Originally posted by DasaBrhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 describes rape. You also seem to have endorsed its message, so there quite clearly has been no misunderstanding. What is an apology/justification for rape of this kind doing in the literature of what you claim is "true religion"? Simply deflecting from this question with personal remarks aimed at me is not a suitable response from you on a topic as serious as this.
Stop agitating, and ask a sincere question about true religion.
FMF you have been agitating in this forum for years.
Will you ever tire from it?
Originaprovidelly posted by FMFIt is out of context you boofhead.
Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 describes rape. You also seem to have endorsed its message, so there quite clearly has been no misunderstanding. What is an apology/justification for rape of this kind doing in the literature of what you claim is "true religion"? Simply deflecting from this question with personal remarks aimed at me is not a suitable response from you on a topic as serious as this.
And it is translated wrongly.
I have provided the true translation...................read it.
In a bygone time, Kshatriyas could and did approach women.
And they were always chivalrous.
The verse that you are stuck to has been translated probably by an envious and hateful animal killing phsudoe atheist to corrupt the Veda.
Originally posted by DasaThe translation of Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 you offered describes rape. What definition of rape are you using that leads you to believe that, somehow, Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 is not describing and endorsing rape?
It is out of context you boofhead.
And it is translated wrongly.
I have provided the true translation...................read it.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
Originally posted by Dasa1.There was nothing chivalrous about Kshatriyas, even in your own translation of Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21. - Your justification for these rapists is shocking and shines a light on the imperfect and false nature of your chosen religion.
It is out of context you boofhead.
And it is translated wrongly.
I have provided the true translation...................read it.
In a bygone time, Kshatriyas could and did approach women.
And they were always chivalrous.
The verse that you are stuck to has been translated probably by an envious and hateful animal killing phsudoe atheist to corrupt the Veda.
2. I'm a vegetarian. Which animals am i killing?
3. The Vedas are self-corrupting.
Originally posted by DasaYes, it clearly is rape. Unless the woman gives permission, it is rape. Nobody else, not even your favourite religion can give the permission.
It was not rape.
Kshatriyas are warriors and they have permission to take a woman.
The women will always refuse to protect her chastity, .......
Originally posted by Dasa"Kshatriyas are warriors and they have permission to take a woman."
It was not rape.
Kshatriyas are warriors and they have permission to take a woman.
They never bash them on the head till dead, and throw them in a ditch when they are finished.
The Kshatriya does not approach the married female.
The women are always satisfied even when some persuasion is there.
The women will always refuse to protect her chasti ...[text shortened]... are protectors of society.
Go and research Kshatriya....................and learn something.
They have "permission" from who?
"The women are always satisfied even when some persuasion is there"
This is an unbelievable statement by you. You are justifying the brutal rape by claiming the females like it.
You really are a quite repellant individual.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the forum because not a single person took the opportunity to attempt to understand the text and in obligatory fashion simply utilised it as an opportunity to pile on and put the boot into Dasa. How predictable and how banal. Never the less some points are worth noting.
1. Dasa may have a legitimate claim to the translation. How many here understand Sanskrit? If we do not then me must take it upon trust that what is translated is accurate. Furthermore there may be terms that have no direct correlation with an English equivalent.
2. The text may by spurious or apocryphal, a later interpolation. From what I have read some consider that there is no sixth chapter and the verse in question looks very suspect because it does not deal with Vedic ritual like the preceding chapters.
3. That there has been a truly one dimensional approach to the text with no one considering it may be allegorical.
4. The text has been isolated and taken out of its immediate context with not a single reference having been made to that context.
5. There has been no historical perspective proffered and instead the text is cast under the microscope of modern parlance and seized upon by throngs of dissecting secularists eager to dissect it from its own time.
Now before you commit the same mistake and start to instantly moralise over me may I suggest that instead you seek simply to understand the position. I am not saying that the text does not advocate rape but that there may be other extenuating circumstances that you may like to consider prior to making an evaluation. One again is reminded of the noble game in that the more one gains in understanding the less dogmatic one is likely to be.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29595
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie you are just plain wrong here. Even the translation given by Dasa himself is abhorrent and justifies rape by warriors given 'unnamed' permission. - You really need to back away from this one. Even in context the verse and Dasa's justification for it are inexcusable and do not support the assertion of a perfect religion.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the forum because not a single person took the opportunity to attempt to understand the text and in obligatory fashion simply utilised it as an opportunity to pile on and put the boot into Dasa. How predictable and how banal. Never the less some points are worth noting.
1. Dasa may have a legitimate cl ...[text shortened]... he noble game in that the more one gains in understanding the less dogmatic one is likely to be.
If however you do wish to hang yourself, kindly hypothesize allegorical meaning that is not horrific. (If you can not or will not provide possible allegories, then asking us to consider such is a nonsense).
Deep disappointment doesn't lie with you here sir.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs there something we don't understand with the words, he can beat the woman into submission? It stands as pretty clear even in the apologist version given by Dasa.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the forum because not a single person took the opportunity to attempt to understand the text and in obligatory fashion simply utilised it as an opportunity to pile on and put the boot into Dasa. How predictable and how banal. Never the less some points are worth noting.
1. Dasa may have a legitimate cl ...[text shortened]... he noble game in that the more one gains in understanding the less dogmatic one is likely to be.
I think he imagines himself the equal of such a warrior depicted in those verses and he imagines himself being in a position to do exactly that to women in his environment.
You forget his words about wanting to kill as in ending the life of, every Muslim on earth?
You should be sympatico to such a person?
BTW, there are verses similar to those in the OT so rape was rampant in those days.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo I cannot logically be wrong because I have not taken a stance either way. The things I have said are valid. Do you understand Sanskrit Ghastly one? no then you have taken it upon trust that the translation is accurate. It has also been taken out of context and isolated. No historical perspective has been proffered and instead the text has been formed into a cudgel with which to hit Dasa over the head with.
Robbie you are just plain wrong here. Even the translation given by Dasa himself is abhorrent and justifies rape by warriors given 'unnamed' permission. - You really need to back away from this one. Even in context the verse and Dasa's justification for it are inexcusable and do not support the assertion of a perfect religion.
If however you do ...[text shortened]... sking us to consider such is a nonsense).
Deep disappointment doesn't lie with you here sir.
I dont know enough about the text to state whether it can be considered allegorical or not, but that is not the point I am making, the point is that no one even considered it.
I think robbie is just trying to be funny and contrary. It wasn't so long ago he was trying to extract some of his trademark nasty "comedy" out of denying that such a thing as marital rape exists. He's just courting controversy to draw attention to himself and when he's trying to be funny, his moral compass just switches off. I've seen it time and time again over the years. Even Dasa's proffered translation describes rape. RJHinds backed Dasa over genocide. robbie carrobie backed Dasa over rape.
Originally posted by sonhousehow can I explain so that you understand? Condemnation is easy but understanding is the thing to be aimed for because only with understanding can we make an evaluation.
Is there something we don't understand with the words, he can beat the woman into submission? It stands as pretty clear even in the apologist version given by Dasa.
I think he imagines himself the equal of such a warrior depicted in those verses and he imagines himself being in a position to do exactly that to women in his environment.
You forget his ...[text shortened]... a person?
BTW, there are verses similar to those in the OT so rape was rampant in those days.