Charvaka, the great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:25 am

in the good old days Charvaka used to be a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. For instance:

carvaka posted Re: Conspiracy theory? on 5 yrs ago
i know that under the mughals (particularly Akbar and Jahangir), the Jesuit missionaries from Europe had been given permission to make converts to their religion and the Fathers have reported the conversions of quite a few muslims to Christianity.Allowing another religion to convert Muslims away from the faith is pretty much unheard of in Islamic history AFAIK. In fact, no major kingdom of the day would allow conversions from the religion of the king to another upstart religion; protestants were being burnt at the stake at that time in Europe. This is yet another sense in which Akbar and Jahangir were ahead of their times.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/a-query-to-telugus.htm[/quote]

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:33 am

Yes, I do like Akbar and Jahangir. I don't worship them like you seem to do. My opinion of both of them is the same that it has been since I first learned about them.

Now, do you like Aurangzeb? If not, why not? When your methods of argumentation are applied to Aurangzeb, he comes across as much more "secular" (in your usage) than the guy you have certified as "not communal." What gives?

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p350-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67456

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am

panini press wrote:Yes, I do like Akbar and Jahangir. I don't worship them like you seem to do. My opinion of both of them is the same that it has been since I first learned about them.

Now, do you like Aurangzeb? If not, why not? When your methods of argumentation are applied to Aurangzeb, he comes across as much more "secular" (in your usage) than the guy you have certified as "not communal." What gives?

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p350-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67456

but recently u were seen lampooning and ridiculing jahangir. why do you keep changing your mind about jahangir? would you agree that u are of a whimsical and fickle mindset?

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:38 am

after indophile slammed jahangir ( https://such.forumotion.com/t8527-babur-s-gay-side-and-his-love-for-boys#64709 ) it was expected that u would defend jahangir since you claim to be an admirer of jahangir. but in fact you went ahead and lampooned and ridiculed jahangir ( https://such.forumotion.com/t8527-babur-s-gay-side-and-his-love-for-boys#64710 ). now again you are saying u are an admirer of jahangir.

are you incapable of holding a consistent position on Jahangir?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:44 am

I am not "an admirer" of Jahangir the way you are. I was just defending him the same way you defend Akbar's excesses: "he was young, he felt bad later about it, etc." Are you telling me that your own defense of Akbar amounted to slamming, lampooning and ridiculing Akbar? Tauba tauba.

Leave all this. Tell me, do you like Aurangzeb?

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:48 pm

panini press wrote:I am not "an admirer" of Jahangir the way you are. I was just defending him the same way you defend Akbar's excesses: "he was young, he felt bad later about it, etc." Are you telling me that your own defense of Akbar amounted to slamming, lampooning and ridiculing Akbar? Tauba tauba.

Leave all this. Tell me, do you like Aurangzeb?

the fact that u were lampooning Jahangir was very clear from the fact that indophile was saying incorrect things while criticizing jahangir and u made no attempt to correct him (like i did). but if you really insist that you were defending jahangir and not lampooning jahangir then i will be generous with you and will accept the fact that u said what u did because of an extremely hazy and nebulous knowledge and understanding of mughal history.

with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.

Thank you for not calling Aurangzeb communal! I see that my application of your methods is working for you.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:55 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.
Thank you for not calling Aurangzeb communal! I see that my application of your methods is working for you.

i have already said multiple times that Aurangzeb should be considered communal for his reimposition of the jaziya. how many times am i supposed to repeat myself?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.
Thank you for not calling Aurangzeb communal! I see that my application of your methods is working for you.

i have already said multiple times that Aurangzeb should be considered communal for his reimposition of the jaziya. how many times am i supposed to repeat myself?

But jaziya is not communal, per your methods. And since when did you stop repeating yourself?

by Propagandhi711 Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:01 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.
Thank you for not calling Aurangzeb communal! I see that my application of your methods is working for you.

i have already said multiple times that Aurangzeb should be considered communal for his reimposition of the jaziya. how many times am i supposed to repeat myself?
But jaziya is not communal, per your methods. And since when did you stop repeating yourself?

.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:07 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.
Thank you for not calling Aurangzeb communal! I see that my application of your methods is working for you.

i have already said multiple times that Aurangzeb should be considered communal for his reimposition of the jaziya. how many times am i supposed to repeat myself?
But jaziya is not communal, per your methods. And since when did you stop repeating yourself?

Wrong.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:with respect to aurangzeb, i have an instinctive dislike for the man although i recognize that he was a complex complicated character and i agree with the great kashmiri historian Kalhana that one should be detached--like a judge--when judging historical personalities.
Thank you for not calling Aurangzeb communal! I see that my application of your methods is working for you.

i have already said multiple times that Aurangzeb should be considered communal for his reimposition of the jaziya. how many times am i supposed to repeat myself?
But jaziya is not communal, per your methods. And since when did you stop repeating yourself?

Wrong.

Jaziya was not communal at all.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

---

What Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney had for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:21 pm

Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:21 pm

also why does Shivaji protest against the imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?

Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:23 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.

Did Akbar and Jahangir use the word "communal" to describe the jaziya? (Hint: the concept didn't exist back in their time so they couldn't possibly have.)

Quit hiding behind Akbar and Jahangir, and face the facts. Your own methods lead to the conclusion that jaziya is not communal.

PS: I don't "admire" monarchs the way you do.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:34 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

Akbar, Jahangir and Shivaji decided that jaziya was communal. since you have no clue about mughal history you should just believe akbar, jahangir, and Shivaji and carry on with your life without thinking too much.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:37 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.
Did Akbar and Jahangir use the word "communal" to describe the jaziya? (Hint: the concept didn't exist back in their time so they couldn't possibly have.)

Quit hiding behind Akbar and Jahangir, and face the facts. Your own methods lead to the conclusion that jaziya is not communal.

PS: I don't "admire" monarchs the way you do.

Why are you dropping all reference to Shivaji? The term 'communal' may not have existed but the idea that the jaziya constiituted injustice certainly existed. which is why akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--who u claim u admire--opposed jaziya. are you saying u have u have stopped admiring akbar, jahangir, and shivaji because of their opposition to jaziya?

btw, is it not true that you said on sulekha that u have gone to visit the tomb of Aurangzeb in Khuldabad? did u do so because of your admiration for Aurangzeb?

by Propagandhi711 Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

Akbar, Jahangir and Shivaji decided that jaziya was communal. since you have no clue about mughal history you should just believe akbar, jahangir, and Shivaji and carry on with your life without thinking too much.

picture of my hero aurangazeb thinking too much:

Charvaka, the great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir Aurangzeb1sized

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:44 pm

Rashmun wrote:The term 'communal' may not have existed

So Akbar, Jahangir or Shivaji could not have possibly called anything communal. Thanks.

Rashmun wrote: jaziya constiituted injustice

Not true. Applying your own methods, jaziya did not constitute injustice at all. Are you giving up your famous methods now because you don't like this particular conclusion?

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka if you really think jaziya was a great thing then why did Akbar abolish it and why did Jahangir not reimpose it? i was under the impression that you were a great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir. Have you changed your mind again about Akbar and Jahangir?
Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.
Did Akbar and Jahangir use the word "communal" to describe the jaziya? (Hint: the concept didn't exist back in their time so they couldn't possibly have.)

Quit hiding behind Akbar and Jahangir, and face the facts. Your own methods lead to the conclusion that jaziya is not communal.

PS: I don't "admire" monarchs the way you do.

Why are you dropping all reference to Shivaji? The term 'communal' may not have existed but the idea that the jaziya constiituted injustice certainly existed. which is why akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--who u claim u admire--opposed jaziya. are you saying u have u have stopped admiring akbar, jahangir, and shivaji because of their opposition to jaziya?

btw, is it not true that you said on sulekha that u have gone to visit the tomb of Aurangzeb in Khuldabad? did u do so because of your admiration for Aurangzeb?

Charvaka, are you telling us why you visited Aurangzeb's tomb at Khuldabad? Does your admiration for Aurangzeb exceed your admiration for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji?

by Propagandhi711 Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:53 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The term 'communal' may not have existed
So Akbar, Jahangir or Shivaji could not have possibly called anything communal. Thanks.

Rashmun wrote: jaziya constiituted injustice
Not true. Applying your own methods, jaziya did not constitute injustice at all. Are you giving up your famous methods now because you don't like this particular conclusion?

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

this proves conclusively that jizya is not communal since rajpyuts imposed it and rajputs were not communal in the 19th century

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Akbar made some mistakes in his youth, as did Jahangir, and even you.

I notice that you are unable to refute the points I cited regarding jaziya. Why do you think jaziya is communal?

there are various reasons as to why i i think jaziya to be communal. one such reason is the fact that akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--all three of whom you claim you admire--considered it to be communal.
Did Akbar and Jahangir use the word "communal" to describe the jaziya? (Hint: the concept didn't exist back in their time so they couldn't possibly have.)

Quit hiding behind Akbar and Jahangir, and face the facts. Your own methods lead to the conclusion that jaziya is not communal.

PS: I don't "admire" monarchs the way you do.

Why are you dropping all reference to Shivaji? The term 'communal' may not have existed but the idea that the jaziya constiituted injustice certainly existed. which is why akbar, jahangir, and shivaji--who u claim u admire--opposed jaziya. are you saying u have u have stopped admiring akbar, jahangir, and shivaji because of their opposition to jaziya?

btw, is it not true that you said on sulekha that u have gone to visit the tomb of Aurangzeb in Khuldabad? did u do so because of your admiration for Aurangzeb?

Charvaka, are you telling us why you visited Aurangzeb's tomb at Khuldabad? Does your admiration for Aurangzeb exceed your admiration for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji?

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, are you telling us why you visited Aurangzeb's tomb at Khuldabad? Does your admiration for Aurangzeb exceed your admiration for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji?

No it does not. I will tell you why I visited Aurangzeb's tomb after you tell me why YOU (i.e. Rashmun) think jaziya (or Aurangzeb) is communal. One condition though; your rationale cannot be, "because X thinks so."

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:57 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, are you telling us why you visited Aurangzeb's tomb at Khuldabad? Does your admiration for Aurangzeb exceed your admiration for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji?
No it does not. I will tell you why I visited Aurangzeb's tomb after you tell me why YOU (i.e. Rashmun) think jaziya (or Aurangzeb) is communal. One condition though; your rationale cannot be, "because X thinks so."

you can hardly put conditions on my response. my answer is my answer and not your answer and i have already answered your question. now answer my question: why did you go to Khuldabad to visit Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you really that big of an admirer of Aurangzeb?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, are you telling us why you visited Aurangzeb's tomb at Khuldabad? Does your admiration for Aurangzeb exceed your admiration for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji?
No it does not. I will tell you why I visited Aurangzeb's tomb after you tell me why YOU (i.e. Rashmun) think jaziya (or Aurangzeb) is communal. One condition though; your rationale cannot be, "because X thinks so."

you can hardly put conditions on my response. my answer is my answer and not your answer and i have already answered your question. now answer my question: why did you go to Khuldabad to visit Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you really that big of an admirer of Aurangzeb?

So your answer is that you have no opinion of your own! Thank you.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:08 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Charvaka, are you telling us why you visited Aurangzeb's tomb at Khuldabad? Does your admiration for Aurangzeb exceed your admiration for Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji?
No it does not. I will tell you why I visited Aurangzeb's tomb after you tell me why YOU (i.e. Rashmun) think jaziya (or Aurangzeb) is communal. One condition though; your rationale cannot be, "because X thinks so."

you can hardly put conditions on my response. my answer is my answer and not your answer and i have already answered your question. now answer my question: why did you go to Khuldabad to visit Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you really that big of an admirer of Aurangzeb?
So your answer is that you have no opinion of your own! Thank you.

Wrong again. Also see here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67564

now are u answering my question: why did you go to Khuldabad to visit Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you really such an ardent admirer of Aurangzeb that you travelled all the way from hyderabad to khuldabad to pay homage at his grave? And why are you silent now about your visit to Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you embarrassed about your ardent affection and admiration for Aurangzeb?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:Wrong again. Also see here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67564

Of the "various" reasons for you to think of jaziya as communal, the only one you cite is your mistaken notion that Akbar and Jahangir thought so too (they didn't). Are you afraid of articulating your "various" reasons?

Rashmun wrote:now are u answering my question: why did you go to Khuldabad to visit Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you really such an ardent admirer of Aurangzeb that you travelled all the way from hyderabad to khuldabad to pay homage at his grave? And why are you silent now about your visit to Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you embarrassed about your ardent affection and admiration for Aurangzeb?

I visited Khuldabad when I was on a school road trip to visit Aurangabad, Ajanta, Ellora, and Nashik. I visited it because the "excursion" bus stopped there.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:18 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Wrong again. Also see here:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8873-charvaka-the-great-admirer-of-akbar-and-jahangir#67564
Of the "various" reasons for you to think of jaziya as communal, the only one you cite is your mistaken notion that Akbar and Jahangir thought so too (they didn't). Are you afraid of articulating your "various" reasons?

Although Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji were unaware of the term 'communal' they were aware of the idea behind the term and they were aware of the fact that all religions needed to be treated with equal respect and there should be no discrimination between citizens in the kingdom based on religion. All three of them clearly believed that jaziya was a discriminatory tax.

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:now are u answering my question: why did you go to Khuldabad to visit Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you really such an ardent admirer of Aurangzeb that you travelled all the way from hyderabad to khuldabad to pay homage at his grave? And why are you silent now about your visit to Aurangzeb's tomb? Are you embarrassed about your ardent affection and admiration for Aurangzeb?
I visited Khuldabad when I was on a school road trip to visit Aurangabad, Ajanta, Ellora, and Nashik. I visited it because the "excursion" bus stopped there.

And so you went to pay your respects at Aurangzeb's tomb? What was going through your mind when you stood before Aurangzeb's grave?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:22 pm

Rashmun wrote:Although Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji were unaware of the term 'communal' they were aware of the idea behind the term and they were aware of the fact that all religions needed to be treated with equal respect and there should be no discrimination between citizens in the kingdom based on religion.

Aurangzeb also believed this, per your own methods! I got tons of copy-pastes to prove that. Jaziya does not discriminate based on religion. It's all good. Aurangzeb is not communal, just like Nizam is not communal. Got it?

Rashmun wrote:And so you went to pay your respects at Aurangzeb's tomb? What was going through your mind when you stood before Aurangzeb's grave?

No, I went to see what sort of memorial the tyrant got. What went through my mind is this: how some sycophants can extol the worst tyrants to be great figures (yes, I was thinking of Aurangzeb, the Nizam and others like them).

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:28 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Although Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji were unaware of the term 'communal' they were aware of the idea behind the term and they were aware of the fact that all religions needed to be treated with equal respect and there should be no discrimination between citizens in the kingdom based on religion.
Aurangzeb also believed this, per your own methods! I got tons of copy-pastes to prove that. Jaziya does not discriminate based on religion. It's all good. Aurangzeb is not communal, just like Nizam is not communal. Got it?

Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji clearly disagree with Aurangzeb on the question of jaziya. Akbar abolished it, Jahangir enforced the abolition, and Shivaji protested against the re-imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb. So we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb.

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:And so you went to pay your respects at Aurangzeb's tomb? What was going through your mind when you stood before Aurangzeb's grave?
No, I went to see what sort of memorial the tyrant got. What went through my mind is this: how some sycophants can extol the worst tyrants to be great figures (yes, I was thinking of Aurangzeb, the Nizam and others like them).

Aah i see. So Aurangzeb was a tyrant according to you. Very good. So you should then accept the view on jaziya of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji and reject the view on it of the tyrant. Yes?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji clearly disagree with Aurangzeb on the question of jaziya. Akbar abolished it, Jahangir enforced the abolition, and Shivaji protested against the re-imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb. So we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb.

Akbar was not perfect. He made some mistakes. Jahangir was not perfect either. Hell, even you are not perfect. You made some mistakes too. So the lesson is, "X did this" is not a good reason to say "Y should not do this". Basic logic, but never too late to learn this shit.

Rashmun wrote:Aah i see. So Aurangzeb was a tyrant according to you. Very good. So you should then accept the view on jaziya of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji and reject the view on it of the tyrant. Yes?

See logic lesson above.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji clearly disagree with Aurangzeb on the question of jaziya. Akbar abolished it, Jahangir enforced the abolition, and Shivaji protested against the re-imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb. So we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb.
Akbar was not perfect. He made some mistakes. Jahangir was not perfect either. Hell, even you are not perfect. You made some mistakes too. So the lesson is, "X did this" is not a good reason to say "Y should not do this". Basic logic, but never too late to learn this shit.

Rashmun wrote:Aah i see. So Aurangzeb was a tyrant according to you. Very good. So you should then accept the view on jaziya of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji and reject the view on it of the tyrant. Yes?
See logic lesson above.

Why the persistent silence on Shivai who protested against the imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb? Do you have some deep dislike for Shivaji that you prefer not to refer to him in your posts?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:37 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji clearly disagree with Aurangzeb on the question of jaziya. Akbar abolished it, Jahangir enforced the abolition, and Shivaji protested against the re-imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb. So we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb.
Akbar was not perfect. He made some mistakes. Jahangir was not perfect either. Hell, even you are not perfect. You made some mistakes too. So the lesson is, "X did this" is not a good reason to say "Y should not do this". Basic logic, but never too late to learn this shit.

Rashmun wrote:Aah i see. So Aurangzeb was a tyrant according to you. Very good. So you should then accept the view on jaziya of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji and reject the view on it of the tyrant. Yes?
See logic lesson above.

Why the persistent silence on Shivai who protested against the imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb? Do you have some deep dislike for Shivaji that you prefer not to refer to him in your posts?

Shivaji wasn't perfect either.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:40 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji clearly disagree with Aurangzeb on the question of jaziya. Akbar abolished it, Jahangir enforced the abolition, and Shivaji protested against the re-imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb. So we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb.
Akbar was not perfect. He made some mistakes. Jahangir was not perfect either. Hell, even you are not perfect. You made some mistakes too. So the lesson is, "X did this" is not a good reason to say "Y should not do this". Basic logic, but never too late to learn this shit.

Rashmun wrote:Aah i see. So Aurangzeb was a tyrant according to you. Very good. So you should then accept the view on jaziya of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji and reject the view on it of the tyrant. Yes?
See logic lesson above.

Why the persistent silence on Shivai who protested against the imposition of jaziya by Aurangzeb? Do you have some deep dislike for Shivaji that you prefer not to refer to him in your posts?
Shivaji wasn't perfect either.

OK. so on the question of jaziya we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb, and you disagree with the view of (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) on this issue and agree with Aurangzeb. Have i understood your position correctly?

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:OK. so on the question of jaziya we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb, and you disagree with the view of (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) on this issue and agree with Aurangzeb. Have i understood your position correctly?

You misunderstand my position completely. I don't trust arguments like "X thinks so, so you should think so too." No matter who X is.

I used your own methods to research the jaziya topic. What I found is that jaziya is not discriminatory. Let me refresh your memory.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p100-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64500

This tax was not collected from women, nor from young males or from disabled or elderly non-Muslim male citizens. Muslims who paid zakat were not exempt from war duty and a similar form of war tax was also collected from able-bodied Muslim adult males who refused to join war efforts to defend the country. There was, therefore, no discrimination between able-bodied Muslim males and able-bodied non-Muslim males when it came to the payment of war-tax, as long as the person in question would not volunteer in war- efforts for defense of the Muslim- administered state.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64410

Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated it.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to note that Jizya is nothing more than a war exemption tax which was collected only from able-bodied non-Muslim young male citizens who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. There was no Jizya if they volunteered to fight for the country. No such tax was collected from non-Muslims who joined to defend the country.

---

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p50-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#64399

Rajputs living in western India used to collect a similar form of Jizya or war tax which they called "Fix" tax. (Ref: Early History of India by Vincent Smith). War tax was not a sole monopoly among the Indian or Muslim rulers.

Historian Dr. Tripathy mentions a number of countries in Europe where war-tax was practiced. (Ref: Some Aspects of Muslim Administration by Sri Tripathy) Let us now return to Aurangzeb. In his book "Mughal Administration,” Sir Jadunath Sarkar [3] foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb’s reign, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees to the state treasury. It is also worth mentioning here that Aurangzeb did not impose Jizya in the beginning of his reign but introduced it after 16 years during which 80 types of taxes were abolished. Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished eighty taxes no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one, and not a heavy one at that, people began to show their displeasure. (Ref: Vindication of Aurangzeb).

---

What Aurangzeb did in fact was simplify the tax code, reduce rates, close deficits and eliminate the fiscal deficit. This is exactly the sort of plan Mitt Romney had for America. It seems to me that the people of Aurangzeb the Great's empire -- many of them from Uttar Pradesh -- were not smart enough to realize how good Aurangzeb's tax plan was for them.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:49 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:OK. so on the question of jaziya we have (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) vs Aurangzeb, and you disagree with the view of (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) on this issue and agree with Aurangzeb. Have i understood your position correctly?
You misunderstand my position completely. I don't trust arguments like "X thinks so, so you should think so too." No matter who X is.

I used your own methods to research the jaziya topic. What I found is that jaziya is not discriminatory. Let me refresh your memory.

if you believe in my methods than you should incorporate the view of people you claim to admire and respect (Akbar + Jahangir + Shivaji) on jaziya before coming to any conclusion on jaziya.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:if you believe in my methods

I don't; I am just illustrating what stupid conclusions your methods result in. It is possible to prove that jaziya is not communal with your methods. Reductio ad absurdum.

You used the same bad methods to argue that the Nizam was not communal. If you apply the exact same methods to Aurangzeb, the conclusion would be that he is not communal. You are OK with the first erroneous conclusion, but are too scared to face up to the second conclusion. That is the source of all that discomfort you are experiencing right now, which prompts you to post Jahangiri paintings in a thread about the Nizam Smile

.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:you should incorporate the view of people you claim to admire and respect ... before coming to any conclusion ...

This is a fundamental flaw of the Rashmun Method. The sooner you recognize that, the better it will be for you and all around you. Admiration may be a result of a congruence of views, but if you use admiration as the basis for your own views, you end up being as misguided as a follower of Balasaheb.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:00 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you should incorporate the view of people you claim to admire and respect ... before coming to any conclusion ...
This is a fundamental flaw of the Rashmun Method. The sooner you recognize that, the better it will be for you and all around you. Admiration may be a result of a congruence of views, but if you use admiration as the basis for your own views, you end up being as misguided as a follower of Balasaheb.

in Indian logic there are three sources of valid knowledge: perception, inference, and verbal testimony of authoritative people. Does the PP Method disavow verbal testimony? Further, does PP hold all Indian logicians to be fools?

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:04 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:if you believe in my methods
I don't; I am just illustrating what stupid conclusions your methods result in. It is possible to prove that jaziya is not communal with your methods. Reductio ad absurdum.

You used the same bad methods to argue that the Nizam was not communal. If you apply the exact same methods to Aurangzeb, the conclusion would be that he is not communal. You are OK with the first erroneous conclusion, but are too scared to face up to the second conclusion. That is the source of all that discomfort you are experiencing right now, which prompts you to post Jahangiri paintings in a thread about the Nizam .

i explained the reason for the jahangir posts on the Nizam thread:

https://such.forumotion.com/t5819p600-nizam-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#66925

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you should incorporate the view of people you claim to admire and respect ... before coming to any conclusion ...
This is a fundamental flaw of the Rashmun Method. The sooner you recognize that, the better it will be for you and all around you. Admiration may be a result of a congruence of views, but if you use admiration as the basis for your own views, you end up being as misguided as a follower of Balasaheb.

in Indian logic there are three sources of valid knowledge: perception, inference, and verbal testimony of authoritative people. Does the PP Method disavow verbal testimony? Further, does PP hold all Indian logicians to be fools?

I have news for you. We are in the 21st century. "Indian logic" isn't all there is. The problem with appeals to authority are that they are quite often -- as in your case -- fallacious.

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:Further, does PP hold all Indian logicians to be fools?

No, I don't hold all Indian logicians to be fools. I do hold anyone who insists that they will today use the logical standards or norms of many centuries ago to be a bit of a fool. In other words, people who did the best they could with the knowledge of their times have nothing to be ashamed of. People who hide behind 16th century -- or 6th century -- behavior to justify their own misdeeds do have a lot to be ashamed of.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:36 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you should incorporate the view of people you claim to admire and respect ... before coming to any conclusion ...
This is a fundamental flaw of the Rashmun Method. The sooner you recognize that, the better it will be for you and all around you. Admiration may be a result of a congruence of views, but if you use admiration as the basis for your own views, you end up being as misguided as a follower of Balasaheb.

in Indian logic there are three sources of valid knowledge: perception, inference, and verbal testimony of authoritative people. Does the PP Method disavow verbal testimony? Further, does PP hold all Indian logicians to be fools?
I have news for you. We are in the 21st century. "Indian logic" isn't all there is. The problem with appeals to authority are that they are quite often -- as in your case -- fallacious.

i disagree. i am talking about incorporating the views of authoritative people in framing one's view or opinion an an issue. i am not talking about rejecting perception or inference. i agree that we are in the 21st century but there are many aspects in indian logic which remain relevant and very modern. it is your ignorance of Indian logic which is making you talk dismissively of the stupendous work done on Logic in in India by Indian logicians.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:46 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Further, does PP hold all Indian logicians to be fools?
No, I don't hold all Indian logicians to be fools. I do hold anyone who insists that they will today use the logical standards or norms of many centuries ago to be a bit of a fool. In other words, people who did the best they could with the knowledge of their times have nothing to be ashamed of. People who hide behind 16th century -- or 6th century -- behavior to justify their own misdeeds do have a lot to be ashamed of.

This may help smash your 'arrogant ignorance' about the great work done on Logic in India and why Indian Logic cannot be randomly dismissed as 'obsolete' as you are now doing.

-----

I had read Sun Tzu some 10-15 years ago in the celebrated Samuel Griffith translation. At the time i was too young to realize the full significance of what i was reading. Having just read the book carefully a second time, i wish to share some thoughts on it.

Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' is the most celebrated work on military strategy to have come out of China and it retains significance to this day even though it was written more than two thousand years ago. In his foreword to the Griffiths translation, first published in 1963, the well known British military writer B.H. Lidell Hart writes:

-----------------

"Sun Tzu's essays on 'The Art of War' form the earliest of known treatises on the subject, but have never been surpassed in comprehensiveness and depth of understanding. They might well be termed the concentrated essence of wisdom on the conduct of war. Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more 'dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal freshness.....

Some fifteen years later, in the middle of the Second World War, I had several visits from the Chinese Military Attache, a pupil of Chiang Kai-shek. He told me that my books and General Fuller's were principal textbooks in the Chinese military academies--whereupon i asked: 'What about Sun Tzu?' He replied that while Sun Tzu's book was venerated as a classic, it was considered out of date by most of the younger officers, and thus hardly worth study in the era of mechanized weapons. At this, I remarked that it was time they went back to Sun Tzu, since in that one short book was embodied almost as much about the fundamentals of strategy and tactics as I had covered in more than twenty books. In brief, Sun Tzu was the best short introduction to the study of warfare, and no less valuable for constant reference in extending study of the subject."

http://rivr.sulekha.com/sun-tzu-in-india_432771_blog

by Idéfix Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:50 pm

Now you are tilting at windwills. I didn't call Indian logic obsolete.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:51 pm

panini press wrote:Now you are tilting at windwills. I didn't call Indian logic obsolete.

let me quote your own words:

No, I don't hold all Indian logicians to be fools. I do hold anyone who insists that they will today use the logical standards or norms of many centuries ago to be a bit of a fool. In other words, people who did the best they could with the knowledge of their times have nothing to be ashamed of. People who hide behind 16th century -- or 6th century -- behavior to justify their own misdeeds do have a lot to be ashamed of.

by Guest Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Further, does PP hold all Indian logicians to be fools?
No, I don't hold all Indian logicians to be fools. I do hold anyone who insists that they will today use the logical standards or norms of many centuries ago to be a bit of a fool. In other words, people who did the best they could with the knowledge of their times have nothing to be ashamed of. People who hide behind 16th century -- or 6th century -- behavior to justify their own misdeeds do have a lot to be ashamed of.

This may help smash your 'arrogant ignorance' about the great work done on Logic in India and why Indian Logic cannot be randomly dismissed as 'obsolete' as you are now doing.

-----

I had read Sun Tzu some 10-15 years ago in the celebrated Samuel Griffith translation. At the time i was too young to realize the full significance of what i was reading. Having just read the book carefully a second time, i wish to share some thoughts on it.

Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' is the most celebrated work on military strategy to have come out of China and it retains significance to this day even though it was written more than two thousand years ago. In his foreword to the Griffiths translation, first published in 1963, the well known British military writer B.H. Lidell Hart writes:

-----------------

"Sun Tzu's essays on 'The Art of War' form the earliest of known treatises on the subject, but have never been surpassed in comprehensiveness and depth of understanding. They might well be termed the concentrated essence of wisdom on the conduct of war. Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more 'dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal freshness.....

Some fifteen years later, in the middle of the Second World War, I had several visits from the Chinese Military Attache, a pupil of Chiang Kai-shek. He told me that my books and General Fuller's were principal textbooks in the Chinese military academies--whereupon i asked: 'What about Sun Tzu?' He replied that while Sun Tzu's book was venerated as a classic, it was considered out of date by most of the younger officers, and thus hardly worth study in the era of mechanized weapons. At this, I remarked that it was time they went back to Sun Tzu, since in that one short book was embodied almost as much about the fundamentals of strategy and tactics as I had covered in more than twenty books. In brief, Sun Tzu was the best short introduction to the study of warfare, and no less valuable for constant reference in extending study of the subject."

http://rivr.sulekha.com/sun-tzu-in-india_432771_blog

Charvaka you remind me of those chinese officers who did not bother to study Sun Tzu thinking Sun Tzu to be outdated.

by Sponsored content