Follow-up to Rashmun’s pigeon story in the Mahabharata as the basis for “sati” in Hinduism

(Ref.: “Akbar and the problem of reforming Hinduism: How a muslim king initiated reforms in Hinduism”, Rashmun …. https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism)

 
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 was watching a tamil movie called "Vidhi" (Mohan and purnima) movie on Sun TV and the movie was based on how kids end up not knowing their Dad. The case would've easily solved with DNA tests. But those days they weren't aware of DNA tests and the movie was a hit.
 
Whatever happened thousands of years ago and very highly customized scripts of epics and forming a basis is illogical.
 
 
Never heard of a pigeon committing sati…
 
 
Mahabharata is a great epic coz with so many powerful people who are capable of changing the history adhered to the plans and executed the way it were supposed to be; which shows the respect and faith they had with the supreme being.
 
 
The women in Mahabharata were all much more westernized than the existing western concept and shows that they were all evolved than any other civilization.
 
  
Examples:
  
 
Sathyavati, Kunti, Amba, Ambalika all of them had kids either before marriage and had kids by others after their marriage and didn’t hide from the then society and cared less to give any explanation – this proves the respect, freedom they had in their age.  Also Sathyavathi was from Fisherman caste-u.
 
 
 
 P.S I have some time to kill
 
 
 
 

Nila wrote: I was watching a tamil movie called "Vidhi" (Mohan and purnima) movie on Sun TV and the movie was based on how kids end up not knowing their Dad. The case would've easily solved with DNA tests. But those days they weren't aware of DNA tests and the movie was a hit.
 
Whatever happened thousands of years ago and very highly customized scripts of epics and forming a basis is illogical.
 
 
Never heard of a pigeon committing sati…
 
 
Mahabharata is a great epic coz with so many powerful people who are capable of changing the history adhered to the plans and executed the way it were supposed to be; which shows the respect and faith they had with the supreme being.
 
 
The women in Mahabharata were all much more westernized than the existing western concept and shows that they were all evolved than any other civilization.
 
  
Examples:
  
 
Sathyavati, Kunti, Amba, Ambalika all of them had kids either before marriage and had kids by others after their marriage and didn’t hide from the then society and cared less to give any explanation – this proves the respect, freedom they had in their age.  Also Sathyavathi was from Fisherman caste-u.
 
 
 
 P.S I have some time to kill
 
 
 
 

Thanks Nila for a very enlightening response.

As for the pigeon committing "sati" (?) in a story in the Mahabharata, that according to Rashmun is the religious basis for Hindu women to commit "sati" (following the example of an imaginary bird in the Mahabharata).

"Also Sathyavathi was from Fisherman caste-u"... Nila

>>> How do you pronounce "caste-u"?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:"Also Sathyavathi was from Fisherman caste-u"... Nila

>>> How do you pronounce "caste-u"?

 That line was in zest. Pls, don't mind. She was raised by a Fisherman but her birth story is different.

I have raised various types of pigeons including homers, jacobys, fantails, tumblers and rollers. There is no truth to this sati story. When a male dies or goes missing, the female waits for a month or so and then pairs with another male. Vice versa for the males. Typically the couple stays loyal to each other and rear their young together. The male broods over the eggs by taking turns, feeds the fledglings along with the female and is a good hubby (unlike the rooster that is "wham bham, thank you maam" moving over to the next hen).

Sevaji, did you know that Aurangzeb also reformed Hinduism by abolishing Sati? 

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p150-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67010

goodcitizn wrote:I have raised various types of pigeons including homers, jacobys, fantails, tumblers and rollers. There is no truth to this sati story. When a male dies or goes missing, the female waits for a month or so and then pairs with another male. Vice versa for the males. Typically the couple stays loyal to each other and rear their young together. The male broods over the eggs by taking turns, feeds the fledglings along with the female and is a good hubby (unlike the rooster that is "wham bham, thank you maam" moving over to the next hen).

Thanks GC for providing a first hand account about real pigeons not committing "sati" (?) when their partners die. It's nice to know that they simply move on and find new partners after a month or so after the loss of old partners.

In any case, as indicated earlier, the mere mention of a situation in a religious text does not automatically give rise to a religious edict. Lot offering his daughters to save strangers in the Bible / OT ( Genesis # 19:6,7,8 ) does not give rise to a religious edict (based on the Bible) for Jewish and Christian parents to sacrifice their daughters to save outsiders and strangers.

Similarly, suicide is not sanctioned Biblically for Jews and Christians even though the following citations indicate that there were instances of people committing suicide in the Bible (OT and NT),

(1)  After losing his sons and all of his troops in battle, and his sanity long before, King Saul, assisted by his armour bearer, ended his life. Then Saul's servant killed himself.  (Bible / OT … 1 Samuel 31:3-6);

(2)  Disgraced and rejected by Absolom, Ahithophel went home, put his affairs in order, and then hung himself.  (Bible / OT … 2 Samuel 17:23);

(3)  Rather than being taken prisoner, Zimri set the king's palace on fire and died in the flames. (Bible / OT … 1 Kings 16:18);

(4)  After he betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot was overcome with remorse and hung himself (Bible / NT … Matthew 27:5).


Likewise, the mention of “sati” in the non-Shruti texts (e.g. Epic, Smriti or Purana) does not represent a religious support from Hinduism for "sati".

Idéfix wrote:Sevaji, did you know that Aurangzeb also reformed Hinduism by abolishing Sati? 

https://such.forumotion.com/t8491p150-aurangzeb-s-generous-side-and-love-for-books#67010

 
LOL. Aurangzeb’s treatment of family members (e.g. his own father and brothers) must have impressed Rashmun a lot.

Btw, does Rashmun also consider king Saul’s suicide in the Bible (OT) as a proof of Biblical sanction for suicide to Jews and Christians, as he looks at queen Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) in the Mahabharata as a proof of Hinduism sanctioning “sati” to Hindu women (widows)?

Notwithstanding Rashmun’s rants about “sati’ as a Hindu religious practice, it never was so historically considering the Veda (Shruti) makes no mention about “sati“ (positively or negatively -- either supporting or rejecting it), which indicates Veda / Shruti either never looked at “sati“ as a religious and social issue or there were no cases of “sati” during the time of Vedic composition for inclusion in the Vedas.

The “sati” not being a significant religious or social issue is also apparent from the real situation involving Hindu women today.

There are close to half a billion Hindu women living in India currently, out of which several millions must be widows. There hardly was any news last year or in the recent past about any Hindu widow committing or trying to commit “sati” for religious reasons. Moreover, even if any widowed woman tried unfortunately to kill herself (by fire or in another way), it must be mostly because of lack of social (family) and financial support to her as a widow rather than the religion seeking her death for being a widow.

Note, even during the height of foreigners (Muslims) invading India six or seven hundred years ago which led to the deaths of many Indian (Hindu) soldiers and kings fighting the foreign invaders, numerous Hindu women (widows of dead soldiers and kings) committed “sati“ for social and personal reasons (to avoid capture and be taken as a prize booty by the foreigners who killed their husbands in the battles) and not because they needed to kill themselves for being Hindu widows.

Thus there simply was no case for Akbar (1542-1605) or Aurangzeb (1618-1707) to treat “sati” as a Hindu religious issue or pass laws against “sati” in an effort to reform Hinduism.

Even the law passed against “sati “ by the British at the insistence of Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772–1833), whose own sister committed “sati” (suicide for fire) when her husband died thus causing him tremendous pain and disgust, was more to deter a few Hindu women thinking of trying to kill themselves by fire when their husbands died and not because this law was required to solve and deal with a significant issue involving majority of Hindu women / widows.

Needless to say, “sati” was never a problem involving majority Hindu population (women / widows). Thus for anyone to suggest that Akbar or Aurangzeb reformed Hinduism through laws etc. against “sati” is just foolish.

Incidentally, there is a law in India against people trying to commit suicide. Does it mean that Indians by and large (in large numbers, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other) are looking for an opportunity to commit suicide and that the anti-suicide law by Govt. is required to stop the Indian population from committing suicide? Of course not. The same holds true about “sati” and the law related to it.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I have raised various types of pigeons including homers, jacobys, fantails, tumblers and rollers. There is no truth to this sati story. When a male dies or goes missing, the female waits for a month or so and then pairs with another male. Vice versa for the males. Typically the couple stays loyal to each other and rear their young together. The male broods over the eggs by taking turns, feeds the fledglings along with the female and is a good hubby (unlike the rooster that is "wham bham, thank you maam" moving over to the next hen).

Thanks GC for providing a first hand account about real pigeons not committing "sati" (?) when their partners die. It's nice to know that they simply move on and find new partners after a month or so after the loss of old partners.

Can you enlighten me on Rashmun's pigeon story from Ramayana?

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I have raised various types of pigeons including homers, jacobys, fantails, tumblers and rollers. There is no truth to this sati story. When a male dies or goes missing, the female waits for a month or so and then pairs with another male. Vice versa for the males. Typically the couple stays loyal to each other and rear their young together. The male broods over the eggs by taking turns, feeds the fledglings along with the female and is a good hubby (unlike the rooster that is "wham bham, thank you maam" moving over to the next hen).

Thanks GC for providing a first hand account about real pigeons not committing "sati" (?) when their partners die. It's nice to know that they simply move on and find new partners after a month or so after the loss of old partners.

Can you enlighten me on Rashmun's pigeon story from Ramayana?

Rashmun ( https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism) contends that the Mahabharata story of Pandu’s second wife Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) after Pandu’s death, while Pandu’s first wife Kunti chose to stay alive, is the evidence of wide spread “sati” practice among Hindu women (widows) long ago.

In addition, he finds religious validation for “sati” practice in the fictional story by Bhishma in the Mahabharata about an (imaginary) pigeon (a bird) committing “sati” and going to heaven in a celestial chariot.

Since Mahabharata is an Epic, belonging to the class of Smriti and not Shruti or Veda which only has the scriptural authority to validate things and practices religiously in Hinduism, the choice of Mahabharata or any other Smriti (including a Purana) by Rashmun to accept “sati“ as a religious practice, without similar backing for “sati” in the Veda / Shruti (the Rig Veda specifically), is wrong.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, only a few women out of a huge female population used to commit “sati” after becoming widows, which indicates the practice of “sati” had no wide acceptance or appeal socially, in addition to having no religious backing from the Veda. Thus, notwithstanding the mention of “sati” in a few cases in some Smritis (including Purana and Epic), “sati” does not qualify as a Hindu religious practice according to the Mimamsa.

To say “sati“ is a common religious practice in Hinduism because of a few cases of “sati” mentioned in the Smriti (Epic or Purana etc.) or taking place sporadically in society comprising millions of Hindu women, is as wrong as saying that offering own daughters to save strangers is a Judeo-Christian practice because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis) offered his own daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers, or that sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools and missions is a common phenomenon and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past sexually abused students in Christian religious schools, or that majority of Jewish merchants in Europe during medieval times were over-charging interest and treating their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ (by Shakespeare) is portrayed as over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly.

Similarly, the Govt. or a ruler passing a law against “sati” to deter any atypical widow who might think of committing “sati” (suicide by fire) cannot be considered as reforming the Hinduism, like the Govt. passing and strengthening the law to curtail sexual abuse and molestation of students by priests in Christian schools and missions cannot be considered as reforming the Christianity.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I have raised various types of pigeons including homers, jacobys, fantails, tumblers and rollers. There is no truth to this sati story. When a male dies or goes missing, the female waits for a month or so and then pairs with another male. Vice versa for the males. Typically the couple stays loyal to each other and rear their young together. The male broods over the eggs by taking turns, feeds the fledglings along with the female and is a good hubby (unlike the rooster that is "wham bham, thank you maam" moving over to the next hen).

Thanks GC for providing a first hand account about real pigeons not committing "sati" (?) when their partners die. It's nice to know that they simply move on and find new partners after a month or so after the loss of old partners.

Can you enlighten me on Rashmun's pigeon story from Ramayana?

Rashmun ( https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism) contends that the Mahabharata story of Pandu’s second wife Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) after Pandu’s death, while Pandu’s first wife Kunti chose to stay alive, is the evidence of wide spread “sati” practice among Hindu women (widows) long ago.

In addition, he finds religious validation for “sati” practice in the fictional story by Bhishma in the Mahabharata about an (imaginary) pigeon (a bird) committing “sati” and going to heaven in a celestial chariot.

Since Mahabharata is an Epic, belonging to the class of Smriti and not Shruti or Veda which only has the scriptural authority to validate things and practices religiously in Hinduism, the choice of Mahabharata or any other Smriti (including a Purana) by Rashmun to accept “sati“ as a religious practice, without similar backing for “sati” in the Veda / Shruti (the Rig Veda specifically), is wrong.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, only a few women out of a huge female population used to commit “sati” after becoming widows, which indicates the practice of “sati” had no wide acceptance or appeal socially, in addition to having no religious backing from the Veda. Thus, notwithstanding the mention of “sati” in a few cases in some Smritis (including Purana and Epic), “sati” does not qualify as a Hindu religious practice according to the Mimamsa.

To say “sati“ is a common religious practice in Hinduism because of a few cases of “sati” mentioned in the Smriti (Epic or Purana etc.) or taking place sporadically in society comprising millions of Hindu women, is as wrong as saying that offering own daughters to save strangers is a Judeo-Christian practice because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis) offered his own daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers, or that sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools and missions is a common phenomenon and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past sexually abused students in Christian religious schools, or that majority of Jewish merchants in Europe during medieval times were over-charging interest and treating their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ (by Shakespeare) is portrayed as over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly.

Similarly, the Govt. or a ruler passing a law against “sati” to deter any atypical widow who might think of committing “sati” (suicide by fire) cannot be considered as reforming the Hinduism, like the Govt. passing and strengthening the law to curtail sexual abuse and molestation of students by priests in Christian schools and missions cannot be considered as reforming the Christianity.

No mention in the above of the dharmasastras endorsing sati. For instance:

https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism#111643

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I have raised various types of pigeons including homers, jacobys, fantails, tumblers and rollers. There is no truth to this sati story. When a male dies or goes missing, the female waits for a month or so and then pairs with another male. Vice versa for the males. Typically the couple stays loyal to each other and rear their young together. The male broods over the eggs by taking turns, feeds the fledglings along with the female and is a good hubby (unlike the rooster that is "wham bham, thank you maam" moving over to the next hen).

Thanks GC for providing a first hand account about real pigeons not committing "sati" (?) when their partners die. It's nice to know that they simply move on and find new partners after a month or so after the loss of old partners.

Can you enlighten me on Rashmun's pigeon story from Ramayana?

Rashmun ( https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism) contends that the Mahabharata story of Pandu’s second wife Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) after Pandu’s death, while Pandu’s first wife Kunti chose to stay alive, is the evidence of wide spread “sati” practice among Hindu women (widows) long ago.

In addition, he finds religious validation for “sati” practice in the fictional story by Bhishma in the Mahabharata about an (imaginary) pigeon (a bird) committing “sati” and going to heaven in a celestial chariot.

Since Mahabharata is an Epic, belonging to the class of Smriti and not Shruti or Veda which only has the scriptural authority to validate things and practices religiously in Hinduism, the choice of Mahabharata or any other Smriti (including a Purana) by Rashmun to accept “sati“ as a religious practice, without similar backing for “sati” in the Veda / Shruti (the Rig Veda specifically), is wrong.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, only a few women out of a huge female population used to commit “sati” after becoming widows, which indicates the practice of “sati” had no wide acceptance or appeal socially, in addition to having no religious backing from the Veda. Thus, notwithstanding the mention of “sati” in a few cases in some Smritis (including Purana and Epic), “sati” does not qualify as a Hindu religious practice according to the Mimamsa.

To say “sati“ is a common religious practice in Hinduism because of a few cases of “sati” mentioned in the Smriti (Epic or Purana etc.) or taking place sporadically in society comprising millions of Hindu women, is as wrong as saying that offering own daughters to save strangers is a Judeo-Christian practice because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis) offered his own daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers, or that sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools and missions is a common phenomenon and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past sexually abused students in Christian religious schools, or that majority of Jewish merchants in Europe during medieval times were over-charging interest and treating their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ (by Shakespeare) is portrayed as over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly.

Similarly, the Govt. or a ruler passing a law against “sati” to deter any atypical widow who might think of committing “sati” (suicide by fire) cannot be considered as reforming the Hinduism, like the Govt. passing and strengthening the law to curtail sexual abuse and molestation of students by priests in Christian schools and missions cannot be considered as reforming the Christianity.

No mention in the above of the dharmasastras endorsing sati. For instance:

https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism#111643

Just because someone writes / compiles a book and calls it a smriti or a purana etc. (even while adding the name of a deity or a sage in the title, e.g. Vishnu-smriti etc.), that does not make it a "dharamshastra" (the authentic Hindu religious scripture as a Veda / Shriti). If Shakespeare called his literary wok "The Merchant of Venice" as "Venice-smriti" (Memories of Venice) or "Shakespeare-purana" ('Historical' account by Shakespeare), that wouldn't make 'The Merchant of Venice' a dharamashastra even though it would have "smriti" or "Purana" in its title as  "Venice-smriti" or "Shakespeare-purana".

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Thanks GC for providing a first hand account about real pigeons not committing "sati" (?) when their partners die. It's nice to know that they simply move on and find new partners after a month or so after the loss of old partners.

Can you enlighten me on Rashmun's pigeon story from Ramayana?

Rashmun ( https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism) contends that the Mahabharata story of Pandu’s second wife Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) after Pandu’s death, while Pandu’s first wife Kunti chose to stay alive, is the evidence of wide spread “sati” practice among Hindu women (widows) long ago.

In addition, he finds religious validation for “sati” practice in the fictional story by Bhishma in the Mahabharata about an (imaginary) pigeon (a bird) committing “sati” and going to heaven in a celestial chariot.

Since Mahabharata is an Epic, belonging to the class of Smriti and not Shruti or Veda which only has the scriptural authority to validate things and practices religiously in Hinduism, the choice of Mahabharata or any other Smriti (including a Purana) by Rashmun to accept “sati“ as a religious practice, without similar backing for “sati” in the Veda / Shruti (the Rig Veda specifically), is wrong.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, only a few women out of a huge female population used to commit “sati” after becoming widows, which indicates the practice of “sati” had no wide acceptance or appeal socially, in addition to having no religious backing from the Veda. Thus, notwithstanding the mention of “sati” in a few cases in some Smritis (including Purana and Epic), “sati” does not qualify as a Hindu religious practice according to the Mimamsa.

To say “sati“ is a common religious practice in Hinduism because of a few cases of “sati” mentioned in the Smriti (Epic or Purana etc.) or taking place sporadically in society comprising millions of Hindu women, is as wrong as saying that offering own daughters to save strangers is a Judeo-Christian practice because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis) offered his own daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers, or that sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools and missions is a common phenomenon and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past sexually abused students in Christian religious schools, or that majority of Jewish merchants in Europe during medieval times were over-charging interest and treating their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ (by Shakespeare) is portrayed as over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly.

Similarly, the Govt. or a ruler passing a law against “sati” to deter any atypical widow who might think of committing “sati” (suicide by fire) cannot be considered as reforming the Hinduism, like the Govt. passing and strengthening the law to curtail sexual abuse and molestation of students by priests in Christian schools and missions cannot be considered as reforming the Christianity.

No mention in the above of the dharmasastras endorsing sati. For instance:

https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism#111643

Just because someone writes / compiles a book and calls it a smriti or a purana etc. (even while adding the name of a deity or a sage in the title, e.g. Vishnu-smriti etc.), that does not make it a "dharamshastra" (the authentic Hindu religious scripture as a Veda / Shriti). If Shakespeare called his literary wok "The Merchant of Venice" as "Venice-smriti" (Memories of Venice) or "Shakespeare-purana" ('Historical' account by Shakespeare), that wouldn't make 'The Merchant of Venice' a dharamashastra even though it would have "smriti" or "Purana" in its title as  "Venice-smriti" or "Shakespeare-purana".

These dharmasastras are considered authoritative works by the renowned hindu philosophers like Ramanujan, sankaracharya, Madhva, etc.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:
Can you enlighten me on Rashmun's pigeon story from Ramayana?

Rashmun ( https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism) contends that the Mahabharata story of Pandu’s second wife Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) after Pandu’s death, while Pandu’s first wife Kunti chose to stay alive, is the evidence of wide spread “sati” practice among Hindu women (widows) long ago.

In addition, he finds religious validation for “sati” practice in the fictional story by Bhishma in the Mahabharata about an (imaginary) pigeon (a bird) committing “sati” and going to heaven in a celestial chariot.

Since Mahabharata is an Epic, belonging to the class of Smriti and not Shruti or Veda which only has the scriptural authority to validate things and practices religiously in Hinduism, the choice of Mahabharata or any other Smriti (including a Purana) by Rashmun to accept “sati“ as a religious practice, without similar backing for “sati” in the Veda / Shruti (the Rig Veda specifically), is wrong.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, only a few women out of a huge female population used to commit “sati” after becoming widows, which indicates the practice of “sati” had no wide acceptance or appeal socially, in addition to having no religious backing from the Veda. Thus, notwithstanding the mention of “sati” in a few cases in some Smritis (including Purana and Epic), “sati” does not qualify as a Hindu religious practice according to the Mimamsa.

To say “sati“ is a common religious practice in Hinduism because of a few cases of “sati” mentioned in the Smriti (Epic or Purana etc.) or taking place sporadically in society comprising millions of Hindu women, is as wrong as saying that offering own daughters to save strangers is a Judeo-Christian practice because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis) offered his own daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers, or that sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools and missions is a common phenomenon and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past sexually abused students in Christian religious schools, or that majority of Jewish merchants in Europe during medieval times were over-charging interest and treating their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ (by Shakespeare) is portrayed as over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly.

Similarly, the Govt. or a ruler passing a law against “sati” to deter any atypical widow who might think of committing “sati” (suicide by fire) cannot be considered as reforming the Hinduism, like the Govt. passing and strengthening the law to curtail sexual abuse and molestation of students by priests in Christian schools and missions cannot be considered as reforming the Christianity.

No mention in the above of the dharmasastras endorsing sati. For instance:

https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism#111643

Just because someone writes / compiles a book and calls it a smriti or a purana etc. (even while adding the name of a deity or a sage in the title, e.g. Vishnu-smriti etc.), that does not make it a "dharamshastra" (the authentic Hindu religious scripture as a Veda / Shriti). If Shakespeare called his literary wok "The Merchant of Venice" as "Venice-smriti" (Memories of Venice) or "Shakespeare-purana" ('Historical' account by Shakespeare), that wouldn't make 'The Merchant of Venice' a dharamashastra even though it would have "smriti" or "Purana" in its title as  "Venice-smriti" or "Shakespeare-purana".

These dharmasastras are considered authoritative works by the renowned hindu philosophers like Ramanujan, sankaracharya, Madhva, etc.

 The test for a dharmshastra is not in being thought as such by a certain person or philosopher, but belonging to the class of Shruti and being in agreement with the Rig Veda. Smritis certainly don't fall in that category, as Shrutis.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun ( https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism) contends that the Mahabharata story of Pandu’s second wife Madri committing “sati” (suicide by fire) after Pandu’s death, while Pandu’s first wife Kunti chose to stay alive, is the evidence of wide spread “sati” practice among Hindu women (widows) long ago.

In addition, he finds religious validation for “sati” practice in the fictional story by Bhishma in the Mahabharata about an (imaginary) pigeon (a bird) committing “sati” and going to heaven in a celestial chariot.

Since Mahabharata is an Epic, belonging to the class of Smriti and not Shruti or Veda which only has the scriptural authority to validate things and practices religiously in Hinduism, the choice of Mahabharata or any other Smriti (including a Purana) by Rashmun to accept “sati“ as a religious practice, without similar backing for “sati” in the Veda / Shruti (the Rig Veda specifically), is wrong.

Moreover, as indicated earlier, only a few women out of a huge female population used to commit “sati” after becoming widows, which indicates the practice of “sati” had no wide acceptance or appeal socially, in addition to having no religious backing from the Veda. Thus, notwithstanding the mention of “sati” in a few cases in some Smritis (including Purana and Epic), “sati” does not qualify as a Hindu religious practice according to the Mimamsa.

To say “sati“ is a common religious practice in Hinduism because of a few cases of “sati” mentioned in the Smriti (Epic or Purana etc.) or taking place sporadically in society comprising millions of Hindu women, is as wrong as saying that offering own daughters to save strangers is a Judeo-Christian practice because Lot in the Bible (the Book of Genesis) offered his own daughters to an unruly mob to save a couple of strangers, or that sexual molestation of boys and girls by priests in Christian schools and missions is a common phenomenon and a part of Christianity because some priests in the past sexually abused students in Christian religious schools, or that majority of Jewish merchants in Europe during medieval times were over-charging interest and treating their clients (borrowers) cruelly because Shylock (a Jewish moneylender) in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ (by Shakespeare) is portrayed as over-charging the interest and treating his client cruelly.

Similarly, the Govt. or a ruler passing a law against “sati” to deter any atypical widow who might think of committing “sati” (suicide by fire) cannot be considered as reforming the Hinduism, like the Govt. passing and strengthening the law to curtail sexual abuse and molestation of students by priests in Christian schools and missions cannot be considered as reforming the Christianity.

No mention in the above of the dharmasastras endorsing sati. For instance:

https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism#111643

Just because someone writes / compiles a book and calls it a smriti or a purana etc. (even while adding the name of a deity or a sage in the title, e.g. Vishnu-smriti etc.), that does not make it a "dharamshastra" (the authentic Hindu religious scripture as a Veda / Shriti). If Shakespeare called his literary wok "The Merchant of Venice" as "Venice-smriti" (Memories of Venice) or "Shakespeare-purana" ('Historical' account by Shakespeare), that wouldn't make 'The Merchant of Venice' a dharamashastra even though it would have "smriti" or "Purana" in its title as  "Venice-smriti" or "Shakespeare-purana".

These dharmasastras are considered authoritative works by the renowned hindu philosophers like Ramanujan, sankaracharya, Madhva, etc.

 The test for a dharmshastra is not in being thought as such by a certain person or philosopher, but belonging to the class of Shruti and being in agreement with the Rig Veda. Smritis certainly don't fall in that category, as Shrutis.

According to the authoritative representatives of Hinduism-- i.e. Nyaya-Vaisesika, Mimansa, Vedanta scholars-- Smriti is also a part of Hindu scripture with the caveat that if Smriti and Sruti are in disagreement on a specific issue then Sruti prevails. Most hindus will trust the authoritative representatives of Hinduism like Ramanuja, Adi Sankara, Kumarila, Madhva, Vachaspati Mishra, etc. rather than the unknown Seva who posts on a few internet forums.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

No mention in the above of the dharmasastras endorsing sati. For instance:

https://such.forumotion.com/t14466-akbar-and-the-problem-of-reforming-hinduism-how-a-muslim-king-initiated-reforms-in-hinduism#111643

Just because someone writes / compiles a book and calls it a smriti or a purana etc. (even while adding the name of a deity or a sage in the title, e.g. Vishnu-smriti etc.), that does not make it a "dharamshastra" (the authentic Hindu religious scripture as a Veda / Shriti). If Shakespeare called his literary wok "The Merchant of Venice" as "Venice-smriti" (Memories of Venice) or "Shakespeare-purana" ('Historical' account by Shakespeare), that wouldn't make 'The Merchant of Venice' a dharamashastra even though it would have "smriti" or "Purana" in its title as  "Venice-smriti" or "Shakespeare-purana".

These dharmasastras are considered authoritative works by the renowned hindu philosophers like Ramanujan, sankaracharya, Madhva, etc.

 The test for a dharmshastra is not in being thought as such by a certain person or philosopher, but belonging to the class of Shruti and being in agreement with the Rig Veda. Smritis certainly don't fall in that category, as Shrutis.

According to the authoritative representatives of Hinduism-- i.e. Nyaya-Vaisesika, Mimansa, Vedanta scholars-- Smriti is also a part of Hindu scripture with the caveat that if Smriti and Sruti are in disagreement on a specific issue then Sruti prevails. Most hindus will trust the authoritative representatives of Hinduism like Ramanuja, Adi Sankara, Kumarila, Madhva, Vachaspati Mishra, etc. rather than the unknown Seva who posts on a few internet forums. 

Smriti is simply not a Dharamshastra (Shruti) no matter who thinks or says so. Just because many people these days, including some in Canada, hustle and practice astrology under the name Vedic Astrology does not make astrology Vedic or as having support from the Veda (Shruti), since in reality there is no mention or support for astrology in the Veda (Rig Veda).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Just because someone writes / compiles a book and calls it a smriti or a purana etc. (even while adding the name of a deity or a sage in the title, e.g. Vishnu-smriti etc.), that does not make it a "dharamshastra" (the authentic Hindu religious scripture as a Veda / Shriti). If Shakespeare called his literary wok "The Merchant of Venice" as "Venice-smriti" (Memories of Venice) or "Shakespeare-purana" ('Historical' account by Shakespeare), that wouldn't make 'The Merchant of Venice' a dharamashastra even though it would have "smriti" or "Purana" in its title as  "Venice-smriti" or "Shakespeare-purana".

These dharmasastras are considered authoritative works by the renowned hindu philosophers like Ramanujan, sankaracharya, Madhva, etc.

 The test for a dharmshastra is not in being thought as such by a certain person or philosopher, but belonging to the class of Shruti and being in agreement with the Rig Veda. Smritis certainly don't fall in that category, as Shrutis.

According to the authoritative representatives of Hinduism-- i.e. Nyaya-Vaisesika, Mimansa, Vedanta scholars-- Smriti is also a part of Hindu scripture with the caveat that if Smriti and Sruti are in disagreement on a specific issue then Sruti prevails. Most hindus will trust the authoritative representatives of Hinduism like Ramanuja, Adi Sankara, Kumarila, Madhva, Vachaspati Mishra, etc. rather than the unknown Seva who posts on a few internet forums. 

Smriti is simply not a Dharamshastra (Shruti) no matter who thinks or says so. Just because many people these days, including some in Canada, hustle and practice astrology under the name Vedic Astrology does not make astrology Vedic or as having support from the Veda (Shruti), since in reality there is no mention or support for astrology in the Veda (Rig Veda).

More on Manusmriti:

"Manusmriti -- the book that contradicts the Vedas and itself" .....
http://creative.sulekha.com/manusmriti-the-book-that-contradicts-the-vedas-and-itself_469715_blog