Login

u/Minimum-Stretch-1866

r/TwoXIndia r/IndianFocus r/AskIndianFeminists r/JeevaExplainsTheJoke r/unitedstatesofindia r/scienceisdope r/Chayakada r/NewKeralaRevolution r/atheismindia r/sciencememes r/AtheisminKerala r/HindutvaRises r/religiousfruitcake r/gujarat
Are Hindutva people actually serious, or this shit some ragebait?
▲ 140 r/atheismindia

Are Hindutva people actually serious, or this shit some ragebait?

Holy conspiracy, at this pace, they gonna add Jupiter as well in their Empire

u/Minimum-Stretch-1866 — 1 day ago
▲ 88 r/atheismindia

Sita was in fact 6 when she married Rama.

Aranya Kanda 3.47.4 and 3.47.5, where Sita is speaking to Ravana who is disguised as a monk or a "sadhu" in the Sanskrit language

---

".Having resided for twelve years in the house of the Ikṣvākus... My exceedingly brilliant husband was twenty-five years of age, and eighteen years are counted from my birth."

Run the math:

Rama's age at exile (25) minus 12 years of staying in Ayodhya = his age at marriage was 13, if we follow simple arithmetic

Sita's age at exile (18) minus 12 years in Ayodhya = her age at marriage was 6

---

Now, some Hindus might attempt to invalidate this by claiming it contradicts Bālakāṇḍa 1.20.2 (CE 1.19.2), where Daśaratha tells Viśvāmitra:

​ūnaṣoḍaśavarṣo me rāmo rājīvalocanaḥ

"My lotus-eyed Rāma is less than sixteen years of age."

Thirteen is strictly "less than sixteen" (unasodasa). Daśaratha invokes the sixteenth year because, in ancient Indian jurisprudence, sixteen marked the age of legal majority and fitness for independent martial duty (vyavahara) for men. Stating a 13-year-old is "not even sixteen yet" is rhetorically precise when a king is refusing to send his son to face Rakshasas, The verses from the Aranya and Bala Kanda perfectly corroborate each other.

---

Some apologists bring the "Upanayana" or second birth argument, but the verse nowhere states that Sita says her age is being counted after her second birth. Moreover, Aranya Kanda 3.47.10 states

"mama bhartā mahā-tejā vayasā pañca-viṁśakaḥ |aṣṭādaśa hi varṣāṇi mama janmani gaṇyate"

Sita explicitly uses the standard, everyday Sanskrit word for biological birth (Janma)

It does not use terms like Dvija, which means twice born or Upanayana

---

Complementary Arguments

---

Also, let me tell you a fact, prominent Dharmashastras, like Manusmriti's Chapter 9 Verse 94 states that a man of 30 years of age can marry a girl of 12 years and a man of 24 years of age can marry a girl of 8 years of age

"triṃśadvarṣo vahet kanyāṃ hṛdyāṃ dvādaśavārṣikīm,tryaṣṭavarṣo'ṣṭavarṣāṃ vā dharme sīdati satvaraḥ"

Which translates to

"A man thirty years old shall marry a charming maiden twelve years old; or one twenty-four years old shall marry a damsel eight years old. In the event of his duties suffering, he may do it sooner."

This establishes a fact that in Ancient and Medieval India, religious scriptures explicitly condoned child marriage

---

Furthermore, if you study Garbhadhana Samskara, it will become even more clear. For instance

Manusmriti Chapter 3, Verse 46

"ṛtuḥ svābhāvikaḥ strīṇāṃ rātrayaḥ ṣoḍaśa smṛtāḥ |caturbhiritaraiḥ sārdhamahobhiḥ sadvigarhitaiḥ"

Which roughly translates to

"The natural 'season' (fertile period) of women is declared to be sixteen days and nights (in each month), including the first four days which are censured by the virtuous."

It basically means Day 1 is counted as the very first day the menstrual flow begins. The scriptures state that the window of opportunity for Garbhadhana lasts exactly 16 nights from that onset of blood flow and puberty, which usually starts at age 12 or 13.

---

reddit.com
u/Minimum-Stretch-1866 — 7 days ago
▲ 16 r/atheismindia

Your take on this?

Link to the post

​

https://www.instagram.com/p/DXn5oX3gf7b/?img\_index=10&igsh=MXZnaG54eHZwaWRyYg==

​

---

​

Personally, I think this is shit, I'm not gonna address much of his argument to make this post not too long, bit one thing I want to address is his premise that caste is not "birth-based", this entire claim collapses in three points, when addressing his so called "debunk"—

​

  1. He cited Mahabharata, but in the same Mahabharata, there is the story of Eklavya, who was a brilliant and exceptionally talented archer as said by the story, but Dronacharya refused to teach him because he was born in a low caste, particularly Nishada.

​

Now, when Eklavya self-taught himself, and became a better Archer than Arjuna, he should have been elevated to a Kshatriya status, right? Wrong. He was demanded to donate his thumb as "guru dakshina", this was a violent reinforcement of birth based caste hierarchy rooted in jealousy and insecurity of the royal princes.

​

  1. Broadly speaking of all of Hinduism, Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 explicitly says "Among them, those who have performed good and meritorious actions in this world quickly attain a corresponding good birth. They are born as a Brahmin, a Kshatriya, or a Vaishya.But those who have performed evil and sinful actions in this world quickly attain a corresponding bad birth. They are born as a dog, a pig, or a Chandala (an outcast/untouchable)", if this is not an establishment of casteism, I don't know what is.

​

  1. Coming back to his claim specifically about Manusmriti, he writes

​

"If those characteristics are found in a śūdra and not found in a dvija then that śūdra is not a śūdra and that brāhmaṇa is not a brāhmaṇa", By asserting that a person born as a Shudra ceases to be a Shudra simply by possessing good moral qualities, he is explicitly claiming that birth does not dictate or fix your caste.

​

This claim fails when you look at Manusmriti 10.4, which says "The Brahmana, the Kshatriya, and the Vaishya castes (varna) are the twice-born ones, but the fourth, the Sudra, has one birth only...."

​

Ancient scholars, with the most prominent one being Medhatithi note that "one birth only" means Shudras do not receive the sacred thread ceremony to change their spiritual birth status within that lifetime, he says this in Manubhāṣya by Medhātithi, Verse 10.4.

​

Source: Dr. Ganganath Jha's multi-volume translation “The Laws of Manu with the Bhasya of Medhatithi” (initially published by the University of Calcutta, reprinted by Motilal Banarsidass).

​

---

u/Minimum-Stretch-1866 — 19 days ago
▲ 90 r/AskIndianFeminists

Thoughts on this bastard?

Let me be clear, I'm a male myself, but his posts are downright misogyny, and he isn't even trying to hide it, the posts on that page made me sick as FUCK, cuz these assholes seem like they are straight from the 1900s, they talk about "domination over women", and okay, I agree with the "don't marry her if she did not choose you", but "domination"?, how retarded do these motherfuckers have to be, take a look at some of the comments under some of his posts, tbh, I want this page to be banned, and I'll make sure to do my best in getting him banned.

u/Minimum-Stretch-1866 — 1 month ago