Dear Bhagavadhas,
This was taken from the following site -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mohammed.butt1/islamicstore/pdf_files/hinduism
pdf
It is very much clear that it is the islamic preachers who are trying
to clearly misinterpret the vedas in order to project it wrong.
We can ask a very simple question. If Sati was what was preached by
Vedas, why did not kunti in Mahabharata go for it? What Adiyen mean
is why she was not forced? She had so many other relatives who could
take care of her children. Adiyen means, she would have been forced
if it were a forceful act. Volunteering is different from forcing.
Vedas "allowing" the same, is different from Vedas "demanding" the
same. Why it was never in our ithihasas? This gives us a clear
understanding that down the lane, there was "some" puranic/smrithic
misinterpretation that has happened. Moreover this Sati was prominent
in North India and not in south. Also, it was more of a volunteering act
and not a forceful act that down the lane became a forceful one.
Moreover, when the Vedas are talking so many things about the
ultimate lord and the eternal truth why would it force a female to
commit such a horrifying suicide. It could have said that she should
have some peaceful death. Doesn't this clearly explain some stupidity
portrayed by some people who misinterpreted the Vedic statements?
Not only was Sati, but also the untouchability that was more
prominent from the North(I don't deny that it was in south too)! Many
prominent anamolies in the Hindu system were pretty much from the
North India. There are lots of those who are/were a mix of kshatriyas and
vaishyas(power
and wealth) but who claimed themselves as brahmins and had done enough
nasty
things in the name of "hindus". Adiyen don't really know when this anamoly
started,
but it was significant enough to damage the name of the brahmins alone.
This is a global phenomena
as we could see that this has happened in the 1917 Russion
revolution(Czars) and the French revolution
(Aristocrats/Nobles) (Adiyen's knowledge is based on the Tale of Two Cities
by Charles Dickens).
Whenever someone says Aryan, they mean brahmin:)) pretty much explaining
their
aversion only to the brahmin caste while aryans were not just brahmins
alone.
Adiyen have not heard of any of our purvacharyas or
others from the "Vaishnava sampradayam"(in the past 500 to 600
years) "forcing" a widow to jump into a fire. If at all it had
happened, my guess is that it was a volunteering act. Adiyen keep
asking myself a simple question, if brahmins were supposed to beg and
eat, how could people tell that they enslaved the kshudras and
moreover, contradicting to this mess, was that, the kshudras were
untouchables:)) i.e kshudras were supposed to physically serve
brahmins, but they were untouchables and whatever they touched would
not be touched by brahmins etc. Adiyen don't know whether all these
contradictory things were just made up or were in reality and even if
it were in reality, whether it has to be attributed to those spoilt
individuals or to the vedic system/society itself. God Knows!!!
Adiyen's personal opinion is that our history(recent) has been
garbled enough that no one knows what really happened, but everyone
is against brahmins!!!
Moreover there are lots of design aspects too that might have been a
consideration. Women who are loyal to their husbands(not just
physically, but mentally too) were called pathi-vrathas. I haven't come
across pathni-vrathans as their counterparts. The concept of
virginity(gaining and
losing the same) and the capability to reproduce(gaining and losing)
were/are for women. Though it does exist for men it was/is never prominent
("in general", men don't lose the capability to reproduce until they die as
per the modern science).
Only women bear the children and not the men. There
might be lots of spiritual reasons behind these too. Probably those
who are well versed in the yoga(shastram, not the margam) may be able
to address the issue from this perspective. Pathivrathas were as
powerful as the great tapasvis("kokkendru ninaitthayo konkanava?").
Kannaki was able to burn the entire madurai just by her thought.
Nowhere in the ithihasa puranas Adiyen have heard about this kind of
power for males(i.e just based on their physical/mental
celibacy/virginity).
The word Agni has several meanings in Sanskruth(It might mean fire,
purity, heat and in fire itself there are so many classifications
like kalagni, kamagni, yagyagni etc). In fact, if I remember right,
agni became available for burning junks(like our garbage etc) and
other things only after a curse by a Rishi. Until then Agni was used
only for cooking and for yagnyas. Unless one learns the Vedas from
the right person, one would not understand the context and hence
would blindly try to interpret and give "kudharkkams" like that
of "Yadhava Prakasa" who misinterpreted one of the statements of the
Veda that it was comparing the lord's face to something nasty, while
the Vedic scripture actually was comparing the lord's face to
the "Sun".
Adiyen too request the learned scholars of this group to kindly
address these and give a proper explanation for these.
Ramanuja Dasan!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |