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 |