Blast from the Past 5: Charvaka defends Rashmun in an Indian Philosophy related discussion

by Guest Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:38 am

Despite Charvaka's recent claim that he is not interested in Indian philosophy, the fact of the matter is that he took a keen interest in my philosophy posts and kept giving his opinions on the different Indian philosophical schools and thoughts i would write about, for instance nyaya-vaisesika, charvaka (he coined his handle name after this school of indian philosophy), sankhya, svabhava vada, views of Adi Sankaracharya, views of Manu Smriti, etc.

Here we see Charvaka defending what i had written:

Charvaka to Tejasvee:

Right. Apparently Adi Shankara did not think it
irrelevant. I know you are more qualified than him to speak about what
Smriti is relevant ot the Kali yuga, but as far as I can see, Rashmun is
NOT saying that Manusmriti should be applied today; he is simply saying
Adi Shankara through it was relevant to quote it.......
I don't think Rashmun disagrees with you. He is merely
pointing out what Adi Shankara thought. It makes you uncomfortable that
he is doing this, so you keep titling at windmills. NO ONE is suggesting
that Manusmriti be followed today....And how is your nugget of wisdom relevant in a thread about Adi Shankara's views on the Manusmriti? LOL.

Charvaka to Seva:

Hahaha. Apparently the number is much larger than what
you explcitly claimed this morning ("one or two"). How many years will
it take before you will accept that you were wrong?...Samkara mentioning the word Manusmriti in his Bhashya
etc. is only a few times (once or twice... )

Now, let us try and understand the basis for your statement. Were you
shooting from the hip? Making stuff up? Randomly saying whatever you
want to believe? Why did you think Adi Shankara mentioned it only once
or twice?....I am NOT going to write any essay. That's your job... to
make stuff up and write blogs, just like you made up stuff about Samkara mentioning the
word Manusmriti in his Bhashya etc. is only a few times (once or
twice... )". Your pretensions to scholarship are thoroughly exposed....Right... that depends on your definition of worthwhile.
In your book, it is worthwhile to pretend to know things you have no
clue about; to make stuff up randomly. Dishonesty may be worthwhile for
you, yes........
Sir-ji, on what basis did you say Shankara used it "only
once or twice"? Did you make it all up? Is that your standard operating
procedure? Making stuff up when you have no clue?...No tables are required to prove you wrong. You make it
very easy to prove you wrong, when you shamelessly make up stuff and
pretend to know things you have no clue about....I see. Posting Seva's old post = lying.

Is that because your posts are full of lies, Seva-ji? Smile

...

You probably spent the entire night looking for
references to prove me wrong, but it seems you didn't find any.

You flatter yourself needlessly. Your mistake is glaring at you in this
thread. You said Shankara only referred to the Manusmriti "once or
twice." You can count more than that simply on this thread... if you can
count past two, that is. But I know your style... you will fail to see
this, for at least two years. Well, you are the only one. Everyone else
sees how you made up stuff and pretended to know things which you had no
clue about...........If you can't count past two, I am completely willing to
wait the three years to admit that Adi Shankara did indeed refer to Manu
more than twice. I know your style -- even if Adi Shankara came and
told you, "Seva, yes, I did refer to Manu more than twice," you will
refuse to believe him. prasahyamaNimuddharEt
makarachakradanshTrAntarAt...Did he use it only once or twice? You still believe the
stuff you made up out of desperate ignorance yesterday? Are you going to
pretend that you do? Go ahead :-).

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/adi-sankaracharya-and-manu-smriti-128929.htm