I am assuming that the downvotes are less about the fact that your parent comment is wrong, and more about the fact that the grandparent is not "categorically" false. It has some accurate aspects, but cannot be easily dismissed away.
A lot of accommodation to context (NOT subjectivity) in ethical considerations in many of the Indian epics and religious texts, which a lot of western-oriented viewers who've grown up with more black-and-white mentalities regarding good and bad might view as corruption. Add to that a preference for oral retellings of such topics, and viewpoints start differing regarding the same topic even within the same country. However, deeper readings of the same might tell them that concepts of duty and truth are still paramount, which kind of negate the argument.
It's far easier, however, for critics to think that citizens tend to cherry-pick the arguments in such texts which somehow might justify bad actions, while ignoring the importance of personal duty, honor and search of truth. And thus, it's easier for said critics to blame things on the subjectivity of said religion instead of looking at the context, and call it a day. But there's more to the argument than that; you also need to consider the history of the land, major events, and economic and social patterns which have nothing to do with religion. You also need to consider that some individual states which have the religion as dominant are institutionally much stronger than other weaker states; also, the "extreme subjective morality" part is also prevalent in some other religions, and the countries they dominate are not necessarily corrupt.
> I am assuming that the downvotes are less about the fact that your parent comment is wrong, and more about the fact that the grandparent is not "categorically" false. It has some accurate aspects, but cannot be easily dismissed away.
First, the parent comment just stated that out as fact without any argument or evidence, so I don't feel the need to provide any of my own to dismiss it. As the old adage goes, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Then, if it was just that I asserted that the GGP was wrong (which they are, 100%), then the sibling comment asking for more evidence wouldn't also be in the negatives, which it is at the time I write this.
The simpler idea is this: GGP (or someone like them) is just downvoting people calling out their orientalist woo about "[Hiduism] thinks of truth and morality as extremely subjective", which is simply false. The only "strains" of Hinduism that you could even remotely argue have relativistic worldviews are ancient philosophies that are not held by any practicing Hindu today, so even with whatever you're arguing their statement, as written, is categorically false. It's like saying Christianity is a mystical religion because the Gnostics existed.
I'm assuming the rest of your comment is written by AI because it sounds like AI, so I'm not going to bother responding to that.
Providing a link to Manusmriti as evidence. Before you trash it, saying that the Manusmriti is not relevant - may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti.
> you claim that I am wrong - but you provide no evidence whatsoever.
You didn't provide any evidence either, so before you cry foul start with an actual argument.
> In Hinduism, dharma is prescribed based on the person's caste and so also the punishments
How is this implying "truth and morality [is] extremely subjective"? If one's dharma varies by caste, does that mean "truth" is "extremely subjective"? The degree to which one's duty, and therefore morals, vary by caste is also not such that murder is good for anyone. In the Gita, Arjuna's caste is mentioned as why killing in war is his duty, but it is also clearly stated that doesn't mean any murder is allowed. There is a clear and consistent undercurrent to the morality in Hinduism. Does dharma changing by caste mean the sun doesn't rise in the east for some castes? You're implying corruption is caused by "truth and morality" being subjective, but does Hinduism therefore imply that being corrupt is okay for some castes?
> may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti.
This is straight up false - your article itself says that they were arrested for the confrontation that followed the event, not for any religious intolerance.
E: I just want to add - caste and casteism are evil and vile.
> Before you trash it, saying that the Manusmriti is not relevant - may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti.
I haven't met anyone who actually read about Manusmriti. I don't think most Hindus know about what is in it.
Few people few going to jail in one state doesn't make Manusmriti valid. Most states in India have their own language and their own distinct culture.
Saying that most Hindus haven't read the Manusmriti is similar to saying that most Muslims haven't read the Shariah law; because the ignorance of the majority doesn't mean that there isn't sufficient support on the ground for its implementation.
And also, the RSS - the ideologues behind the current Indian govt, have expressly stated their support for the Manusmriti. In their magazine Organiser, RSS expressly stated their opposition to the current Indian constitution because it did not include the laws of Manu from the Manusmriti.
https://sabrangindia.in/how-rss-denigrated-constitution/
> I'm assuming the rest of your comment is written by AI because it sounds like AI, so I'm not going to bother responding to that.
Should I also assume that you're going to just dismiss stuff you do not want to talk about as "written by AI"? Nothing I wrote was AI-generated. I have better stuff to spend AI tokens on than HN comments, of all things.
I also believe that the downvoting people have a bent towards the "orientalist woo", and getting them to put their bias into words and fact/evidenced-based discussion is expecting too much out of smaller minds, but it's not as unfounded as you think it is.
> ancient philosophies that are not held by any practicing Hindu today
You'd be surprised as to how much these ancient philosophies (or whatever translations/strains people ascribe to) still hold fort. I've seen people debating them in Indian management classes, and hold them as closer to fact instead of ancient opinions.
