी प्रजाजनों से कर वसूल करने ओर धन लेने का पूरा अधिकार है 👌
य एव कश्चित् स्वद्रव्यं ब्राह्मणेभ्यः प्रयच्छति । तद्राज्ञाप्यनुमन्तव्यमेष धर्मः सनातनः॥ 47॥
ब्राह्मणों को दान-पुण्य करने वाले उदार धनिकं को इसके लिए राजा से पूर्व अनुमति लेनी चाहिए ओर राजा को इसकी सहर्षं स्वीकृति देनी चाहिए- यही सनातन व्यवस्था है।
शक्यं तत् पुनराहर्तुं यन ब्राहाणसात्कृतम्। ब्राहाणेभ्यस्तु यदत्तं न तस्याहरणं पुनः ॥ 49 ॥
ब्राह्मणों को देने का संकल्प करके उन्हें न देने वालों से संकल्पितं धन ब्राह्मणों को दिलाया तो जा सकता है, परन्तु एक बार ब्राह्मणों को दिया गया धन किसी भी स्थिति में वापस नहीं लिया जा सकता।
Pay attention to this,
दानमध्ययनं यज्ञः कर्मास्योक्तं त्रिलक्षणम्। याजनाध्यापने वृत्तिस्तृतीयश्च प्रतिग्रहः ॥ 50 ॥
वेदो का अध्ययन, यज्ञ-यागादि सम्पन्न करना तथा दान देना ब्राह्मण के नित्यकर्म हैँ । इसमें इच्छा-अनिच्छा का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता । ये तीनों तो अनिवार्य रूप से ब्राह्मण को प्रतिदिन करने ही हैँ । हां, यज्ञ करना, विद्या-अध्यापन तथा दान लेना-ये तीनों उसक वृत्ति से जुड़े हैँ ।इन तीनों को अपनी "न वृष्यकता ओर रुचि के अनुरूप अपनाने-न अपनाने को वह पूर्णं स्वतन्त्र है
>अपनाने-न अपनाने को वह पूर्णं स्वतन्त्र है
>अपनाने-न अपनाने को वह पूर्णं स्वतन्त्र है
and finally this one
लोकेऽस्मिन्मङ्लान्यष्टो ब्राह्यणो गौर्हुताशनः । हिरण्यं सर्पिरादित्य आपो राजा तथाष्टमः ॥ 54 ॥
इस संसार में निग्रक्त आढ द्रव्यो को अत्यन्त पवित्र, पूज्य एवं मंगलसूचक माना जाता है-1. ब्राह्मण, 2. गाय, 3. अग्नि, 4. सुवर्ण, 5. घृत, 6. सूर्य, 7. जल तथा 8. राजा। इन आठ कौ अवज्ञा घोर पाप है।
Well,well,well nowhere does it allows or even implies that Brahmhatya is permissible (running counter to Manu's Law) under any circumstance.
You are just embarassing yourselfs by dragging this conversation further and further without even providing a SINGLE EVIDENCE to back your claim.
>Again, using capital punishment when initial argument is war based
I have explain above even using your argument from Puranas how Brahmhatya even during a war is not permissible and incurs a sin as its one of the Mahapatakas.
>One can easily use same argument for meghaditi
please do 😂 and embarass yourself even further. You are already shittin your pants
TdH/Fe
No.1213
>>1211
ask any neutral personal and he can easily tell that so far you have posted ZERO sources to back your claim and I am posting sources again and again
DASYUPUTRA Haggu I am still waiting for you to post a single evidence to back your claim.
V5c2Qi
No.1216
>>1214
don't derail this thread let others who have some knowledge (unlike you) contribute.
You can abuse me on /b/. Don't streetshit in this thread haggu.
z+1bqd
No.1217
>>1215
>Makes a thread about ravan hatya
>Proven wrong in just a single reply
>Shifting goal post to drag it sadly
Yaar modjeet archive karna thoda is thread ko future me, will be a really funny thing to look at lmao.
H+lxx9
No.1218
>>1217
you are just salty and trying to derail this thread because I have COMPLETELY RAPED you in this thread.
and about shifting goal posts
read this >>1122
>I diverted the conversation towards Brahmins in general.
In the entire thread you are debating me about Brahmhatya and not Ravanhatya. Don't try to fool yourself.
Since you have already exhausted your intellectual capacities I would suggest you to stay away from this thread.
Now stop derailing this thread and let other anons post about their views on the central conversation i.e. Brahmhatya.
8CORxm
No.1219
H+lxx9
No.1220
>>1219
>still derailing
8CORxm
No.1221
8CORxm
No.1222
