Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:47 am

The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:07 am

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

correction: although he was certainly born and raised as a muslim, Akbar had ceased to be a muslim as he grew older. This is evident from the fact that after making a study of various religions--including hinduism, islam, christianity, jainism, sikhism, zoroastrianism, etc*, Akbar had come up with his own religion which he called Din-i-Ilahi. The Din-i-Ilahi includes fire worship and sun worship as part of its rituals.

*yes, no budhism. Abul Fazal explains in his Akbarnama that the budhist monks and scholars Akbar had met had been mediocre unimpressive and failed to kindle the emperor's interest in their religion.

by Seva Lamberdar Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:54 am

"Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism" Rashmun

>>> Easy ... just like you, in spite of being neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and having no correct and complete knowledge about Hinduism and Islam, keep on commenting and writing "authoritatively" on Hinduism and Islam.

Akbar, being a non-Hindu and as the history books tell that he could not read and write, also must have "read", like you probably, the Hindu Dharamshastra (?) banning the widow-marriage and could not wait to change that practice (pun intended).

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:11 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism" Rashmun

>>> Easy ... just like you, in spite of being neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and having no correct and complete knowledge about Hinduism and Islam, keep on commenting and writing "authoritatively" on Hinduism and Islam.

Akbar, being a non-Hindu and as the history books tell that he could not read and write, also must have "read", like you probably, the Hindu Dharamshastra (?) banning the widow-marriage and could not wait to change that practice (pun intended).

It is true that Akbar could not read books (or read with difficulty) since he preferred sports to studies, but as he grew older he had people read out books to him. Eventually he became an "illiterate scholar". When his son Murad asked him to suggest some book on kingship to read, Akbar recommended the Mahabharata which he had had read out to him (after getting it translated into persian which he could understand). The jesuit missionaries who visited his court were highly impressed by Akbar's knowledge of comparative theology and wrote that he had made a special study of this subject.
There is a mughal painting with childish handwriting and underneath that Jahangir's note that the childish writing is of his father. So Akbar could write--but with difficulty.

Hinduism incorporates within it all kinds of different philosophies; i consider myself to be a hindu.

by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:08 am

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

As we see in Abul Fazl's AkbarNamah, the ruling class did what they could to remain outside of the ritual, while at the same time trying to save women from being forced into actions they did not want to take. "Inspectors had been appointed in every city and district, who were to watch carefully over these two cases , to discriminate between them, and to prevent any woman being forcibly burnt." Akbar's government, doing its best to work with the people, appointed inspectors as a way to protect the population while avoiding oppressing the cultural traditions of a certain segment of the population. As the passage in the Akbarnamah progresses, we see that, even if the safeguards in place, there was still a chance that women were being forcibly burnt to death, and that the people weren't always letting the tradition play out, as it should. Fazl gives the example of Jai Mal, an army official's funeral. After the death of Jai mal, his wife chose not to commit sati, and plans were made by outside parties to ensure that the sati took place, even without the widow's permission. In this case, Akbar himself rode out to the place of Jai Mal's cremation and stopped the sati from happening, thus saving one woman's life.

The tradition of protecting people by making sure the sati was a voluntary act continued with Jahangir. We find, on page forty-five of Nandi's essay, that Jahangir requires the women who would commit sati in the capital and its surrounding areas to appear before him and personally obtain his permission.
This is the government's job, to protect the people from harm, even if it is harm sanctioned by religion. Sati, as explained by the tradition, is a voluntary suicidal action in response to the death of one's husband. It was viewed as an act of strength and self-sacrifice that is hard to believe actually exists in modern times. Anything less than this act of voluntary self-sacrifice is murder, plain and simple. This gives rise to the distinction of authentic satis and inauthentic, coerced, involuntary self-immolation. This is what the Mughal Empire sought to do with its policy, and what the British sought to do until the practice of sati was banned in 1829.

http://everything2.com/title/On+Sati

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:28 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism" Rashmun

>>> Easy ... just like you, in spite of being neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and having no correct and complete knowledge about Hinduism and Islam, keep on commenting and writing "authoritatively" on Hinduism and Islam.

Akbar, being a non-Hindu and as the history books tell that he could not read and write, also must have "read", like you probably, the Hindu Dharamshastra (?) banning the widow-marriage and could not wait to change that practice (pun intended).

Notwithstanding Rashmun's rants in this thread about Hinduism and Akbar trying to reform it, note the following.

(1) There is no ban on widow-remarriage in the Hindu Dharamshastra or scriptures.

(2) Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding).

Regarding Rashmun quoting the Manusmriti on this, Manusmriti is not a Dharamshastra ...... “Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself”, http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

(3) 'Sati' or self-immolation (suicide by fire) is not advocated by Hinduism or Hindu Dharamshastra.

Considering the above, there is no basis to Rashmun's claims that Akbar tried to reform Hinduism.

Note, just because Munshi Premchand married a widow does not mean Premchand reformed or tried to reform Hinduism.

To start with, there was no need for reformation (by Akbar or others) in Hinduism which already was not opposed to widow-remarriage and did not promote child-marriage and 'Sati" (as indicated above on the basis of the Vedas).

by Hellsangel Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:06 am

Sevaji, Rashmun is like a follower of Falun Gong. He will find a way to drag in synthesis everywhere in every con-versation. In real life you listen politely. Here you can ignore.

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:13 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism" Rashmun

>>> Easy ... just like you, in spite of being neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and having no correct and complete knowledge about Hinduism and Islam, keep on commenting and writing "authoritatively" on Hinduism and Islam.

Akbar, being a non-Hindu and as the history books tell that he could not read and write, also must have "read", like you probably, the Hindu Dharamshastra (?) banning the widow-marriage and could not wait to change that practice (pun intended).

Notwithstanding Rashmun's rants in this thread about Hinduism and Akbar trying to reform it, note the following.

(1) There is no ban on widow-remarriage in the Hindu Dharamshastra or scriptures.

(2) Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding).

Regarding Rashmun quoting the Manusmriti on this, Manusmriti is not a Dharamshastra ...... “Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself”, http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

(3) 'Sati' or self-immolation (suicide by fire) is not advocated by Hinduism or Hindu Dharamshastra.

Considering the above, there is no basis to Rashmun's claims that Akbar tried to reform Hinduism.

Note, just because Munshi Premchand married a widow does not mean Premchand reformed or tried to reform Hinduism.

To start with, there was no need for reformation (by Akbar or others) in Hinduism which already was not opposed to widow-remarriage and did not promote child-marriage and 'Sati" (as indicated above on the basis of the Vedas).

Let's settle this one by one. First, let's consider Sati. I quote below from Will Durant's 'Our Oriental Heritage' (he spells sati as suttee):

The custom of burning widows on their husbands' pyres...Probably the rite came down from the almost world-wide primitive usage of immolating one or more of the wives or concubines of a prince or rich man, along with slaves and other perquisites, to take care of him in the Beyond.The Atharva Veda speaks of it as an old custom, but the Rig Veda indicates that in Vedic days it had been softened to the requirement that the widow should lie on her husband's pyre for a moment before his cremation. The Mahabharata shows the institution restored and unrepentant; it gives several examples of suttee, and lays down the rule that the chaste widow does not wish to survive her husband, but enters proudly into the fire. The sacrifice was effected by burning the wife in a pit, or, among the Telugus in the south, by burying her alive. Strabo reports that suttee prevailed in India at the time of Alexander, and that the Kathaei, a Punjabi tribe, had made suttee a law in order prevent wives from poisoning their husbands.

Manu makes no mention of the practice. The Brahmans first opposed it at first, then accepted it, and finally lent it a religious sanction by interpreting it as bound up with the eternity of marriage: a woman once married to a man remained his forever, and would be rejoined to him in his later lives. In Rajasthan the absolute possession of the wife by the husband took the form of the johur, in which a Rajput, facing certain defeat, immolated his wives before advancing to his own death in battle. The usage was widespread under the Moguls, despite Moslem abhorrence; and even the powerful Akbar failed to dislodge it....

In Vijayanagar suttee sometimes took a wholesale form; not one or a few but all of the wives of a prince or a captain followed him to death. Conti reports that the Raya or King had selected three thousand of his twelve thousand wives as favorites, "on condition that at his death they should voluntarily burn themselves with him, which is considered to be a great honor for them." It is difficult to say how thoroughly the medieval Hindu widow was reconciled to suttee by religious inculcation and belief, and the hope of reunion with her husband in another life.

Suttee became less and less popular as India developed contacts with Europe; but the Hindu widow continued to suffer many disabilities. Since marriage bound a woman eternally to her husband, her remarriage after his death was bound to create confusion in his later existences. The widow was therefore required by Brahmanical law to remain unmarried, to shave her head, and live out her life (if she did not prefer suttee) in the care of her children and in acts of private charity....These rules were followed only by the orthodox women of the middle and upper classes--i.e. by some thirty percent of the population; they were ignored by Moslems, Sikhs, and the lower castes. Hindu opinion likened this second virginity of the widow to the celibacy of nuns in Christendom; in either case some women renounced marriage, and were set aside for charitable ministrations.

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:20 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism" Rashmun

>>> Easy ... just like you, in spite of being neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and having no correct and complete knowledge about Hinduism and Islam, keep on commenting and writing "authoritatively" on Hinduism and Islam.

Akbar, being a non-Hindu and as the history books tell that he could not read and write, also must have "read", like you probably, the Hindu Dharamshastra (?) banning the widow-marriage and could not wait to change that practice (pun intended).

Notwithstanding Rashmun's rants in this thread about Hinduism and Akbar trying to reform it, note the following.

(1) There is no ban on widow-remarriage in the Hindu Dharamshastra or scriptures.

(2) Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding).

Regarding Rashmun quoting the Manusmriti on this, Manusmriti is not a Dharamshastra ...... “Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself”, http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

(3) 'Sati' or self-immolation (suicide by fire) is not advocated by Hinduism or Hindu Dharamshastra.

Considering the above, there is no basis to Rashmun's claims that Akbar tried to reform Hinduism.

Note, just because Munshi Premchand married a widow does not mean Premchand reformed or tried to reform Hinduism.

To start with, there was no need for reformation (by Akbar or others) in Hinduism which already was not opposed to widow-remarriage and did not promote child-marriage and 'Sati" (as indicated above on the basis of the Vedas).

Incidentally, in the Mahabharata (long before Akbar and historian Durant), the Hindu queen Satyavati did not commit “sati” when her husband king Shantanu died.

Similarly, in the Mahabharata, when king Vichitravirya died leaving behibd two young widowed queens (Ambika and Ambalika), they not only did not commit “sati” but even wore children (sons) after their husband’s death through “niyoga” (insemination by another person).

Thus, considering the “sati” was not practiced as a part of Hindu religion even by Hindu kings / queens long ago (as indicated above), it would be even less common among ordinary people (Hindus) and certainly not as a part of Hindu religion.

Therefore the question of anyone (Akbar et al.) reforming Hinduism in terms of “sati” (the practice never advocated by Hinduism) does not even arise, notwithstanding the writings of historian Durant.

Btw, just because a few Christian priests sexually molest some young boys and girls in religious schools etc., the sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in schools can't be called a Christian religious practice. Similarly, the Govt. passing laws to stop such molestations of boys and girls by priets in religious schools does not mean that Govt. is reforming or has reformed Christianity.

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:38 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism" Rashmun

>>> Easy ... just like you, in spite of being neither a Hindu nor a Muslim and having no correct and complete knowledge about Hinduism and Islam, keep on commenting and writing "authoritatively" on Hinduism and Islam.

Akbar, being a non-Hindu and as the history books tell that he could not read and write, also must have "read", like you probably, the Hindu Dharamshastra (?) banning the widow-marriage and could not wait to change that practice (pun intended).

Notwithstanding Rashmun's rants in this thread about Hinduism and Akbar trying to reform it, note the following.

(1) There is no ban on widow-remarriage in the Hindu Dharamshastra or scriptures.

(2) Child-marriage is not advocated in the Dharamshastra, especially for girls / women. Vedas want / expect a woman to be mature physically, mentally and emotionally at the time of her wedding.

Note, Vedas advise a woman (bride) during the wedding to take charge (as a ruler) of the family (including in her in-laws' house) after getting married, which a child bride certainly can't do (take charge of the family after wedding).

Regarding Rashmun quoting the Manusmriti on this, Manusmriti is not a Dharamshastra ...... “Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself”, http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog

(3) 'Sati' or self-immolation (suicide by fire) is not advocated by Hinduism or Hindu Dharamshastra.

Considering the above, there is no basis to Rashmun's claims that Akbar tried to reform Hinduism.

Note, just because Munshi Premchand married a widow does not mean Premchand reformed or tried to reform Hinduism.

To start with, there was no need for reformation (by Akbar or others) in Hinduism which already was not opposed to widow-remarriage and did not promote child-marriage and 'Sati" (as indicated above on the basis of the Vedas).

Incidentally, in the Mahabharata (long before Akbar and historian Durant), the Hindu queen Satyavati did not commit “sati” when her husband king Shantanu died.

Similarly, in the Mahabharata, when king Vichitravirya died leaving behibd two young widowed queens (Ambika and Ambalika), they not only did not commit “sati” but even wore children (sons) after their husband’s death through “niyoga” (insemination by another person).

Thus, considering the “sati” was not practiced as a part of Hindu religion even by Hindu kings / queens long ago (as indicated above), it would be even less common among ordinary people (Hindus) and certainly not as a part of Hindu religion.

Therefore the question of anyone (Akbar et al.) reforming Hinduism in terms of “sati” (the practice never advocated by Hinduism) does not even arise, notwithstanding the writings of historian Durant.

Btw, just because a few Christian priests sexually molest some young boys and girls in religious schools etc., the sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in schools can't be called a Christian religious practice. Similarly, the Govt. passing laws to stop such molestations of boys and girls by priets in religious schools does not mean that Govt. is reforming or has reformed Christianity.

I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. So you cannot say that so-and-so did not commit sati so sati did not exist. Now, coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:

http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf

While talking of sati in the Mahabharata, the paper states that Pandu's second wife Madri had committed sati, as had 'widows of warriors and Vasudeva'. It also refers to the Mahabharata story put in the mouth of Bhisma wherein Bhisma talks of a pigeon who had committed sati and entered heaven straight after the act.

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:01 pm

(1) "I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. " Rashmun

>>> That means "sati" (for widows) was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism, whether or not some Hindu women committed "sati".

(2) "coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:
http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf" ... Rashmun

>>> This article is a lot of BS, considering Pandu's first wife Kunti did not commit "sati".

If the practice of "sati" were religious (as per Hinduism), Kunti would have also killed herself after her husband Pandu died, but that did not happen ... which confirms that "sati" is / was not a religious practice.

Moreover, in the Mahabharata, Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika also did not commit suicide by fire when their husbands died, again confirming taht "sati" is not a religious practice.

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:21 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:(1) "I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. " Rashmun

>>> That means "sati" (for widows) was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism, whether or not some Hindu women committed "sati".

(2) "coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:
http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf" ... Rashmun

>>> This article is a lot of BS, considering Pandu's first wife Kunti did not commit "sati".

If the practice of "sati" were religious (as per Hinduism), Kunti would have also killed herself after her husband Pandu died, but that did not happen ... which confirms that "sati" is / was not a religious practice.

Moreover, in the Mahabharata, Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika also did not commit suicide by fire when their husbands died, again confirming taht "sati" is not a religious practice.

In Hinduism, Sati was optional and not compulsory. But a woman who does commit sati would go straight to heaven as per the Mahabharata. With respect to why Kunti also did not commit sati, the reason is that since Pandu was dead, one adult was required to look after the children. So Kunti did not commit sati so as to look after her children and also the children of Madri.

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:(1) "I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. " Rashmun

>>> That means "sati" (for widows) was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism, whether or not some Hindu women committed "sati".

(2) "coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:
http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf" ... Rashmun

>>> This article is a lot of BS, considering Pandu's first wife Kunti did not commit "sati".

If the practice of "sati" were religious (as per Hinduism), Kunti would have also killed herself after her husband Pandu died, but that did not happen ... which confirms that "sati" is / was not a religious practice.

Moreover, in the Mahabharata, Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika also did not commit suicide by fire when their husbands died, again confirming taht "sati" is not a religious practice.

In Hinduism, Sati was optional and not compulsory. But a woman who does commit sati would go straight to heaven as per the Mahabharata. With respect to why Kunti also did not commit sati, the reason is that since Pandu was dead, one adult was required to look after the children. So Kunti did not commit sati so as to look after her children and also the children of Madri.

You are wrong, as always.

Considering Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika (in the Mahabharata) didn't commit "sati", when their husbands died, proves that "sati" had nothing to do as a part of religion (Hinduism) or going to heaven.

Btw, do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a numebr of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:06 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:(1) "I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. " Rashmun

>>> That means "sati" (for widows) was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism, whether or not some Hindu women committed "sati".

(2) "coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:
http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf" ... Rashmun

>>> This article is a lot of BS, considering Pandu's first wife Kunti did not commit "sati".

If the practice of "sati" were religious (as per Hinduism), Kunti would have also killed herself after her husband Pandu died, but that did not happen ... which confirms that "sati" is / was not a religious practice.

Moreover, in the Mahabharata, Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika also did not commit suicide by fire when their husbands died, again confirming taht "sati" is not a religious practice.

In Hinduism, Sati was optional and not compulsory. But a woman who does commit sati would go straight to heaven as per the Mahabharata. With respect to why Kunti also did not commit sati, the reason is that since Pandu was dead, one adult was required to look after the children. So Kunti did not commit sati so as to look after her children and also the children of Madri.

You are wrong, as always.

Considering Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika (in the Mahabharata) didn't commit "sati", when their husbands died, proves that "sati" had nothing to do as a part of religion (Hinduism) or going to heaven.

Btw, do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a numebr of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?

Committing sati was not compulsory but it was surely a short-cut to heaven as per the Mahabharata. For instance, Bhisma is made to narrate a story in Mahabharata about a female pigeon. This pigeon's husband (male pigeon) had died and so the female pigeon committed sati and went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. This should surely be considered an endorsement of sati rather than criticism of sati.

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:33 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:(1) "I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. " Rashmun

>>> That means "sati" (for widows) was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism, whether or not some Hindu women committed "sati".

(2) "coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:
http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf" ... Rashmun

>>> This article is a lot of BS, considering Pandu's first wife Kunti did not commit "sati".

If the practice of "sati" were religious (as per Hinduism), Kunti would have also killed herself after her husband Pandu died, but that did not happen ... which confirms that "sati" is / was not a religious practice.

Moreover, in the Mahabharata, Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika also did not commit suicide by fire when their husbands died, again confirming taht "sati" is not a religious practice.

In Hinduism, Sati was optional and not compulsory. But a woman who does commit sati would go straight to heaven as per the Mahabharata. With respect to why Kunti also did not commit sati, the reason is that since Pandu was dead, one adult was required to look after the children. So Kunti did not commit sati so as to look after her children and also the children of Madri.

You are wrong, as always.

Considering Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika (in the Mahabharata) didn't commit "sati", when their husbands died, proves that "sati" had nothing to do as a part of religion (Hinduism) or going to heaven.

Btw, do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a numebr of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?

Committing sati was not compulsory but it was surely a short-cut to heaven as per the Mahabharata. For instance, Bhisma is made to narrate a story in Mahabharata about a female pigeon. This pigeon's husband (male pigeon) had died and so the female pigeon committed sati and went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. This should surely be considered an endorsement of sati rather than criticism of sati.

Instead of worrying about Bhishma's story about pigeon committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, answer the question "do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a number of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?"

Similarly, are some Jews right these days to feel offended by the portrayal of Shylock (a money lending Jew) in the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, while they look at it (the “Shylock” character in the book) as a typical medieval European anti-Semitic affront towards Jews (as over-chargers of interest)? Moreover, do you consider their demands to ban the book and publish it no more (because of the characterization of Shylock by Shakespeare in the book) as a reformation of literature and literary practices?

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:01 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:(1) "I think it should be clear that not every hindu widow was practicing sati. " Rashmun

>>> That means "sati" (for widows) was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism, whether or not some Hindu women committed "sati".

(2) "coming to Mahabharata, this is an excellent research paper on sati which corroborates what Durant has written:
http://www.mahavidya.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/brooke-brassard-sati-yes.pdf" ... Rashmun

>>> This article is a lot of BS, considering Pandu's first wife Kunti did not commit "sati".

If the practice of "sati" were religious (as per Hinduism), Kunti would have also killed herself after her husband Pandu died, but that did not happen ... which confirms that "sati" is / was not a religious practice.

Moreover, in the Mahabharata, Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika also did not commit suicide by fire when their husbands died, again confirming taht "sati" is not a religious practice.

In Hinduism, Sati was optional and not compulsory. But a woman who does commit sati would go straight to heaven as per the Mahabharata. With respect to why Kunti also did not commit sati, the reason is that since Pandu was dead, one adult was required to look after the children. So Kunti did not commit sati so as to look after her children and also the children of Madri.

You are wrong, as always.

Considering Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika (in the Mahabharata) didn't commit "sati", when their husbands died, proves that "sati" had nothing to do as a part of religion (Hinduism) or going to heaven.

Btw, do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a numebr of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?

Committing sati was not compulsory but it was surely a short-cut to heaven as per the Mahabharata. For instance, Bhisma is made to narrate a story in Mahabharata about a female pigeon. This pigeon's husband (male pigeon) had died and so the female pigeon committed sati and went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. This should surely be considered an endorsement of sati rather than criticism of sati.

Instead of worrying about Bhishma's story about pigeon committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, answer the question "do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a number of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?"

Similarly, are some Jews right these days to feel offended by the portrayal of Shylock (a money lending Jew) in the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, while they look at it (the “Shylock” character in the book) as a typical medieval European anti-Semitic affront towards Jews (as over-chargers of interest)? Moreover, do you consider their demands to ban the book and publish it no more (because of the characterization of Shylock by Shakespeare in the book) as a reformation of literature and literary practices?

the problem you are not addressing is the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture. It is considered a smriti i.e. having scriptural authority.

by Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

In Hinduism, Sati was optional and not compulsory. But a woman who does commit sati would go straight to heaven as per the Mahabharata. With respect to why Kunti also did not commit sati, the reason is that since Pandu was dead, one adult was required to look after the children. So Kunti did not commit sati so as to look after her children and also the children of Madri.

You are wrong, as always.

Considering Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika (in the Mahabharata) didn't commit "sati", when their husbands died, proves that "sati" had nothing to do as a part of religion (Hinduism) or going to heaven.

Btw, do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a numebr of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?

Committing sati was not compulsory but it was surely a short-cut to heaven as per the Mahabharata. For instance, Bhisma is made to narrate a story in Mahabharata about a female pigeon. This pigeon's husband (male pigeon) had died and so the female pigeon committed sati and went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. This should surely be considered an endorsement of sati rather than criticism of sati.

Instead of worrying about Bhishma's story about pigeon committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, answer the question "do you consider the sexual molestation of some boys and girls by a number of priests in some Christian schools and missions as a part of Christian religion and the Govt. passing laws to curtail such molestations as the Govt. reforming the Christian religion?"

Similarly, are some Jews right these days to feel offended by the portrayal of Shylock (a money lending Jew) in the Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, while they look at it (the “Shylock” character in the book) as a typical medieval European anti-Semitic affront towards Jews (as over-chargers of interest)? Moreover, do you consider their demands to ban the book and publish it no more (because of the characterization of Shylock by Shakespeare in the book) as a reformation of literature and literary practices?

the problem you are not addressing is the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture. It is considered a smriti i.e. having scriptural authority.

With respect to your questions, Merchant of Venice is not any scriptural text and child molestation is not approved of in Christian scripture. This is in contrast to the approval of sati in the Mahabharata.

by Seva Lamberdar Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:26 pm

"With respect to your questions, Merchant of Venice is not any scriptural text and child molestation is not approved of in Christian scripture. This is in contrast to the approval of sati in the Mahabharata." Rashmun

>>> LOL. Mahabharata also is not a Shruti or Hindu scripture. Its story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) is not a sanction by Hinduism for "sati".

Similarly, any king or Govt. passing a law against "sati" (suicide by fire) is not reforming Hinduism; like some Jews trying to ban the Merchant of Venice (because that book by Shakespeare depicts Shylock, a Jew, in bad light ....as the over-charger of interest) are not reforming the literature or Judaism, and the Govt. passing a law to curtail the sexual abuse of young boys and girls by some priests in Christian schools and missions is not reforming the Christianity.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:11 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"With respect to your questions, Merchant of Venice is not any scriptural text and child molestation is not approved of in Christian scripture. This is in contrast to the approval of sati in the Mahabharata." Rashmun

>>> LOL. Mahabharata also is not a Shruti or Hindu scripture. Its story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) is not a sanction by Hinduism for "sati".

Similarly, any king or Govt. passing a law against "sati" (suicide by fire) is not reforming Hinduism; like some Jews trying to ban the Merchant of Venice (because that book by Shakespeare depicts Shylock, a Jew, in bad light ....as the over-charger of interest) are not reforming the literature or Judaism, and the Govt. passing a law to curtail the sexual abuse of young boys and girls by some priests in Christian schools and missions is not reforming the Christianity.

Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:45 am

"Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act." Rashmun

>>> You are wrong about everything, as usual ... including your earlier statement on Akbar not being able to read and write because of being more interested in sports than studies, which just goes on to prove that you have no real clue about Indian history and scriptures etc. other than picking up vague / loose statements and hearsay about them here and there.

Mahabharata is an Epic and not a Shruti.

Moreover, Mahabharata right from the beginning has several examples of most famous women (Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika and even Kunti) not committing "sati" when their husbands died, which is a proof that "sati" was not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism.

Bhishma's story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) in the Mahabharata, according to you, is not an injunction in Hinduism in support of "sati". Moreover, to start with, was the pigeon religiously (?) even a Hindu to set a religious example of "sati" to Hindus when it committed "sati"? May be pigeon had some other religion and Bhishma just got mixed up about it.

Btw, ask some Muslim to explain to you the real reason for Akbar not being able to read and write (it was not sports).

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:06 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act." Rashmun

>>> You are wrong about everything, as usual ... including your earlier statement on Akbar not being able to read and write because of being more interested in sports than studies, which just goes on to prove that you have no real clue about Indian history and scriptures etc. other than picking up vague / loose statements and hearsay about them here and there.

Mahabharata is an Epic and not a Shruti.

Moreover, Mahabharata right from the beginning has several examples of most famous women (Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika and even Kunti) not committing "sati" when their husbands died, which is a proof that "sati" was not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism.

Bhishma's story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) in the Mahabharata, according to you, is not an injunction in Hinduism in support of "sati". Moreover, to start with, was the pigeon religiously (?) even a Hindu to set a religious example of "sati" to Hindus when it committed "sati"? May be pigeon had some other religion and Bhishma just got mixed up about it.

Btw, ask some Muslim to explain to you the real reason for Akbar not being able to read and write (it was not sports).

All this still does not detract from the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:29 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act." Rashmun

>>> You are wrong about everything, as usual ... including your earlier statement on Akbar not being able to read and write because of being more interested in sports than studies, which just goes on to prove that you have no real clue about Indian history and scriptures etc. other than picking up vague / loose statements and hearsay about them here and there.

Mahabharata is an Epic and not a Shruti.

Moreover, Mahabharata right from the beginning has several examples of most famous women (Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika and even Kunti) not committing "sati" when their husbands died, which is a proof that "sati" was not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism.

Bhishma's story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) in the Mahabharata, according to you, is not an injunction in Hinduism in support of "sati". Moreover, to start with, was the pigeon religiously (?) even a Hindu to set a religious example of "sati" to Hindus when it committed "sati"? May be pigeon had some other religion and Bhishma just got mixed up about it.

Btw, ask some Muslim to explain to you the real reason for Akbar not being able to read and write (it was not sports).

All this still does not detract from the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti.

Mahabharata as an Epic (Smriti) is not a Shruti.

Moreover, according to the Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), the Smritis have to adhere to the edicts in the Shrutis (basically the Rig Veda), in addition to not having or exhibiting any glaring contradictions and exceptions in them (Smritis), before being taken seriously in religious sense in Hinduism.

Your reference to Bhishma’s story about a pigeon (a bird) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, as example of Hindu religion's official support for "sati", makes little sense.

This (imaginary) parable involving a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata is in total contradiction to the several examples of real life flesh and blood women (Satyavati et al., as indicated earlier) who did not commit "sati" in the Mahabharata when their husbands died.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:35 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act." Rashmun

>>> You are wrong about everything, as usual ... including your earlier statement on Akbar not being able to read and write because of being more interested in sports than studies, which just goes on to prove that you have no real clue about Indian history and scriptures etc. other than picking up vague / loose statements and hearsay about them here and there.

Mahabharata is an Epic and not a Shruti.

Moreover, Mahabharata right from the beginning has several examples of most famous women (Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika and even Kunti) not committing "sati" when their husbands died, which is a proof that "sati" was not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism.

Bhishma's story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) in the Mahabharata, according to you, is not an injunction in Hinduism in support of "sati". Moreover, to start with, was the pigeon religiously (?) even a Hindu to set a religious example of "sati" to Hindus when it committed "sati"? May be pigeon had some other religion and Bhishma just got mixed up about it.

Btw, ask some Muslim to explain to you the real reason for Akbar not being able to read and write (it was not sports).

All this still does not detract from the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti.

Mahabharata is an Epic (Smriti) is not a Shruti.

Moreover, according to the Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), the Smritis have to adhere to the edicts in the Shrutis (basically the Rig Veda), in addition to not having or exhibiting any glaring contradictions and exceptions in them (Smritis), before being taken seriously in religious sense in Hinduism.

Your reference to Bhishma’s story about a pigeon (a bird) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, as example of Hindu religion's official support for "sati", makes little sense.

This (imaginary) parable involving a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata is in total contradiction to the several examples of real life flesh and blood women (Satyavati et al., as indicated earlier) who did not commit "sati" in the Mahabharata when their husbands died.

There is nothing in any sruti to contradict the Mahabharata's endorsement of sati. Since Mahabharata is a smriti and since there is no other hindu scripture which contradicts MAhabharata's endorsement of sati we have to accept the obvious.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:45 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act." Rashmun

>>> You are wrong about everything, as usual ... including your earlier statement on Akbar not being able to read and write because of being more interested in sports than studies, which just goes on to prove that you have no real clue about Indian history and scriptures etc. other than picking up vague / loose statements and hearsay about them here and there.

Mahabharata is an Epic and not a Shruti.

Moreover, Mahabharata right from the beginning has several examples of most famous women (Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika and even Kunti) not committing "sati" when their husbands died, which is a proof that "sati" was not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism.

Bhishma's story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) in the Mahabharata, according to you, is not an injunction in Hinduism in support of "sati". Moreover, to start with, was the pigeon religiously (?) even a Hindu to set a religious example of "sati" to Hindus when it committed "sati"? May be pigeon had some other religion and Bhishma just got mixed up about it.

Btw, ask some Muslim to explain to you the real reason for Akbar not being able to read and write (it was not sports).

All this still does not detract from the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti.

Mahabharata is an Epic (Smriti) is not a Shruti.

Moreover, according to the Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), the Smritis have to adhere to the edicts in the Shrutis (basically the Rig Veda), in addition to not having or exhibiting any glaring contradictions and exceptions in them (Smritis), before being taken seriously in religious sense in Hinduism.

Your reference to Bhishma’s story about a pigeon (a bird) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, as example of Hindu religion's official support for "sati", makes little sense.

This (imaginary) parable involving a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata is in total contradiction to the several examples of real life flesh and blood women (Satyavati et al., as indicated earlier) who did not commit "sati" in the Mahabharata when their husbands died.

There is nothing in any sruti to contradict the Mahabharata's endorsement of sati. Since Mahabharata is a smriti and since there is no other hindu scripture which contradicts MAhabharata's endorsement of sati we have to accept the obvious.

Wrong. There is no endorsement of Sati in the Mahabharata, otherwise Satyavati et al. would have also committed "sati". Moreover, you can not use the example of a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in an imaginary story by Bhishma as the endorsement for real women (in the Mahabharata) to commit "sati".

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:47 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Hindu scripture consists of sruti (Vedas i.e. Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads) and smriti. Mahabharata is considered a smriti in Hinduism i.e. subservient to sruti but still part of hindu scripture. That is why the Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, is also a smriti and not a sruti. Mahabharata gives several examples of sati with a clear endorsement (as opposed to criticism or even neutrality) of the act." Rashmun

>>> You are wrong about everything, as usual ... including your earlier statement on Akbar not being able to read and write because of being more interested in sports than studies, which just goes on to prove that you have no real clue about Indian history and scriptures etc. other than picking up vague / loose statements and hearsay about them here and there.

Mahabharata is an Epic and not a Shruti.

Moreover, Mahabharata right from the beginning has several examples of most famous women (Satyavati, Amba, Ambalika and even Kunti) not committing "sati" when their husbands died, which is a proof that "sati" was not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism.

Bhishma's story of a pigeon committing "sati" (?) in the Mahabharata, according to you, is not an injunction in Hinduism in support of "sati". Moreover, to start with, was the pigeon religiously (?) even a Hindu to set a religious example of "sati" to Hindus when it committed "sati"? May be pigeon had some other religion and Bhishma just got mixed up about it.

Btw, ask some Muslim to explain to you the real reason for Akbar not being able to read and write (it was not sports).

All this still does not detract from the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti.

Mahabharata is an Epic (Smriti) is not a Shruti.

Moreover, according to the Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), the Smritis have to adhere to the edicts in the Shrutis (basically the Rig Veda), in addition to not having or exhibiting any glaring contradictions and exceptions in them (Smritis), before being taken seriously in religious sense in Hinduism.

Your reference to Bhishma’s story about a pigeon (a bird) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, as example of Hindu religion's official support for "sati", makes little sense.

This (imaginary) parable involving a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata is in total contradiction to the several examples of real life flesh and blood women (Satyavati et al., as indicated earlier) who did not commit "sati" in the Mahabharata when their husbands died.

There is nothing in any sruti to contradict the Mahabharata's endorsement of sati. Since Mahabharata is a smriti and since there is no other hindu scripture which contradicts MAhabharata's endorsement of sati we have to accept the obvious.

Wrong. There is no endorsement of Sati in the Mahabharata, otherwise Satyavati et al. would have also committed "sati". Moreover, you can not use the example of a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in an imaginary story by Bhishma as the endorsement for real women (in the Mahabharata) to commit "sati".

The bird who committed sati went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. Moreover, there are many human females who committed sati including Madri who was Pandu's second wife. The Mahabharata endorses the act of Madri when she committed sati.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:56 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

All this still does not detract from the fact that Mahabharata is a part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti.

Mahabharata is an Epic (Smriti) is not a Shruti.

Moreover, according to the Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), the Smritis have to adhere to the edicts in the Shrutis (basically the Rig Veda), in addition to not having or exhibiting any glaring contradictions and exceptions in them (Smritis), before being taken seriously in religious sense in Hinduism.

Your reference to Bhishma’s story about a pigeon (a bird) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, as example of Hindu religion's official support for "sati", makes little sense.

This (imaginary) parable involving a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata is in total contradiction to the several examples of real life flesh and blood women (Satyavati et al., as indicated earlier) who did not commit "sati" in the Mahabharata when their husbands died.

There is nothing in any sruti to contradict the Mahabharata's endorsement of sati. Since Mahabharata is a smriti and since there is no other hindu scripture which contradicts MAhabharata's endorsement of sati we have to accept the obvious.

Wrong. There is no endorsement of Sati in the Mahabharata, otherwise Satyavati et al. would have also committed "sati". Moreover, you can not use the example of a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in an imaginary story by Bhishma as the endorsement for real women (in the Mahabharata) to commit "sati".

The bird who committed sati went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. Moreover, there are many human females who committed sati including Madri who was Pandu's second wife. The Mahabharata endorses the act of Madri when she committed sati.

Wow. The bird going to heaven (in a celestial chariot) with its "husband" after commiting "sati" in an imaginary story in the Mahabharata is the endorsement for "sati" for women in Hinduism, according to you. That's in the same league as you think about Akbar not learning to read and write due to his preference for sports.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:00 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Mahabharata is an Epic (Smriti) is not a Shruti.

Moreover, according to the Mimamsa (Purva Mimamsa), the Smritis have to adhere to the edicts in the Shrutis (basically the Rig Veda), in addition to not having or exhibiting any glaring contradictions and exceptions in them (Smritis), before being taken seriously in religious sense in Hinduism.

Your reference to Bhishma’s story about a pigeon (a bird) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata, as example of Hindu religion's official support for "sati", makes little sense.

This (imaginary) parable involving a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in the Mahabharata is in total contradiction to the several examples of real life flesh and blood women (Satyavati et al., as indicated earlier) who did not commit "sati" in the Mahabharata when their husbands died.

There is nothing in any sruti to contradict the Mahabharata's endorsement of sati. Since Mahabharata is a smriti and since there is no other hindu scripture which contradicts MAhabharata's endorsement of sati we have to accept the obvious.

Wrong. There is no endorsement of Sati in the Mahabharata, otherwise Satyavati et al. would have also committed "sati". Moreover, you can not use the example of a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in an imaginary story by Bhishma as the endorsement for real women (in the Mahabharata) to commit "sati".

The bird who committed sati went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. Moreover, there are many human females who committed sati including Madri who was Pandu's second wife. The Mahabharata endorses the act of Madri when she committed sati.

Wow. The bird going to heaven (in a celestial chariot) with its "husband" after commiting "sati" in an imaginary story in the Mahabharata is the endorsement for "sati" for women in Hinduism, according to you. That's in the same league as you think about Akbar not learning to read and write due to his preference for sports.

The fact that the bird story is narrated by Bhisma makes it a big deal. Moreover, the bird story is not the only example of sati. There are numerous examples of human females committing sati in Mahabharata and this act is endorsed by the text.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:15 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

There is nothing in any sruti to contradict the Mahabharata's endorsement of sati. Since Mahabharata is a smriti and since there is no other hindu scripture which contradicts MAhabharata's endorsement of sati we have to accept the obvious.

Wrong. There is no endorsement of Sati in the Mahabharata, otherwise Satyavati et al. would have also committed "sati". Moreover, you can not use the example of a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in an imaginary story by Bhishma as the endorsement for real women (in the Mahabharata) to commit "sati".

The bird who committed sati went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. Moreover, there are many human females who committed sati including Madri who was Pandu's second wife. The Mahabharata endorses the act of Madri when she committed sati.

Wow. The bird going to heaven (in a celestial chariot) with its "husband" after commiting "sati" in an imaginary story in the Mahabharata is the endorsement for "sati" for women in Hinduism, according to you. That's in the same league as you think about Akbar not learning to read and write due to his preference for sports.

The fact that the bird story is narrated by Bhisma makes it a big deal. Moreover, the bird story is not the only example of sati. There are numerous examples of human females committing sati in Mahabharata and this act is endorsed by the text.

Mahabharata, as an ancient Epic, recorded all kinds of events, including some people /women committing "sati". That neither was the endorsement of Mahabharata supporting "sati" nor a proof of Hinduism sanctioning "sati' for women. Just because there is a narration in the name of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, it does not mean that Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice support and endorse everything related to or involving Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Similarly, just because the newspapers (the New York Times etc.) recorded and reported the sexual abuse of some boys and girls by a few priests in a number of Christian schools, it does not mean that the New York Times etc. and their editors endorse that activity (abuse of boys / girls in schools).

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:17 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Wrong. There is no endorsement of Sati in the Mahabharata, otherwise Satyavati et al. would have also committed "sati". Moreover, you can not use the example of a bird (pigeon) committing "sati" in an imaginary story by Bhishma as the endorsement for real women (in the Mahabharata) to commit "sati".

The bird who committed sati went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. Moreover, there are many human females who committed sati including Madri who was Pandu's second wife. The Mahabharata endorses the act of Madri when she committed sati.

Wow. The bird going to heaven (in a celestial chariot) with its "husband" after commiting "sati" in an imaginary story in the Mahabharata is the endorsement for "sati" for women in Hinduism, according to you. That's in the same league as you think about Akbar not learning to read and write due to his preference for sports.

The fact that the bird story is narrated by Bhisma makes it a big deal. Moreover, the bird story is not the only example of sati. There are numerous examples of human females committing sati in Mahabharata and this act is endorsed by the text.

Mahabharata, as an ancient Epic, recorded all kinds of events (including some people /women) committing "sati". That neither was the endorsement of Mahabharata supporting "sati" nor a proof of Hinduism sanctioning "sati' for women. Just because there is a narration in the name of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, it does not mean that Shakespeare or the Merchant of Venice supports and endorses everything related to or involving Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Similarly, just because the newspapers (the New York Times etc.) recorded and reported the sexual abuse of some boys and girls by a few priests in a number of Christian schools, it does not mean that the New York Times etc. and their editors endorse that activity (abuse of boys / girls in schools).

Mahabharata endorses sati because it claims that women who commit sati go to heaven with their husbands in celestial chariots. Moreover, Mahabharata is a smriti i.e. hindu scripture. Merchant of Venice is not scripture.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:26 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

The bird who committed sati went straight to heaven along with her husband in a celestial chariot. Moreover, there are many human females who committed sati including Madri who was Pandu's second wife. The Mahabharata endorses the act of Madri when she committed sati.

Wow. The bird going to heaven (in a celestial chariot) with its "husband" after commiting "sati" in an imaginary story in the Mahabharata is the endorsement for "sati" for women in Hinduism, according to you. That's in the same league as you think about Akbar not learning to read and write due to his preference for sports.

The fact that the bird story is narrated by Bhisma makes it a big deal. Moreover, the bird story is not the only example of sati. There are numerous examples of human females committing sati in Mahabharata and this act is endorsed by the text.

Mahabharata, as an ancient Epic, recorded all kinds of events (including some people /women) committing "sati". That neither was the endorsement of Mahabharata supporting "sati" nor a proof of Hinduism sanctioning "sati' for women. Just because there is a narration in the name of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, it does not mean that Shakespeare or the Merchant of Venice supports and endorses everything related to or involving Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Similarly, just because the newspapers (the New York Times etc.) recorded and reported the sexual abuse of some boys and girls by a few priests in a number of Christian schools, it does not mean that the New York Times etc. and their editors endorse that activity (abuse of boys / girls in schools).

Mahabharata endorses sati because it claims that women who commit sati go to heaven with their husbands in celestial chariots. Moreover, Mahabharata is a smriti i.e. hindu scripture. Merchant of Venice is not scripture.

LOL. Mahabharata is not a shruti to be called a Hindu scripture. As an Epic, it is the record of various events around a certain period. It's sillly to presume that Mahabharata establishes edicts for Hinduism.

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:43 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Wow. The bird going to heaven (in a celestial chariot) with its "husband" after commiting "sati" in an imaginary story in the Mahabharata is the endorsement for "sati" for women in Hinduism, according to you. That's in the same league as you think about Akbar not learning to read and write due to his preference for sports.

The fact that the bird story is narrated by Bhisma makes it a big deal. Moreover, the bird story is not the only example of sati. There are numerous examples of human females committing sati in Mahabharata and this act is endorsed by the text.

Mahabharata, as an ancient Epic, recorded all kinds of events (including some people /women) committing "sati". That neither was the endorsement of Mahabharata supporting "sati" nor a proof of Hinduism sanctioning "sati' for women. Just because there is a narration in the name of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, it does not mean that Shakespeare or the Merchant of Venice supports and endorses everything related to or involving Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Similarly, just because the newspapers (the New York Times etc.) recorded and reported the sexual abuse of some boys and girls by a few priests in a number of Christian schools, it does not mean that the New York Times etc. and their editors endorse that activity (abuse of boys / girls in schools).

Mahabharata endorses sati because it claims that women who commit sati go to heaven with their husbands in celestial chariots. Moreover, Mahabharata is a smriti i.e. hindu scripture. Merchant of Venice is not scripture.

LOL. Mahabharata is not a shruti to be called a Hindu scripture. As an Epic, it is the record of various events around a certain period. It's sillly to presume that Mahabharata establishes edicts for Hinduism.

Mahabharata is part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:46 am

On another note, Seva, i have a question for you: in your opinion is it possible to be a hindu if one does not believe in something that even Sruti says?

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

The fact that the bird story is narrated by Bhisma makes it a big deal. Moreover, the bird story is not the only example of sati. There are numerous examples of human females committing sati in Mahabharata and this act is endorsed by the text.

Mahabharata, as an ancient Epic, recorded all kinds of events (including some people /women) committing "sati". That neither was the endorsement of Mahabharata supporting "sati" nor a proof of Hinduism sanctioning "sati' for women. Just because there is a narration in the name of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, it does not mean that Shakespeare or the Merchant of Venice supports and endorses everything related to or involving Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Similarly, just because the newspapers (the New York Times etc.) recorded and reported the sexual abuse of some boys and girls by a few priests in a number of Christian schools, it does not mean that the New York Times etc. and their editors endorse that activity (abuse of boys / girls in schools).

Mahabharata endorses sati because it claims that women who commit sati go to heaven with their husbands in celestial chariots. Moreover, Mahabharata is a smriti i.e. hindu scripture. Merchant of Venice is not scripture.

LOL. Mahabharata is not a shruti to be called a Hindu scripture. As an Epic, it is the record of various events around a certain period. It's sillly to presume that Mahabharata establishes edicts for Hinduism.

Mahabharata is part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti

You shouldn't blindly follow and interpret each and every ancient text in the religious sense, including the Epic Mahabharata.

Btw, was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place?

[Genesis .. 19:6] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19:7] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19:8] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the above as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:23 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Mahabharata, as an ancient Epic, recorded all kinds of events (including some people /women) committing "sati". That neither was the endorsement of Mahabharata supporting "sati" nor a proof of Hinduism sanctioning "sati' for women. Just because there is a narration in the name of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, it does not mean that Shakespeare or the Merchant of Venice supports and endorses everything related to or involving Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. Similarly, just because the newspapers (the New York Times etc.) recorded and reported the sexual abuse of some boys and girls by a few priests in a number of Christian schools, it does not mean that the New York Times etc. and their editors endorse that activity (abuse of boys / girls in schools).

Mahabharata endorses sati because it claims that women who commit sati go to heaven with their husbands in celestial chariots. Moreover, Mahabharata is a smriti i.e. hindu scripture. Merchant of Venice is not scripture.

LOL. Mahabharata is not a shruti to be called a Hindu scripture. As an Epic, it is the record of various events around a certain period. It's sillly to presume that Mahabharata establishes edicts for Hinduism.

Mahabharata is part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti

You shouldn't blindly follow and interpret each and every ancient text in the religious sense, including the Epic Mahabharata.

Btw, was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place?

[Genesis .. 19] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the above as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

i would not wish to comment on the extract since i do not know the context in which these words are being exchanged. Having said that i am in harmonious agreement with the french philosopher Voltaire's views on Christianity according to which there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Mahabharata endorses sati because it claims that women who commit sati go to heaven with their husbands in celestial chariots. Moreover, Mahabharata is a smriti i.e. hindu scripture. Merchant of Venice is not scripture.

LOL. Mahabharata is not a shruti to be called a Hindu scripture. As an Epic, it is the record of various events around a certain period. It's sillly to presume that Mahabharata establishes edicts for Hinduism.

Mahabharata is part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti

You shouldn't blindly follow and interpret each and every ancient text in the religious sense, including the Epic Mahabharata.

Btw, was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place?

[Genesis .. 19] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the above as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

i would not wish to comment on the extract since i do not know the context in which these words are being exchanged. Having said that i am in harmonious agreement with the french philosopher Voltaire's views on Christianity according to which there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

What happened to your accepting everything (good or bad) in the religious texts as official endorsement to the followers of that faith?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:34 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

LOL. Mahabharata is not a shruti to be called a Hindu scripture. As an Epic, it is the record of various events around a certain period. It's sillly to presume that Mahabharata establishes edicts for Hinduism.

Mahabharata is part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti

You shouldn't blindly follow and interpret each and every ancient text in the religious sense, including the Epic Mahabharata.

Btw, was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place?

[Genesis .. 19] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the above as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

i would not wish to comment on the extract since i do not know the context in which these words are being exchanged. Having said that i am in harmonious agreement with the french philosopher Voltaire's views on Christianity according to which there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

What happened to your accepting everything (good or bad) in the religious texts as official endorsement to the followers of that faith?

Many orthodox christians believe in creationism because that is what the Bible teaches. Even though modern science says that creationism is nonsense. The claim could be made that all religions contain both good things and also nonsense. This is true for both hinduism and christianity. By the way, if someone disagrees with what Sruti says about something, can that person still consider himself to be a hindu in your estimate?

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Mahabharata is part of hindu scripture because it is a smriti. Hindu scripture = sruti + smriti

You shouldn't blindly follow and interpret each and every ancient text in the religious sense, including the Epic Mahabharata.

Btw, was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place?

[Genesis .. 19] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the above as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

i would not wish to comment on the extract since i do not know the context in which these words are being exchanged. Having said that i am in harmonious agreement with the french philosopher Voltaire's views on Christianity according to which there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

What happened to your accepting everything (good or bad) in the religious texts as official endorsement to the followers of that faith?

Many orthodox christians believe in creationism because that is what the Bible teaches. Even though modern science says that creationism is nonsense. The claim could be made that all religions contain both good things and also nonsense. This is true for both hinduism and christianity. By the way, if someone disagrees with what Sruti says about something, can that person still consider himself to be a hindu in your estimate?

First you answer these questions,
was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place; and, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the preceding as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:42 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

You shouldn't blindly follow and interpret each and every ancient text in the religious sense, including the Epic Mahabharata.

Btw, was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place?

[Genesis .. 19] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the above as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

i would not wish to comment on the extract since i do not know the context in which these words are being exchanged. Having said that i am in harmonious agreement with the french philosopher Voltaire's views on Christianity according to which there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

What happened to your accepting everything (good or bad) in the religious texts as official endorsement to the followers of that faith?

Many orthodox christians believe in creationism because that is what the Bible teaches. Even though modern science says that creationism is nonsense. The claim could be made that all religions contain both good things and also nonsense. This is true for both hinduism and christianity. By the way, if someone disagrees with what Sruti says about something, can that person still consider himself to be a hindu in your estimate?

First you answer these questions,
was Lot right in the Bible (Genesis) to offer his own daughters to the crowd of men (who attacked his house in Sodom) in exchange for a couple of strangers (men) visiting that place; and, considering the Bible is a religious book, do you accept the preceding as a Biblical (religious) endorsement for a father to have his innocent daughters abused by a crowd of savage men to save a bunch of strangers?

i would have to read the entire section in the Bible to which you are referring to before i answer your question. Having said that i have already stated that there is nonsense in the Bible, just as there is nonsense in Hindu scripture. That is why i ask: if someone disagrees with what Sruti says about something, can that person still consider himself to be a hindu in your estimate?

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:03 pm

Rashmun wrote:The mughal emperor Akbar made attempts to reform both Hinduism and Islam. In this post i focus on his efforts to reform Hinduism. His specific efforts were as follows:

1. Legalizing and encouraging remarriage by Hindu widows. The hindu widow had been treated with a certain cruelty and even in the dharmasastras she is forbidden to remarry. Akbar attempted to change all that.

2. Actively discouraging child marriages amongst hindus and raising the legal age of marriage. It should be noted that in the dharmasastras, a young man is encouraged to marry a minor girl. And so, for instance, the Manu Smriti recommends that a thirty year old man should marry a twelve year old girl; or else a twenty four year old man should marry an eight year old girl. Akbar clearly disagreed with the dharmasastras on this point.

3. Akbar banned forcible sati. His attempt to ban voluntary sati also met with opposition by some prominent hindus of his kingdom, including some of his ministers, and he agreed not to pursue the matter further. It can be seen that Akbar was the intellectual forefather of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who did propaganda against sati, and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, who did propaganda against the traditional hindu belief prohibiting widow remarriage, in the 20th century. It is strange that a muslim king managed to initiate reforms in Hinduism.

A lot of discussion has taken place in this thread on the third point i.e. sati. I wish to focus now on the second point i.e. child marriage. This is what the Manu Smriti (an important dharmasastra which is frequently quoted as a scriptural authority by no less a person than Adi Sankaracharya) says on this subject:

A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would (otherwise) be impeded, (he must marry) sooner.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm (see verse 94)

by Guest Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:16 pm

Some interesting info from the Visnu Smriti (a dharmasastra):

1. Now the duties of a woman (are as follows):...

11. Not to stand near the doorway or by the windows (of her house);

12. Not to act by herself in any matter;

13. To remain subject, in her infancy, to her father; in her youth, to her husband; and in her old age, to her sons.

14. After the death of her husband, to preserve her chastity, or to ascend the pile after him.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe07/sbe07027.htm

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:45 am

In another thread, Seva writes:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun, in spite of several examples of many real life women in the Mahabharata not committing “sati” when their husbands died, including the famous queens Satyavati, Amba and Ambalika et al., thus proving that “sati“ was / is not a religiously sanctioned practice in Hinduism or according to the Mahabharata, you contend that a fictionalized tale in the Mahabharata by Bhishma about an imaginary bird (a pigeon) committing “sati” and going to heaven in the celestial chariot is a proof of Hinduism’s religious support / sanction for “sati” among women.

Do you also think there might be religious sanction / support in Judaism and Christianity for the parents to have their daughters and girls abused and molested by savage men, because Lot in the holy Bible (Old Testament … the Book of Genesis) offered his daughters to a crowd of unruly men in exchange for the safety of a couple of strangers (men) in his house? ….
[Genesis .. 19] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
[Genesis .. 19] and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
[Genesis .. 19] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Moreover, do you accept and support the above as a reasonable religious endorsement (based on a story in the Book of Genesis, OT) to Jewish and Christian parents to willingly surrender their daughters / girls to unruly men for abuse and molestation in exchange for the safety of strangers and outsiders?

In addition, do you think Akbar would be reforming Christianity and Judaism if he talked and complained about this to the Jesuits visiting him?

I will point out to Seva that the pigeon story in Mahabharata is not the only evidence supporting Hindu scripture's endorsement of Sati. In the preceding post in this thread i have given evidence from Visnu Smriti (which is a dharmasastra) endorsing sati. So it is clear that hindu scripture (which includes the dharmasastras) endorses sati. According to the Visnu Smriti the hindu widow should either commit sati or else live without having sexual relations with any man.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:49 am

This dicussion continues in the following,

https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:50 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:This dicussion continues in the following,

https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

no it doesn't since Seva is conveniently not responding to what the Visnu Smriti says. The Visnu Smriti is a dharmasastra (which makes it a part of hindu scripture since it is a smriti) and it endorses sati.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:53 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:This dicussion continues in the following,

https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

no it doesn't since Seva is conveniently not responding to what the Visnu Smriti says. The Visnu Smriti is a dharmasastra (which makes it a part of hindu scripture since it is a smriti) and it endorses sati.

answer the questions on the following thread,
https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:02 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:This dicussion continues in the following,

https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

no it doesn't since Seva is conveniently not responding to what the Visnu Smriti says. The Visnu Smriti is a dharmasastra (which makes it a part of hindu scripture since it is a smriti) and it endorses sati.

answer the questions on the following thread,
https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

my answer is that Bhisma is considered an authoritative person in the Mahabharata. For instance, Lord Krishna--who is worshipped by hindus--himself asked Yudhistir to approach the dying Bhisma and learn about kingship from him. So Bhisma has been endorsed by Krishna and Bhisma himself endorses sati. Furthermore, the dharmasastras corroborate what Bhisma says about sati. I gave the relevant extract from the Visnu Smriti.With respect to the story of Lot, has Lot been endorsed by Jesus or God the father or the Holy Spirit any of the apostles (Paul, Peter, etc.) or some other authoritative person? there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible but i think your comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be the claim in the Bible that God created the earth before he created the sun which is clearly nonsense on par with the endorsement of sati by hindu scripture.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:10 pm

why yudhistir but not krishn and bhism?

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why yudhistir but not krishn and bhism?

yudhistira, sorry.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:This dicussion continues in the following,

https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

no it doesn't since Seva is conveniently not responding to what the Visnu Smriti says. The Visnu Smriti is a dharmasastra (which makes it a part of hindu scripture since it is a smriti) and it endorses sati.

answer the questions on the following thread,
https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

my answer is that Bhisma is considered an authoritative person in the Mahabharata. For instance, Lord Krishna--who is worshipped by hindus--himself asked Yudhistir to approach the dying Bhisma and learn about kingship from him. So Bhisma has been endorsed by Krishna and Bhisma himself endorses sati. Furthermore, the dharmasastras corroborate what Bhisma says about sati. I gave the relevant extract from the Visnu Smriti.With respect to the story of Lot, has Lot been endorsed by Jesus or God the father or the Holy Spirit any of the apostles (Paul, Peter, etc.) or some other authoritative person? there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible but i think your comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be the claim in the Bible that God created the earth before he created the sun which is clearly nonsense on par with the endorsement of sati by hindu scripture.

blah, blah, blah... about Bhishma, Krishna and Yudhishtra in the Mahabharata in support of "sati".

Read the first paragraph carefully in the above link (https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754) about the example of real flesh and blood women not committing "sati" in the Mahabharata.

by Guest Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:52 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:This dicussion continues in the following,

https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

no it doesn't since Seva is conveniently not responding to what the Visnu Smriti says. The Visnu Smriti is a dharmasastra (which makes it a part of hindu scripture since it is a smriti) and it endorses sati.

answer the questions on the following thread,
https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

my answer is that Bhisma is considered an authoritative person in the Mahabharata. For instance, Lord Krishna--who is worshipped by hindus--himself asked Yudhistir to approach the dying Bhisma and learn about kingship from him. So Bhisma has been endorsed by Krishna and Bhisma himself endorses sati. Furthermore, the dharmasastras corroborate what Bhisma says about sati. I gave the relevant extract from the Visnu Smriti.With respect to the story of Lot, has Lot been endorsed by Jesus or God the father or the Holy Spirit any of the apostles (Paul, Peter, etc.) or some other authoritative person? there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible but i think your comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be the claim in the Bible that God created the earth before he created the sun which is clearly nonsense on par with the endorsement of sati by hindu scripture.

blah, blah, blah... about Bhishma, Krishna and Yudhishtra in the Mahabharata in support of "sati".

Read the first paragraph carefully in the above link (https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754) about the example of real flesh and blood women not committing "sati" in the Mahabharata.

Visnu Smriti (whose relevant extract i have given earlier in this thread) endorses sati. Further there are real flesh and blood women in Mahabharata who do commit Sati. For instance, Pandu's wife Madri. According to Visnu Smriti a widow should either commit sati or else live the life of a recluse.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

no it doesn't since Seva is conveniently not responding to what the Visnu Smriti says. The Visnu Smriti is a dharmasastra (which makes it a part of hindu scripture since it is a smriti) and it endorses sati.

answer the questions on the following thread,
https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

my answer is that Bhisma is considered an authoritative person in the Mahabharata. For instance, Lord Krishna--who is worshipped by hindus--himself asked Yudhistir to approach the dying Bhisma and learn about kingship from him. So Bhisma has been endorsed by Krishna and Bhisma himself endorses sati. Furthermore, the dharmasastras corroborate what Bhisma says about sati. I gave the relevant extract from the Visnu Smriti.With respect to the story of Lot, has Lot been endorsed by Jesus or God the father or the Holy Spirit any of the apostles (Paul, Peter, etc.) or some other authoritative person? there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible but i think your comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be the claim in the Bible that God created the earth before he created the sun which is clearly nonsense on par with the endorsement of sati by hindu scripture.

blah, blah, blah... about Bhishma, Krishna and Yudhishtra in the Mahabharata in support of "sati".

Read the first paragraph carefully in the above link (https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754) about the example of real flesh and blood women not committing "sati" in the Mahabharata.

Visnu Smriti (whose relevant extract i have given earlier in this thread) endorses sati. Further there are real flesh and blood women in Mahabharata who do commit Sati. For instance, Pandu's wife Madri. According to Visnu Smriti a widow should either commit sati or else live the life of a recluse.

Someone calling his own book a smriti (vishnu-smriti or manu-smriti etc.) and writing in it in support of "sati" is not an acceptable proof of Hinduism's support for "sati", according to the Mimamsa.
Read more on "sati" in https://such.forumotion.com/t14523-follow-up-to-rashmuns-pigeon-story-in-the-mahabharata-as-the-basis-for-sati-in-hinduism#111754

by Sponsored content