Al-Biruni a Persian scholar who came to the subcontinent in 1017, wrote this about Sati

 If a wife loses her husband by death, she cannot marry another man. She has only to choose between two things-either to remain a widow as long as she lives or to burn herself; and the latter eventuality is considered the preferable, because as a widow she is ill-treated as long as she lives. As regards the wives of the kings, they are in the habit of burning them, whether they wish it or not, by which they desire to prevent any of them by chance committing something unworthy of the illustrious husband. They make an exception only for women of advanced years and for those who have children, for the son is the responsible protector of his mother.

He wrote this in his book, 'Taḥqīq mā li-l-Hind'.

So they have been practicing sati for at least a thousand years and then they say it was because of Muslims.

 

Al biruni also mentions in his book

1. Indian society was cast-ridden.
2. Several evil prac­tices like child marriage, prohibition of widow marriage, ‘Sati’ existed in the Hindu society.
3. He does not mention the system of dowry but he writes about the 'StreeDhan' which the relatives of girls present to her in-laws.
4. The entire country was divided into small states which occasionally used to quarrel among themselves. These states were jealous of each other and constantly engaged in fights against one another. Malwa, Sindh, Kannauj and Kashmir were prominent states among them.
5. The feeling of nationalism was almost absent.
6. The Hindus of the rural regions worshipped many gods and goddesses.
7. Idol worship was prevalent. Brahmans had the sole privilege of reading the Hindu scriptures. Only the Brahmans had the right to attain salvation.

He even mentions that if a shudra utters a word from vedas, his tongue be cut off.

Brhatsamhita by Varahamihira is a much older and detailed record of sati and jauhar, caste discrimination and segregation, etc. Also lists a few recipes

 

Based Periyar's ideas on religion and God that were moulded by his upbringing in a society split along caste and religion lines.

 

Periyar believed that the idea of God was created by the privileged class to enslave and oppress the underclass. He thought that religion was a tool of oppression and that the lower classes were maintained in a state of ignorance and servitude by religious rituals and beliefs.

He said that there was no evidence from science to prove the existence of God and that people's belief in him was just the result of superstition and blind faith. The training that occurs in people to accept the existence of God from the moment they are born, in his opinion, is continued by religious organisations and activities.

In addition, Periyar criticised the caste system and the way Dalits and other marginalised groups were victimised in the name of religion. He believed that the caste system resulted from religious convictions and that caste prejudice and the caste system itself were mechanisms used to uphold the servitude of the lower castes.

Periyar's experiences as a social activist and politician in India who fought for the rights of underprivileged groups shaped his views on God. He believed that the lower class ability to advance and be freed was significantly hampered by religion and that it was used as a tool of oppression. He advocated for a society that is logical, scientific, and egalitarian and believed that in order to achieve these goals, it is essential to reject all forms of organised religion.

Few quotes of Periyar on The idea of God

"God is a creation of man and religion is the opium of the people."

"The belief in a supernatural power has been responsible for the degeneration of the human race."

"The concept of God is the greatest hindrance to human progress."

"Religion is not only a superstition but also a great social evil."

"The idea of God is used to control the masses and keep them in line."

"The worship of God is nothing but slavery."

"There is no evidence to support the existence of a single all-powerful deity."

"The idea of God is a tool used by the powerful to maintain their position."

"The concept of God is just an illusion, a figment of human imagination."

charvaka

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/indiameme/comments/iw9jon/chadantitheist_vs_virgin_irreligious_vs_religious/g6xzf3h/

Chintu (theraynmaker): Atheism is actually a well recognised and respected facet of Ancient Indian School of thought. They were called ‘Charvaks’, ones who believed that matter is the only true reality and nothing else. Sorry, but had to burst your bubble.

ExHindu (I_can_believe_that) : Sorry, Looks like I’ve to burst your puny ego. Charvaka comes from the Sanskrit verb Charv - which means “to devour”. In mahabharata, Charvakas were thought be demons who’ve devoured their spiritual self, that’s why they’re thought to be materialistic and against vedic gods.

Here is a verse from Mahabharata (Pancham Khand): Shanti Parva, 38.22-27, 39.2-11, Gita Press.

इमे प्राहुर्द्विजाः सर्वे समारोप्य वचो मयि। धिग्भवन्तं कुनृपतिं ज्ञातिघातिनमस्तु वै।। किं तेन स्याद्धि कौन्तेय कृत्वेमं ज्ञातिसंक्षयम्। घातयित्वा गुरूंश्चैव मृतं श्रेयो न जीवितम्।। When the celebrations for the Pandavas’ victory and Yudhishthir’s coronation were going on and the brahmins stood silently after paying their obeisance (निःशब्दे च स्थिते तत्र ततो विप्रजने पुनः), Charvaka came forward and started addressing on their behalf, of course, without taking any permission. He accused Yudhishthir of fratricide and thus unfit to live

ततस्ते ब्राह्मणाः सर्वे स च राजा युधिष्ठिरः। व्रीडिताः परमोद्विग्नस्तूष्णीमासन्विशांपते।। His fearless statement stunned everybody. Yudhishthir and the Brahmins were speechless, afraid and ashamed

स पपात विनिर्दग्धस्तेजसा ब्रह्मवादिनाम्। महेन्द्राशनिनिर्दग्धः पादपोऽङ्कुरवानिव।। Regaining some crowd spirit, these Brahmins started accusing Charvaka of being a demon and a friend of Duryodhana. Eventually, they killed him with their anger.

स एष निहतः शेते ब्रह्मदण्डेन राक्षसः। चार्वाको नृपतिश्रेष्ठ मा शुचो भरतर्षभ।। Since Yudhishthir was quite evidently moved by the incident, a whole section is devoted where Lord Krishna consoles him, while demonizing Charvaka and justifying the act as preordained.

Anyone with a tiny drop of common sense wouldn’t believe that the religion, which discriminated it’s own people of lower-class for thousands of years and denied education for lower-class & women and pushed them to jump in fire after their husband’s death would be willing accept atheists who were against their gods & entire beliefs.

I mean how dumb can you religious clowns could possibly be? And as expected you’ve zero Knowledge on your own stupid religion.

Chintu (theraynmaker): I thought Mahabharata was a myth. Very convenient to cite Mahabharata when it suits you narrative ain’t it?

Anyways you are confusing it with the Charvak School of Thought which was very popular in India before the emergence of Buddhism.

A simple Wiki search will resolve your doubts.

Also I don’t identify with any religion. I think religion is organised madness.My geographical identity is Hindu though.

I’m just a seeker who’s trying to unravel the mysteries of creation and consciousness. When you have an answer to that, maybe we can have tea together.

exhindu (I_can_believe_that) : I’m not confusing anything, you’re the one shamelessly trying to defend your backward religion. You believe in a wiki article written by Hindus saying Charvaka (which is a derogatory word for Lokayatiks) was a part of Hinduism? Genius man genius.... no words.

Let me educate you more with verses from Vedas which condones violence on godless:

3 verses from the Rig Veda translated by Griffiths.

The foolish, faithless, rudely-speaking miser, without belief or sacrifice or worship, - Far far sway hath Agni chased Dasyus, and, in the cast, hath turned the godless westwards. Rig Veda 7.63.5

O Pavamanas, driving off the godless, looking on the light, Sit in the place of sacrifice. Rig Veda 9.13.9

Performing every noble work, active, augmenting Indra’s strength, Driving away the godless ones. Rig Veda 9.63.5

Now use a tiny drop of your brain, do you really they were welcoming atheists with open arms? stop being so delusional, ffs.

Now don’t tell me that Vedas are myths too, ancient scholars and priests were all educated with Vedas.

If you really wanna learn about the universe and human consciousness, learn science not some mystic dumbo-jumbo from sadhguru.

Next time I’ll share verses from Charvaka sasthi too.

Do the Dashavatars really represent Darwin's evolution?

First off we must analyse the *claims* that the Hindus make while putting this theory forward.

The Dashavatars of Vishnu are -

1 Matsya (the fish)

2 Kurma (the tortoise)

3 Varaha (the boar)

4 Narasimha (half-man half-lion)

5  Vamana (the dwarf)

6 Parashuram (Ram with the axe)

7 Ram (with the bow)

8 Krishna (son of Devaki and Vasudeva)

9 Buddha (the Enlightened One)

10 Kalki (yet to come)

The theory goes (as seen from a Hindu website) -

Lord Vishnu has taken his 1st avatar in water in the form of fish (Matsya avatar), it fulfills Darwin's theory of life evolved in water. 2nd avatar is tortoise (Kurma avatar), it is amphibian, it fulfills Darwin's theory of continuous struggle of fishes to change and adapt to amphibian life. 3rd avatar is boar (Varaha avatar, Pig), it is totally terrestrial animal. Amphibians have struggled continuously to adapt to terrestrial animal. Boar reminds us about the dinosaurs that lived on the earth 1000s of years earlier. 4th avatar is Narasimha avatar, body is human
form, and face and hands are like lion.

We shall analyse the claim one by one.

it fulfills Darwin's theory of life evolved in water.

No - it doesn't. According to Darwin, life started in a 'warm little pond'. New research tells us that life might have started on LAND in pools of condensed steam. Read - https://www.deccanherald.com/content/227119/darwin-right-life-began-land.html

Also, in the Matsya story, the fish explicitly mentions to Manu that *it would be eaten by other fishes if it were left alone in the ocean.*

Read THIS -

Without a doubt by the Ordovician Period, the vertebrate had well and truly formed and was present in many fish. Fish were also diversifying in shape, length and size. However, fish had still not yet developed jaws. Fish lacked a lower jaw. So they couldn’t consume large prey. Instead, they most likely would have fed by sucking water and debris through their mouths from the seabed and releasing the waste and water through their gills.

Did you see? *Early fishes did not have jaws and could not possibly have eaten other fishes.*

Also see this -

The earliest known life-forms are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 Gya (billion years ago), relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 Gya, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 Gya.

The cycle is - Prokaryotes → Photosynthetic organisms → Eukaryotes → Multicellular organisms → Development of muscles and nerves → Development of brain → First vertebrates → First jawless fish

So to sum up, life probably started in a steam pool on land, with micro-organisms being the first living beings. Even when fishes were formed, they did NOT have jaws to eat other fishes.

Hence the Matsya story is NOT a proper representation of life's start.

The above is enough to debunk the theory, but we'll just dig a bit deeper.

The next two (Kurma and Varaha) are taken to be representative of amphibians and mammals respectively. But this isn't a good example - the first amphibians belonged to the superclass Tetrapoda, most of whom are extinct. Other worms and insects had evolved during this period. Why isn't Kurma a worm?

Same goes for Varaha -  The first mammals were the shrew-like morganucodontids, which lived with dinosaurs 210 million years ago. Other early mammals were all small in size. All modern mammals are descendants of these creatures. Why isn't Varaha like them, if he truly represents mammals?

And what about reptiles? Reptiles are TOTALLY skipped in the Dashavatars - when in fact they came BEFORE mammals, about 320 million years ago.

After this, the avatars get even weirder. We have Narsimha, half-man half lion. There is no such creature recorded in scientific knowledge. To say that it represents anything other than one's figment of imagination is absurd.

Then we have Vamana, the dwarf. Early humans were short in size, true, but they were nothing like Vamana. The earliest known human species is Homo habilis, 2.4 million years back.

Then we have Ram, Krishna and Buddha - I do not think they represent any stage in evolution. Was Ram a Neanderthal, or Krishna an Australopithecus? Maybe, since Hindu science is always spot-on. I certainly don't know!

And then we have Kalki, who is yet to come. What will he look like? Superman? Lasers coming out of his eyes? I have no idea. However see this -

Kalki is described in the Puranas as the avatar who rejuvenates existence by ending the darkest and destructive period to remove adharma and ushering in the Satya Yuga, while riding a white horse with a fiery sword.

I mean, who tf uses a sword and rides a horse in these times? 😂😂 If they had said riding a nuclear-armed spaceship, it would've been much cooler. Lol. (After all, space travel and nuclear weapons DO come from Hinduism, don't they?)

And one more thing - If you think that Vishnu has only 10 avatars, you'd be wrong. According to Bhagavata Purana, there are TWENTY-TWO avatars of Vishnu, such as the Kumaras, Narada, Kapila, Rishabha, Prithu, etc. Also Vishnu is supposed to have innumerable avatars, both direct (sakshat) and indirect (Avesa). When you put this into perspective you understand that there's really no way to know which avatar came first or last. Which means that there could well be a hundred avatars between Kurma and Varaha. Or Parshuram and Ram. That's the final nail in the coffin - when you don't know the sequence or the true number, you simply CANNOT claim that it represents evolution.

This myth is officially #Debunked.

Thanks for reading.

Did the Hanuman Chalisa really predict the distance between the Earth and sun? (Critical analysis)

 

I'm sure we've all heard Hindus claiming how 'scientifically' superior their religion is, plus we've heard several examples from them as well, which they put out as proof for their claims. One of the more famous ones is the claim that the Hanuman Chalisa (written by Tulsidas in the 16th century) accurately predicts the distance between Earth and sun.

This claim comes from the following verse -

"Yuga-sahastra-yojana para bhanu leelyo tahi madhura phala janu"

It implies that Hanuman jumped a distance of 'yuga sahastra yojana' at the Sun, thinking it to be a sweet fruit.

The calculations made are -

1 Yug = 12000 years Sahastra = 1000 Yojana = 8 miles = 12.8 kilometres.

So yug X sahastra X yojana = 12000 X 1000 X 12.8 = 153600000

Or 153.6 million km.

This is close to the actual figure of 149.6 million calculated by NASA.

This appears to be some kind of miracle, but don't get fooled so easily.

First of all we must decide the units. Every quantity has a unit. So this figure must have one too.

Unit for yug is years, for yojana it's km and sahastra has no unit whatsoever (it's simply '1000', like 1000 books, 1000 apples, etc).

So what's the unit? Years kilometres? There is no such unit as 'years kilometres'. It can be kilometres per year, but that has a completely different meaning. So technically this calculation is wrong because it's end product has a weird invalid unit.

Let's ignore the above.

What's 1 Yug? According to a Hindu website -

Yuga (युग).—The intervening time between one yuga-sandhyapūrva and sandhyāṃśa; four in number; Kṛta, Treta, Dvāpara and Kali. The extent is of 12,000 years of celestial measure; the duration of the yugas includes sandhya, 12,000 divine years, 1,000 caturyugas make a day of Brahmā.

Did you see that? 1 yug is 12000 celestial years, not human years. According to other Hindu sources, 1 chatur yug is 4.32 million human years (Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali yug combined makes 1 chatur yug).

Hindus take the 12000 divine years and ignore the 4.32 million human years. That's really weird.

Let's ignore that as well.

What is 1 yojana?

The famous astronomer Aryabhatta calculated the circumference of the Earth as 4967 yojanas and the diameter as 1581 1/24 yojanas. His calculations take 1 yojana as 5 miles, not the 8 that the Hindus take in reference to this verse.

Ignoring this, we can refer to the Ramayana for the measurement of 1 yojana. The Ramayana says that the measurements of the 'Ram Setu' is 100 yojanas in length. The length of Adam's Bridge (or 'Ram Setu') is around 35 km. So 1 yojana is 0.35 km.

Then again we can refer to the Vishnu Purana for help. It states 1 gavyuti is the distance to which a cow's calling can be heard and it's approximately 3.7 km. 4 gavyutis is 1 yojana. 4 x 3.7 = 14.8 km. It is NOT 12.8 but 14.8 km. Using 14.8 km gives a value of 177.6 million km which is not even CLOSE to the actual figure.

Finally it's not as if other astronomers hadn't tried to calculate the distance. Greek astronomer Eratosthenes (276-194 BC) calculated the distance between 126 million to 168 million km. Remember this was in BC, long before the Hanuman Chalisa was written in the 16th century AD. His calculation is still far more accurate than the Chalisa one.

It's obvious that Hindus have been cherrypicking numbers to show off their 'ancient scientific prowess'. A quick analysis is enough to refute all their claims. Unfortunately many people have been deluded by them.

This myth is officially #Debunked.

Thanks for reading.