Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

 answer the questions on the following thread,
https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

my answer is that Bhisma is considered an authoritative person in the Mahabharata. For instance, Lord Krishna--who is worshipped by hindus--himself asked Yudhistir to approach the dying Bhisma and learn about kingship from him. So Bhisma has been endorsed by Krishna and Bhisma himself endorses sati. Furthermore, the dharmasastras corroborate what Bhisma says about sati. I gave the relevant extract from the Visnu Smriti.With respect to the story of Lot, has Lot been endorsed by Jesus or God the father or the Holy Spirit any of the apostles (Paul, Peter, etc.) or some other authoritative person? there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible but i think your comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be the claim in the Bible that God created the earth before he created the sun which is clearly nonsense on par with the endorsement of sati by hindu scripture.

blah, blah, blah... about Bhishma, Krishna and Yudhishtra in the Mahabharata in support of "sati".

Read the first paragraph carefully in the above link (https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754) about the example of real flesh and blood women not committing "sati" in the Mahabharata.

Visnu Smriti (whose relevant extract i have given earlier in this thread) endorses sati. Further there are real flesh and blood women in Mahabharata who do commit Sati. For instance, Pandu's wife Madri. According to Visnu Smriti a widow should either commit sati or else live the life of a recluse.

 Someone calling his own book a smriti (vishnu-smriti or manu-smriti etc.) and writing in it in support of "sati" is not an acceptable proof of Hinduism's support for "sati", according to the Mimamsa.
Read more on "sati" in https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

my answer is that Bhisma is considered an authoritative person in the Mahabharata. For instance, Lord Krishna--who is worshipped by hindus--himself asked Yudhistir to approach the dying Bhisma and learn about kingship from him. So Bhisma has been endorsed by Krishna and Bhisma himself endorses sati. Furthermore, the dharmasastras corroborate what Bhisma says about sati. I gave the relevant extract from the Visnu Smriti.With respect to the story of Lot, has Lot been endorsed by Jesus or God the father or the Holy Spirit any of the apostles (Paul, Peter, etc.) or some other authoritative person? there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible but i think your comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be the claim in the Bible that God created the earth before he created the sun which is clearly nonsense on par with the endorsement of sati by hindu scripture.

blah, blah, blah... about Bhishma, Krishna and Yudhishtra in the Mahabharata in support of "sati".

Read the first paragraph carefully in the above link (https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754) about the example of real flesh and blood women not committing "sati" in the Mahabharata.

Visnu Smriti (whose relevant extract i have given earlier in this thread) endorses sati. Further there are real flesh and blood women in Mahabharata who do commit Sati. For instance, Pandu's wife Madri. According to Visnu Smriti a widow should either commit sati or else live the life of a recluse.

 Someone calling his own book a smriti (vishnu-smriti or manu-smriti etc.) and writing in it in support of "sati" is not an acceptable proof of Hinduism's support for "sati", according to the Mimamsa.
Read more on "sati" in https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

In fact, the Mimansa accepts the dharmasastras like Visnu Smriti and Manu Smriti as smritis. It only says that if smriti is contradicted by sruti then what is said in sruti prevails. Since sruti does not condemn or rebuke sati, we have to accept what smriti says about sati.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

blah, blah, blah... about Bhishma, Krishna and Yudhishtra in the Mahabharata in support of "sati".

Read the first paragraph carefully in the above link (https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754) about the example of real flesh and blood women not committing "sati" in the Mahabharata.

Visnu Smriti (whose relevant extract i have given earlier in this thread) endorses sati. Further there are real flesh and blood women in Mahabharata who do commit Sati. For instance, Pandu's wife Madri. According to Visnu Smriti a widow should either commit sati or else live the life of a recluse.

 Someone calling his own book a smriti (vishnu-smriti or manu-smriti etc.) and writing in it in support of "sati" is not an acceptable proof of Hinduism's support for "sati", according to the Mimamsa.
Read more on "sati" in https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

In fact, the Mimansa accepts the dharmasastras like Visnu Smriti and Manu Smriti as smritis. It only says that if smriti is contradicted by sruti then what is said in sruti prevails. Since sruti does not condemn or rebuke sati, we have to accept what smriti says about sati.

 
 Wrong ... again proves you have no clue about Mimamsa.
 
Btw, if Shakespeare were a Hindu or Indian, he could have called his book "the Merchant of Venice" as "Venice Purana" or "Shakespeare-smriti" and people like you would be citing from it as a religious text.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Visnu Smriti (whose relevant extract i have given earlier in this thread) endorses sati. Further there are real flesh and blood women in Mahabharata who do commit Sati. For instance, Pandu's wife Madri. According to Visnu Smriti a widow should either commit sati or else live the life of a recluse.

 Someone calling his own book a smriti (vishnu-smriti or manu-smriti etc.) and writing in it in support of "sati" is not an acceptable proof of Hinduism's support for "sati", according to the Mimamsa.
Read more on "sati" in https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

In fact, the Mimansa accepts the dharmasastras like Visnu Smriti and Manu Smriti as smritis. It only says that if smriti is contradicted by sruti then what is said in sruti prevails. Since sruti does not condemn or rebuke sati, we have to accept what smriti says about sati.

 
 Wrong ... again proves you have no clue about Mimamsa.
 
Btw, if Shakespeare were a Hindu or Indian, he could have called his book "the Merchant of Venice" as "Venice Purana" or "Shakespeare-smriti" and people like you would be citing from it as a religious text.

The Mimansa philosophers like Kumarila and Prabhakara consider the dharmasastras like Manu Smriti and Visnu Smriti as authoritative texts as is evident from the fact that they quote from these texts, and endorse the content in these books, in their writings.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

 Someone calling his own book a smriti (vishnu-smriti or manu-smriti etc.) and writing in it in support of "sati" is not an acceptable proof of Hinduism's support for "sati", according to the Mimamsa.
Read more on "sati" in https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

In fact, the Mimansa accepts the dharmasastras like Visnu Smriti and Manu Smriti as smritis. It only says that if smriti is contradicted by sruti then what is said in sruti prevails. Since sruti does not condemn or rebuke sati, we have to accept what smriti says about sati.

 
 Wrong ... again proves you have no clue about Mimamsa.
 
Btw, if Shakespeare were a Hindu or Indian, he could have called his book "the Merchant of Venice" as "Venice Purana" or "Shakespeare-smriti" and people like you would be citing from it as a religious text.

The Mimansa philosophers like Kumarila and Prabhakara consider the dharmasastras like Manu Smriti and Visnu Smriti as authoritative texts as is evident from the fact that they quote from these texts, and endorse the content in these books, in their writings.

 
 As I said earlier, if Shakespeare were a Hindu or Indian, he could have called his book "the Merchant of Venice" as "Venice Purana" or "Shakespeare-smriti" and people like you would be citing from it as a religious text.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda  against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Rashmun wrote:Akbar on vegetarianism (as quoted by Abul Fazl in volume 3 of Ain-i-Akbari in the chapter 'Happy Sayings of His Majesty'):

It is not right that a man should make his stomach the grave of animals.

Would that my body were so vigorous as to be of service to eaters of meat who would thus forego other animal life, or that as I cut off a piece for their nourishment, it might be replaced by another.

Would that it were lawful to eat an elephant, so that one animal might avail for many.

Were it not for the thought of the difficulty of sustenance, I would prohibit men from eating meat. The reason why I do not altogether aban­don it myself is, that many others might willingly forego it likewise and be thus cast into despondency.

From my earliest years, whenever I ordered animal food to be cooked for me, I found it rather tasteless and cared little for it. I took this feeling to indicate a necessity for protecting animals, and I refrained from animal food.

Men should annually refrain from eating meat on the anniversary of the month of my accession as a thanksgiving to the Almighty, in order that the year may pass in prosperity.

Note: In his autobiography, Akbar's son Jahangir writes that Akbar would typically eat vegetarian food and only very occasionally would he eat a non-vegetarian dish.

Rashmun wrote:Akbar on Sati (as quoted by Abul Fazl in volume 3 of Ain-i-Akbari in the chapter 'Happy Sayings of His Majesty'):

The women of Hindustan rate their dear lives at a slender price.

It is an ancient custom in Hindustan for a woman to burn herself however unwilling she may be, on her husband's death and to give her priceless life with a cheerful countenance conceiving it to be a means of her husband's salvation.

It is a strange commentary on the magnanimity of men that they should seek their deliverance through the self-sacrifice of their wives.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda  against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda  against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda  against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda  against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

>> Unlike the Political Islamist Idiots and their supporters who look up to some book (which anyway is riddled with thousand contradictions) to justify any perversion, a majority of Hindus are NOT forced to look up to scriptures. I can conduct my life anyway I want, and I thank Hinduism for allowing me this freedom.  So these discussions are moot. Scriptures are always there for guidance if I need their wisdom. Something written there can be modified in anyway I want and I will adopt them if I choose to only subject to the current laws of a democratic secular country, Unlike the political Islamist Idiots who want to change laws to suit their views.

Sevaji, I would advise you to NOT  spend any time responding to the person on this board who has his own predjudices, lacks basic respect and harbors malice towards Hinduism . Your knowledge and time is better spent on giving us the Gyan on the true wisdom in our scriptures for true seekers, rather responding to slanderers and Political Islamic apologists like Rashmun. It is unfortunate, that due to the invasion by the Islamic Barbarians, some aspect of our scriptures and culture was lost. It is also unfortunate that it is very difficult for a layman to get guidance from our scriptures on difficult questions in life. People like you who have little more knowledge than an average lay person should take this role. I thank you for your research and hope that your wisdom grows in future years to the level of a saint and provides guidance to others.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

Dharmasastras are the law books like Manu Smriti, Visnu Smriti, etc. I gave an extract from the Manu Smriti supporting child marriage.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm  (see verse 94)

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

>> Unlike the Political Islamist Idiots and their supporters who look up to some book (which anyway is riddled with thousand contradictions) to justify any perversion, a majority of Hindus are NOT forced to look up to scriptures. I can conduct my life anyway I want, and I thank Hinduism for allowing me this freedom.  So these discussions are moot. Scriptures are always there for guidance if I need their wisdom. Something written there can be modified in anyway I want and I will adopt them if I choose to only subject to the current laws of a democratic secular country, Unlike the political Islamist Idiots who want to change laws to suit their views.

Sevaji, I would advise you to NOT  spend any time responding to the person on this board who has his own predjudices, lacks basic respect and harbors malice towards Hinduism . Your knowledge and time is better spent on giving us the Gyan on the true wisdom in our scriptures for true seekers, rather responding to slanderers and Political Islamic apologists like Rashmun. It is unfortunate, that due to the invasion by the Islamic Barbarians, some aspect of our scriptures and culture was lost. It is also unfortunate that it is very difficult for a layman to get guidance from our scriptures on difficult questions in life. People like you who have little more knowledge than an average lay person should take this role. I thank you for your research and hope that your wisdom grows in future years to the level of a saint and provides guidance to others.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva, do you concede that child marriage has scriptural sanction in hinduism?

What I see, it is the Muslims (Political Islamists) who want to reduce the Marriageable age to 16, which I am pretty sure is not supported by their own women. But the AIMPLB does not care about all those. It is a fact that Muslims in India have prevented any sort of reforms in their religion to the detriment of their own folks. They force the Burqa down the throat of their women in the name of preserving identity (despite a population of 160 million), threatening acid attacks. 

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

Dharmasastras are the law books like Manu Smriti, Visnu Smriti, etc. I gave an extract from the Manu Smriti supporting child marriage.

In  spite of what you wrote above, you  refused to accept the story of Lot in the Bible as an example to  Jewish and Christian parents on treating girls / daughters (badly). Moreover, the authors of Manusmriti and Vishnusmriti etc., which you call Dharamsastras, must be crooks like you to call their random ramblings as smritis and hustle them under the names Manu and Vishnu.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

Dharmasastras are the law books like Manu Smriti, Visnu Smriti, etc. I gave an extract from the Manu Smriti supporting child marriage.

In  spite of what you wrote above, you  refused to accept the story of Lot in the Bible as an example to  Jewish and Christian parents on treating girls / daughters (badly). Moreover, the authors of Manusmriti and Vishnusmriti etc., which you call Dharamsastras, must be crooks like you to call their random ramblings as smritis and hustle them under the names Manu and Vishnu.

This is from the wikipedia page on dharmasastras:

Written after the Dharmasūtras, these texts use a metered verse and are much more elaborate in their scope. Scholars have postulated that these texts are actually compilations of common gnomic verses of the times, known by the śiṣṭas. Such verses were regularly cited as legitimation for legal judgments and advice. At some point these verses were gathered together into complete texts under the name of particular sages. These texts are said to have been edited and updated with additions of verses which had not previously been included.[45] However, there is an ongoing debate amongst scholars regarding this matter. Other scholars refute the multiple authorship idea, claiming that the major texts were written by a single author at a particular time in history and remained relatively unedited as time went by.[46] Regardless, by attributing their authorship to that of well known sages like Nārada, the text takes on a superior authority. The most influential texts are listed below, along with their approximate dates:

   The Manusmṛti (200BC-200CE) is the most important and earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of Hinduism.[47]
   The Yājñavalkya Smṛti (200-500CE) has been called the "best composed" and "most homogeneous"[48] text of the Dharmaśāstra tradition, with its superior vocabulary and level of sophistication.
   The Nāradasmṛti (100BC-400CE) has been called the “juridical text par excellence” and represents the only Dharmaśāstra text which deals solely with juridical matters and ignoring those of righteous conduct and penance.[49]
   The Viṣṇusmṛti (700-1000CE) is one of the latest books of the Dharmaśāstra tradition in Hinduism and also the only one which does not deal directly with the means of knowing dharma, focusing instead on the bhakti tradition.[50]
   The Bṛhaspatismṛti (200-400CE) is a modern reconstruction of a text that has not yet been found and may never have been recorded in written form. The attempt to author this lost Dharmaśāstra has been made based on a gathering of all verses attributed to the sage Bṛhaspati but pays full tribute to Manu as the ultimate authority on dharma.[51]
   The Kātyāyanasmṛti (300-600CE) is another modern reconstruction similar to that of Bṛhaspatismṛti, specializing in vyavahāra.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

RE, as I wrote earlier the following on this thread, child marriage has no scriptural sanction in Hinduism according to the Veda .... 

"Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas (including the Rig Veda) want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

"Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding)." 

Dharmasastras are the law books like Manu Smriti, Visnu Smriti, etc. I gave an extract from the Manu Smriti supporting child marriage.

In  spite of what you wrote above, you  refused to accept the story of Lot in the Bible as an example to  Jewish and Christian parents on treating girls / daughters (badly). Moreover, the authors of Manusmriti and Vishnusmriti etc., which you call Dharamsastras, must be crooks like you to call their random ramblings as smritis and hustle them under the names Manu and Vishnu.

This is from the wikipedia page on dharmasastras:

Written after the Dharmasūtras, these texts use a metered verse and are much more elaborate in their scope. Scholars have postulated that these texts are actually compilations of common gnomic verses of the times, known by the śiṣṭas. Such verses were regularly cited as legitimation for legal judgments and advice. At some point these verses were gathered together into complete texts under the name of particular sages. These texts are said to have been edited and updated with additions of verses which had not previously been included.[45] However, there is an ongoing debate amongst scholars regarding this matter. Other scholars refute the multiple authorship idea, claiming that the major texts were written by a single author at a particular time in history and remained relatively unedited as time went by.[46] Regardless, by attributing their authorship to that of well known sages like Nārada, the text takes on a superior authority. The most influential texts are listed below, along with their approximate dates:

   The Manusmṛti (200BC-200CE) is the most important and earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of Hinduism.[47]
   The Yājñavalkya Smṛti (200-500CE) has been called the "best composed" and "most homogeneous"[48] text of the Dharmaśāstra tradition, with its superior vocabulary and level of sophistication.
   The Nāradasmṛti (100BC-400CE) has been called the “juridical text par excellence” and represents the only Dharmaśāstra text which deals solely with juridical matters and ignoring those of righteous conduct and penance.[49]
   The Viṣṇusmṛti (700-1000CE) is one of the latest books of the Dharmaśāstra tradition in Hinduism and also the only one which does not deal directly with the means of knowing dharma, focusing instead on the bhakti tradition.[50]
   The Bṛhaspatismṛti (200-400CE) is a modern reconstruction of a text that has not yet been found and may never have been recorded in written form. The attempt to author this lost Dharmaśāstra has been made based on a gathering of all verses attributed to the sage Bṛhaspati but pays full tribute to Manu as the ultimate authority on dharma.[51]
   The Kātyāyanasmṛti (300-600CE) is another modern reconstruction similar to that of Bṛhaspatismṛti, specializing in vyavahāra.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra

The following tells the real truth about Manusmriti.

"Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself"  ...
http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Dharmasastras are the law books like Manu Smriti, Visnu Smriti, etc. I gave an extract from the Manu Smriti supporting child marriage.

In  spite of what you wrote above, you  refused to accept the story of Lot in the Bible as an example to  Jewish and Christian parents on treating girls / daughters (badly). Moreover, the authors of Manusmriti and Vishnusmriti etc., which you call Dharamsastras, must be crooks like you to call their random ramblings as smritis and hustle them under the names Manu and Vishnu.

This is from the wikipedia page on dharmasastras:

Written after the Dharmasūtras, these texts use a metered verse and are much more elaborate in their scope. Scholars have postulated that these texts are actually compilations of common gnomic verses of the times, known by the śiṣṭas. Such verses were regularly cited as legitimation for legal judgments and advice. At some point these verses were gathered together into complete texts under the name of particular sages. These texts are said to have been edited and updated with additions of verses which had not previously been included.[45] However, there is an ongoing debate amongst scholars regarding this matter. Other scholars refute the multiple authorship idea, claiming that the major texts were written by a single author at a particular time in history and remained relatively unedited as time went by.[46] Regardless, by attributing their authorship to that of well known sages like Nārada, the text takes on a superior authority. The most influential texts are listed below, along with their approximate dates:

   The Manusmṛti (200BC-200CE) is the most important and earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of Hinduism.[47]
   The Yājñavalkya Smṛti (200-500CE) has been called the "best composed" and "most homogeneous"[48] text of the Dharmaśāstra tradition, with its superior vocabulary and level of sophistication.
   The Nāradasmṛti (100BC-400CE) has been called the “juridical text par excellence” and represents the only Dharmaśāstra text which deals solely with juridical matters and ignoring those of righteous conduct and penance.[49]
   The Viṣṇusmṛti (700-1000CE) is one of the latest books of the Dharmaśāstra tradition in Hinduism and also the only one which does not deal directly with the means of knowing dharma, focusing instead on the bhakti tradition.[50]
   The Bṛhaspatismṛti (200-400CE) is a modern reconstruction of a text that has not yet been found and may never have been recorded in written form. The attempt to author this lost Dharmaśāstra has been made based on a gathering of all verses attributed to the sage Bṛhaspati but pays full tribute to Manu as the ultimate authority on dharma.[51]
   The Kātyāyanasmṛti (300-600CE) is another modern reconstruction similar to that of Bṛhaspatismṛti, specializing in vyavahāra.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra

The following tells the real truth about Manusmriti.

"Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself"  ...
http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

Manu Smriti--the book that was revered and held as an authoritative text by Adi Sankaracharya:

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankaracharya-and-manu-smriti_325321_blog

Is Seva opposed to the views of Adi Sankara?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

In  spite of what you wrote above, you  refused to accept the story of Lot in the Bible as an example to  Jewish and Christian parents on treating girls / daughters (badly). Moreover, the authors of Manusmriti and Vishnusmriti etc., which you call Dharamsastras, must be crooks like you to call their random ramblings as smritis and hustle them under the names Manu and Vishnu.

This is from the wikipedia page on dharmasastras:

Written after the Dharmasūtras, these texts use a metered verse and are much more elaborate in their scope. Scholars have postulated that these texts are actually compilations of common gnomic verses of the times, known by the śiṣṭas. Such verses were regularly cited as legitimation for legal judgments and advice. At some point these verses were gathered together into complete texts under the name of particular sages. These texts are said to have been edited and updated with additions of verses which had not previously been included.[45] However, there is an ongoing debate amongst scholars regarding this matter. Other scholars refute the multiple authorship idea, claiming that the major texts were written by a single author at a particular time in history and remained relatively unedited as time went by.[46] Regardless, by attributing their authorship to that of well known sages like Nārada, the text takes on a superior authority. The most influential texts are listed below, along with their approximate dates:

   The Manusmṛti (200BC-200CE) is the most important and earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of Hinduism.[47]
   The Yājñavalkya Smṛti (200-500CE) has been called the "best composed" and "most homogeneous"[48] text of the Dharmaśāstra tradition, with its superior vocabulary and level of sophistication.
   The Nāradasmṛti (100BC-400CE) has been called the “juridical text par excellence” and represents the only Dharmaśāstra text which deals solely with juridical matters and ignoring those of righteous conduct and penance.[49]
   The Viṣṇusmṛti (700-1000CE) is one of the latest books of the Dharmaśāstra tradition in Hinduism and also the only one which does not deal directly with the means of knowing dharma, focusing instead on the bhakti tradition.[50]
   The Bṛhaspatismṛti (200-400CE) is a modern reconstruction of a text that has not yet been found and may never have been recorded in written form. The attempt to author this lost Dharmaśāstra has been made based on a gathering of all verses attributed to the sage Bṛhaspati but pays full tribute to Manu as the ultimate authority on dharma.[51]
   The Kātyāyanasmṛti (300-600CE) is another modern reconstruction similar to that of Bṛhaspatismṛti, specializing in vyavahāra.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra

The following tells the real truth about Manusmriti.

"Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself"  ...
http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

Manu Smriti--the book that was revered and held as an authoritative text by Adi Sankaracharya:

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankaracharya-and-manu-smriti_325321_blog

Is Seva opposed to the views of Adi Sankara?

This is not an issue related to Seva and Adi Sankara, but Manusmriti contradicting and violating the Veda on several key issues (as indicated in the above link).

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

This is from the wikipedia page on dharmasastras:

Written after the Dharmasūtras, these texts use a metered verse and are much more elaborate in their scope. Scholars have postulated that these texts are actually compilations of common gnomic verses of the times, known by the śiṣṭas. Such verses were regularly cited as legitimation for legal judgments and advice. At some point these verses were gathered together into complete texts under the name of particular sages. These texts are said to have been edited and updated with additions of verses which had not previously been included.[45] However, there is an ongoing debate amongst scholars regarding this matter. Other scholars refute the multiple authorship idea, claiming that the major texts were written by a single author at a particular time in history and remained relatively unedited as time went by.[46] Regardless, by attributing their authorship to that of well known sages like Nārada, the text takes on a superior authority. The most influential texts are listed below, along with their approximate dates:

   The Manusmṛti (200BC-200CE) is the most important and earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of Hinduism.[47]
   The Yājñavalkya Smṛti (200-500CE) has been called the "best composed" and "most homogeneous"[48] text of the Dharmaśāstra tradition, with its superior vocabulary and level of sophistication.
   The Nāradasmṛti (100BC-400CE) has been called the “juridical text par excellence” and represents the only Dharmaśāstra text which deals solely with juridical matters and ignoring those of righteous conduct and penance.[49]
   The Viṣṇusmṛti (700-1000CE) is one of the latest books of the Dharmaśāstra tradition in Hinduism and also the only one which does not deal directly with the means of knowing dharma, focusing instead on the bhakti tradition.[50]
   The Bṛhaspatismṛti (200-400CE) is a modern reconstruction of a text that has not yet been found and may never have been recorded in written form. The attempt to author this lost Dharmaśāstra has been made based on a gathering of all verses attributed to the sage Bṛhaspati but pays full tribute to Manu as the ultimate authority on dharma.[51]
   The Kātyāyanasmṛti (300-600CE) is another modern reconstruction similar to that of Bṛhaspatismṛti, specializing in vyavahāra.[52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma%C5%9B%C4%81stra

The following tells the real truth about Manusmriti.

"Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself"  ...
http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

Manu Smriti--the book that was revered and held as an authoritative text by Adi Sankaracharya:

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankaracharya-and-manu-smriti_325321_blog

Is Seva opposed to the views of Adi Sankara?

This is not an issue related to Seva and Adi Sankara, but Manusmriti contradicting and violating the Veda on several key issues (as indicated in the above link).

But Seva is clearly contradicting the position taken by Adi Sankara on Manu Smriti. So it has become a Seva vs Adi Sankara fight.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

The following tells the real truth about Manusmriti.

"Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself"  ...
http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

Manu Smriti--the book that was revered and held as an authoritative text by Adi Sankaracharya:

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankaracharya-and-manu-smriti_325321_blog

Is Seva opposed to the views of Adi Sankara?

This is not an issue related to Seva and Adi Sankara, but Manusmriti contradicting and violating the Veda on several key issues (as indicated in the above link).

But Seva is clearly contradicting the position taken by Adi Sankara on Manu Smriti. So it has become a Seva vs Adi Sankara fight.

That's irrelevant. The real issue is whether Manusmriti, with all contradictions and violations of the Veda (as indicated in the above link),  is worthy of acceptance as a legitimate scriptural authority in Hinduism? The answer is 'no'.