Charvaka, the great admirer of Akbar and Jahangir

Rashmun wrote:i am not talking about rejecting perception or inference.

Rashmun wrote:

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.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

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.

Thank you, I stated my point well, and I didn't call Indian logic obsolete any more than I called Unix obsolete in that comment.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am not talking about rejecting perception or inference.

In this case, you are rejecting both perception and inference. The only rationale you have advanced for why jaziya is communal is that some other people thought so (when the notion of communal didn't even exist when they lived!) You have not looked at the nature of the jaziya Aurangzeb imposed, whether it applied to all Hindus or only those against the state, whether Hindus were part of his administration, etc. You used those exact arguments to call the Nizam not communal, and now you are rejecting those data points because you are too scared to face up to the results of your own methods!

Rashmun wrote:blah blah blah... according to Basil Lidell Hart.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:blah blah blah... according to Basil Lidell Hart.

Hahaha, this is what is so wrong with the Rashmun Method.

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am not talking about rejecting perception or inference.

In this case, you are rejecting both perception and inference. The only rationale you have advanced for why jaziya is communal is that some other people thought so (when the notion of communal didn't even exist when they lived!) You have not looked at the nature of the jaziya Aurangzeb imposed, whether it applied to all Hindus or only those against the state, whether Hindus were part of his administration, etc. You used those exact arguments to call the Nizam not communal, and now you are rejecting those data points because you are too scared to face up to the results of your own methods!

this is what i had written:

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.

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

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am not talking about rejecting perception or inference.

In this case, you are rejecting both perception and inference. The only rationale you have advanced for why jaziya is communal is that some other people thought so (when the notion of communal didn't even exist when they lived!) You have not looked at the nature of the jaziya Aurangzeb imposed, whether it applied to all Hindus or only those against the state, whether Hindus were part of his administration, etc. You used those exact arguments to call the Nizam not communal, and now you are rejecting those data points because you are too scared to face up to the results of your own methods!

this is what i had written:

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.

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

You claim that you have various reasons, but you are not able to articulate any of them other than "other people thought so" (although they didn't, really.)

Rashmun wrote:The fact remains that Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji (all of whom u claim u admire) were opposed to jaziya since they considered it to be a discriminatory tax.

panini press wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The fact remains that Akbar, Jahangir, and Shivaji (all of whom u claim u admire) were opposed to jaziya since they considered it to be a discriminatory tax.

Akbar, Jahangir and Shivaji all made some mistakes. Just like you and Nizam did. And just like i am doing now.

Rashmun wrote: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