Is a Hinduism epic to blame for misogyny in India and the subcontinent?

[Slog]

I was following this discussion where I learned about Rama and Sita.

Now I don't for one second profess to know the context of the story or the intricacies of the religion and neither is my intention to attack a religion so correct and educate me if I'm wrong. But this is what I understand at a basic level.

1) Sita, wife of Lord Rama, was abducted by Ravana and kept in captivity for years.

2) When Sita was finally liberated there were whispers about her being taken advantage of by Ravana while this was not true.

3) Instead of supporting her publicly, Lord Rama held a public chastity and purity trial in order to prove her purity this tying the concept of a woman's honour to this. This is a problem which plagues subcontinental society till today and maybe a result of this. There was no reason for such an exercise to be conducted because she had no control and if there was something like a forced situation then it is clearly not her fault so why should she be punished for it?

4) apparently later Sita was banished from society despite proving her chastity because the whispers and doubts against her from society didn't stop and Lord Rama did not want to be a King whose wife had such allegations on her despite the fact that they were proven to not be true.

Now if the above events are correctly understood it definitely seems problematic for me considering its part of a Hindu sage.

It ties a woman's honour to her chastity and puts the message that if an aggressor can forcefully take advantage of her the woman is 'damaged goods.'

What do posters think? Hopefully we can have a mature conversation about this.

 

[jusarrived]

Lets forget the converted muslims in India and SC , What happened in Middle East , why are women treated badly there? Hinduism seems to have had a bigger impact there

 

[Slog]

Lets forget the converted muslims in India and SC , What happened in Middle East , why are women treated badly there? Hinduism seems to have had a bigger impact there

Please stay on topic and don't take it personally. Thread is not about Middle East.

If you have a contribution to the thread please do.

At the bare minimum. Is my understanding of the story correct? Is this promoting mysogyny?

 

[Thomaskutty]

I won't rule out the effect of specific holy books on cultural attitudes but highly religious places the world over are usually misogynistic .. the west was quite anti-woman in its own ways until the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[enkidu_]

The Ramayana isn't that shocking at all if you compare it with the Manusmriti for instance. The Law of Manu is pretty hard on a host of different groups, but it has its gems on women. One example :

If a female, who is proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the king shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.

http://www.youthconnect.in/2015/07/09/33-shocking-verses-from-manusmriti-about-women/

 

[tempus123]

The thread title is misleading, so as some parts of it.

 

[Slog]

The thread title is misleading, so as some parts of it.

Please expand on it since you are making the claim that the story is not correct.

 

[tempus123]

Please expand on it since you are making the claim that the story is not correct.

The story is correct for most of the part, the conclusion derived is not. Hindus hold sita ji at a very high pedestal, even considering her ideal woman.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The thread title is misleading, so as some parts of it.

Mata Sita is a goddess.

 

[karthikc]

Well the Mahabharat is at another extreme. Quoting some laws of Dharma (which was changed by Brahman priests conveniently according to what benefited them) Draupadi was allowed to marry 5 men..But that's another discussion I guess.. [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], I think there might be some cultural impact as seen in Ramayan but I think it is Manu's laws which were more drastic and extreme.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Definitely a very controversial topic.

Here's the sequence:

1. Sita was taken by Ravana.

2. Rama came all the way along with the Vanara army to resue her.

3. After killing Ravana (who till the end chose to rather fight than hand over Sita)...Rama finally met Sita.

4. When everyone expected them to be united and happy, Rama was hesistant. Asked Sita to take the test of fire. Lakshama (if I am not wrong) was shocked and furious at this. The reality is that Rama did NOT for one second doubt Sita. It was because in Vedas its mentioned that if a King is even doubted by his people, he has to do everything to relieve himself from the doubt so that he has the moral grounds to rule over them (this is Treta Yuga - 2nd Yuga mind you where virtues were considered supreme). Rama knew about this rule and knew that if he accepted Sita, people might murmur and he would have to follow the rules and sk her to leave. So in order to avoid the future situation, he asked her to do it (even though he made him look like the villain).

5. Sita took the fire oath and came out unharmed and accepted by Rama.

6. They reached Ayodhya and lived happily. Kings in those days used to disguise themselves and walk around as common men to see how things are on the ground level. One day, Rama was checking the countryside in a disguise when he overhead the conversation by a hunter accusing his wife of infidelity. The hunter was saying somehting like "Don't try to think I am this Rama whose wife will be separated for 10 months and live in another man's kingdom and will be accepted cos she is chaste". Hearing this Rama was shocked and heartbroken and returned to his kingdom and asked Lakshama to take Sita and leave her in the forest. This is why he asked for the fire test (to ensure he doesn't have to do it) but sadly those tests didn't solve the issue.

7. Lakshama then took Sita and left her in the forest where Valmiki found her and took care of her and there she gave birth to Luva and Kusha

8. Rama didn't remarry as he had taken the oath of being with just 1 wife (even though he was a kshatriya) and used to use a idol of Sita for religious activities which husband and wife used to do.

Backstory

During the maricha (deer incident) Sita asked Rama to get the deer so that she can play with it. There were suspicions about it not being a normal deer and a rakshasa in disguise (intended to harm them) in which case it would be killed and its skin would be used. So because of Sita's wish, Rama went after the deer. Before going, he asked Lakshama to guard Sita and left.

The deer (which was a rakshasa intended to distract Rama and take him far away so that Ravana could aduct Sita) kept taing Rama farther and farther away. Rama after knowing this wasn't any normal deer fired at it and struck Maricha. But Maricha before dying wailed in Rama's voice to confuse Lakshamana.

Sita and Lakshama back in the hut heard th voice. Lakshama was sure there is no way anything could happen to Rama. But Sita was not convinced. She asked Lakshama to go and check. Lakshmana assured nothing would happen to Rama and its an obvious game by the deer which they all suspected was a rakshasa. Sita argued but aftera while lost her patience and asked Lakshana to really go and search for Rama. If I am not wrong, she even accused Lakshamana of sinister intentions seeing how he didn't want to go as much as she did (note: you have to understand all of this is AVATARS - so all 3 know what's happening but its like a play). Lakshama was surprised by her words and decided to go. But he requested Sita to do JUST ONE THING.

He drew a line outside the house (called the famous Lakman rekha) and asked her to never cross it. That should keep her safe. Asking her to follow this at all costs, he left.

Seeing Rama and Lakshmana gone, Raavan got the chance and came to the hut like a poor person asking for bikshma. Sita tried to give him something staying inside the line but he refused to accept it and asked her to come outside the house and give biksha as was the custom. Sita seeing this guy stepped outside to give it when he transformed in Raavan and abducted her.

Final Thoughts

This is definitely a very very controversial topic. I don't agree with that rule in texts. I can understand the point that Kings must be BEYOND SUSPICION but not this way.

And this part of the story breaks my heart.

But that's the rule.

And Rama was following it. He never for once doubted Sita but he did it anyway as everyone is the same to him.

But as a society, the deeper point about having to do your karma and do what is expected of you (regardless of your emotions) will be lost and this will be taken in the wrong way.

There was a reason why Rama left Lakshamana with Sita and asked him to NEVER leave her.
There was a reason why Lakshama drew the Lakshman rekha.
There was a reason why Rama asked Sita to NOT come to the forest with him when Keikeyi secured the kingdom for Bharatha (his step brother).

But even after all that, this happened and Rama had to do it as Dharmic Kings need to be soooo superior morally...no one can even question them.

This doesn't mean I am apologetic towards this rule. No I am not. It still breaks my heart but this is the whole story.

And in the end...its all avatars where everything is pre planned to shape society.

Rama didn't even break this rule while his next avatar Krishna broke a lot of rules in Kurushetra war to secure the win for Pandavas (as texts say the good party following Dharma can vanquish the Adharmic one by any way possible - that's another complex topic - maybe for another day).

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

All countries of the world have treated women badly down the ages, the difference is that the more civilised ones have left their earlier beliefs behind and moved on. The Viking funeral rites included slave women who were offered up for sex before being put on a boat which was burned along with the body of the deceased. Compare that to Norway or Sweden now.

 

[Raw deal]

This is not exclusive for the subcontinent. As you people know Aryans came from Middle eastern and settled in Indian subcontinent and they followed this tradition of Saudi Arabians I guess...



Bisha'a



Bisha'a or Bisha (ordeal by fire, trial by fire or fire test) is a ritual practiced by Bedouin tribes of the Judean, Negev and Sinai deserts for the purpose of lie detection. It is also practiced, and is said to have originated among, some Bedouin tribes of Saudi Arabia. It is the best-known of various forms of trial by ordeal which are practiced by the Bedouin, which are now dying out. It is one of the rituals in the Bedouin justice dispensary system for maintaining Sharaf - the Bedouin honor code.


Ritual


The basic ritual consists of the accused being asked to lick a hot metal object (spoon, ladle, rod, etc.) thrice. He is provided with water for rinsing after the ceremony. He is then inspected by the official who presides over the ceremony - the Mubesha (or Mubasha) and by the designated witnesses of the ritual. If the person undergoing the ritual is found to have a scarred or burnt tongue, it is concluded that he was lying. The Howeitat Bedouin call this ritual "the true light of God".

The Bisha'a is usually performed only to resolve the gravest of civil or criminal offences, and is a voluntary ritual in the sense that consent on the part of the ritual undergoer is required. Typically, Bisha'a is only performed for those cases where there are no witnesses regarding the disputed issue. Societal peer and hierarchy pressures may, however, force consent. In the case of the defendant agreeing to a Bisha'a ceremony, and subsequently declining to perform the ritual or running away, the defendant is considered guilty.

The ritual is usually a public affair, with both parties arriving with fanfare. Tea is often served. Women are allowed to participate in the occasion, unlike other judiciary hearings of the Bedouins.

The instrument of the ritual - typically a metal ladle called the tassa bil basha is heated up by sticking the ladle down into the flames, the convex side being pressed into the ashes. Gasoline is often poured on the metal to heat it up. In the absence of a ladle, other metal objects like knives, spoons and rods are also used, and use of non-metals like rocks have also been documented. Both parties recount their side of the story during the process of heating, with the Mubesha interrupting for clarification. The Mubesha can also summarize the events. When the Mubesha decides that the ladle is sufficiently heated, both parties swear to God that the issue will end with the ritual, and the defendant undertakes the test. In some variants, the claimant can lick the spoon before the defendant in a bid to worry the defendant (This rare variant is practiced by the Armilat Bedouin). The Mubesha then counts worry beads (possibly prayer beads), and after a suitable lapse of time, inspects the tongue of the person undergoing the ritual. He decides whether or not the tongue is burnt (or the degree of the burn in some cases), and relates his decision to the assembly. The defendant then shows his tongue to the witnesses for inspection.[1][2]

Mubesha


The right to perform Bisha'a is granted only to the Mubesha, and this right is passed on from father to son, along paternal lineages. The Mubesha hears the account of the dispute before performing the ceremony, and is also responsible for pressing the metal spoon against the tongue of the person undergoing the Bisha'a. There are only a few practitioners of the Bisha'a in Bedouin society. A single Mubesha might arbitrate over several tribes and large geographical areas, like the Mubesha of Abu Sultan in Egypt.[2] In the Sinai Peninsula, Bisha's is widely used.

Legend


The legend behind the Bisha'a goes back to a man of great powers named Weymer abu Ayad of the Sultani branch of the Ayayideh tribe of the Qahtan confederation of Bedouins in southern Saudi Arabia. Many Mubesha claim to be able to trace their heritage to the tribe of Ayayideh. Weymer was a tracker but was robbed of a personal possession. He figured out the criminal, but there were no witnesses. Apparently, Weymer challenged the suspect to lick a red-hot branding iron three times which he would also lick three times, saying that the guilty would be shown. The suspect ran away.[2]

Legitimacy


The Bisha'a was illegal under British Mandate rule, though numerous accounts of the performance of the ritual is documented in the records of the Foreign Office [3] The Bisha'a is illegal under the Israeli judicial system. It is also inconsistent with some interpretations of the Sharia, rules of Islam, being an old ritual passed on by Bedouins from pre-Islamic times. Most Arab states thus denounce the Bisha'a. The practice is getting rarer, with more and more Bedouins preferring standard courts of law for enactment of justice

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't know about misogyny, but Ramayana is definitely an example of minority appeasement. The king had the queen banished to a forest just because a shudra doubted her.

 

[Raw deal]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisha'a

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Is a Hinduism epic to blame for mysogyny in India and the subcontinent?

The honest answer is yes.

It played a part too.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The Ramayana isn't that shocking at all if you compare it with the Manusmriti for instance. The Law of Manu is pretty hard on a host of different groups, but it has its gems on women. One example :



http://www.youthconnect.in/2015/07/09/33-shocking-verses-from-manusmriti-about-women/

Thats a horrible source.

Also there are laws and usages of it based on situations.

Can you find even 1-2 references in itihas or anything where a woman was thrown to the dogs?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The source says:

#18. In case a lady enjoys sex with a man from a higher caste, the act is not punishable. However, if she enjoys sex with lower caste men, she is to be punished and kept in isolation.

Ridiculous.

 

[Slog]

The honest answer is yes.

It played a part too.

Thanks for the detailed post bro. Really informative and I appreciate that you took out the time to type all this.

As for question. I think 'partly to blame' would have been better than just 'blame' but didn't want to make the thread title too long?

I do think it is an important incident. The way societies are shaped and what the ideals and culture in a given society are, are shaped in large part by the rules and morality the religion being followed imposes. I would say even now it is true but if you go back it was much much stronger influence.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

This is not exclusive for the subcontinent. As you people know Aryans came from Middle eastern and settled in Indian subcontinent and they followed this tradition of Saudi Arabians I guess...



Bisha'a



Bisha'a or Bisha (ordeal by fire, trial by fire or fire test) is a ritual practiced by Bedouin tribes of the Judean, Negev and Sinai deserts for the purpose of lie detection. It is also practiced, and is said to have originated among, some Bedouin tribes of Saudi Arabia. It is the best-known of various forms of trial by ordeal which are practiced by the Bedouin, which are now dying out. It is one of the rituals in the Bedouin justice dispensary system for maintaining Sharaf - the Bedouin honor code.


Ritual


The basic ritual consists of the accused being asked to lick a hot metal object (spoon, ladle, rod, etc.) thrice. He is provided with water for rinsing after the ceremony. He is then inspected by the official who presides over the ceremony - the Mubesha (or Mubasha) and by the designated witnesses of the ritual. If the person undergoing the ritual is found to have a scarred or burnt tongue, it is concluded that he was lying. The Howeitat Bedouin call this ritual "the true light of God".

The Bisha'a is usually performed only to resolve the gravest of civil or criminal offences, and is a voluntary ritual in the sense that consent on the part of the ritual undergoer is required. Typically, Bisha'a is only performed for those cases where there are no witnesses regarding the disputed issue. Societal peer and hierarchy pressures may, however, force consent. In the case of the defendant agreeing to a Bisha'a ceremony, and subsequently declining to perform the ritual or running away, the defendant is considered guilty.

The ritual is usually a public affair, with both parties arriving with fanfare. Tea is often served. Women are allowed to participate in the occasion, unlike other judiciary hearings of the Bedouins.

The instrument of the ritual - typically a metal ladle called the tassa bil basha is heated up by sticking the ladle down into the flames, the convex side being pressed into the ashes. Gasoline is often poured on the metal to heat it up. In the absence of a ladle, other metal objects like knives, spoons and rods are also used, and use of non-metals like rocks have also been documented. Both parties recount their side of the story during the process of heating, with the Mubesha interrupting for clarification. The Mubesha can also summarize the events. When the Mubesha decides that the ladle is sufficiently heated, both parties swear to God that the issue will end with the ritual, and the defendant undertakes the test. In some variants, the claimant can lick the spoon before the defendant in a bid to worry the defendant (This rare variant is practiced by the Armilat Bedouin). The Mubesha then counts worry beads (possibly prayer beads), and after a suitable lapse of time, inspects the tongue of the person undergoing the ritual. He decides whether or not the tongue is burnt (or the degree of the burn in some cases), and relates his decision to the assembly. The defendant then shows his tongue to the witnesses for inspection.[1][2]

Mubesha


The right to perform Bisha'a is granted only to the Mubesha, and this right is passed on from father to son, along paternal lineages. The Mubesha hears the account of the dispute before performing the ceremony, and is also responsible for pressing the metal spoon against the tongue of the person undergoing the Bisha'a. There are only a few practitioners of the Bisha'a in Bedouin society. A single Mubesha might arbitrate over several tribes and large geographical areas, like the Mubesha of Abu Sultan in Egypt.[2] In the Sinai Peninsula, Bisha's is widely used.

Legend


The legend behind the Bisha'a goes back to a man of great powers named Weymer abu Ayad of the Sultani branch of the Ayayideh tribe of the Qahtan confederation of Bedouins in southern Saudi Arabia. Many Mubesha claim to be able to trace their heritage to the tribe of Ayayideh. Weymer was a tracker but was robbed of a personal possession. He figured out the criminal, but there were no witnesses. Apparently, Weymer challenged the suspect to lick a red-hot branding iron three times which he would also lick three times, saying that the guilty would be shown. The suspect ran away.[2]

Legitimacy


The Bisha'a was illegal under British Mandate rule, though numerous accounts of the performance of the ritual is documented in the records of the Foreign Office [3] The Bisha'a is illegal under the Israeli judicial system. It is also inconsistent with some interpretations of the Sharia, rules of Islam, being an old ritual passed on by Bedouins from pre-Islamic times. Most Arab states thus denounce the Bisha'a. The practice is getting rarer, with more and more Bedouins preferring standard courts of law for enactment of justice

I been called out for this before on here

But Saudi Arabia has only been in existence for 80 years

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Thanks for the detailed post bro. Really informative and I appreciate that you took out the time to type all this.

As for question. I think 'partly to blame' would have been better than just 'blame' but didn't want to make the thread title too long?

I do think it is an important incident. The way societies are shaped and what the ideals and culture in a given society are, are shaped in large part by the rules and morality the religion being followed imposes. I would say even now it is true but if you go back it was much much stronger influence.

Asian misogyny is all based from jahiliyah, there is no shame in saying this

Infant mortality(girls)
Woman dowry
Female mutilation

 

[Raw deal]

I been called out for this before on here

But Saudi Arabia has only been in existence for 80 years

People lived there, didn't they?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Hinduism has many aspects in it.

On one hand you have this Rama and Sita story and on the other hand you have Draupadi marrying 5 men at the same time. Hinduism is a collection of epic stories. You can choose any character as your ideal man and follow that character. You can be a Rama or Krishna (his approach in this day will have you locked up).

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I been called out for this before on here

But Saudi Arabia has only been in existence for 80 years

Even if you take Saudi out of it and let's just call them arabs, the point is, the pagan practices were removed and replaced with the advent of Islam so the arab holy book is now the Quran, whereas the Ramayana is still a revered holy book in India.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

People lived there, didn't they?

Are you talking about Hejaz

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Even if you take Saudi out of it and let's just call them arabs, the point is, the pagan practices were removed and replaced with the advent of Islam so the arab holy book is now the Quran, whereas the Ramayana is still a revered holy book in India.

India is secular though
Their holy book is the Oxford dictionary

 

[Raw deal]

Even if you take Saudi out of it and let's just call them arabs, the point is, the pagan practices were removed and replaced with the advent of Islam so the arab holy book is now the Quran, whereas the Ramayana is still a revered holy book in India.

no one practices such thing in India. If its done, its very very rare and in deep rural, remote areas .

 

[Lurker_Ind]

This is not exclusive for the subcontinent. As you people know Aryans came from Middle eastern and settled in Indian subcontinent and they followed this tradition of Saudi Arabians I guess...

Aryan culture did not come from Arabia. Aryans are a central Asian tribe people who moved to Iran and Bharat (Pak and India).
Aryan culture is patriarchal and men are the helm of most things. They were nomadic and probably that is the reason they preferred their women to stay and home and make babies.

 

[Raw deal]

Are you talking about Hejaz

I mean the Arabs, the tribe..

 

[enkidu_]

Thats a horrible source.

Also there are laws and usages of it based on situations.

Can you find even 1-2 references in itihas or anything where a woman was thrown to the dogs?

The source says:

Ridiculous.

From an academic publication (Oxford university press) :

The ‘’mixed’’ union of the male Shudra and the Brahmin woman being Manu’s worst-case scenario (M 10.30), it is probably no coincidence that women and shudras are the two main targets of Manu’s reccomendations for spectacular punishments in public view :

When a woman, arrogant because of the eminence of her relatives and her own feminine qualities (striguna), becomes unfaithful to her husband, the king should have her devoured by dogs in a public square frequented by many. (M 8.371)

If a man of lower class deliberately torments Brahmins, the kings should kill him using graphic modes of execution that strike terror into men (citrair vadhopayair udvejanakarair). (M 9.248)

The situations are not exactly parallel. In the first case regarding women, Manu is only improving on what Gautama has to say :

If a woman has sex with a low-caste man, the king should have her devoured by dogs and have the man executed, or punish (him ?) in the manner stated above. (G 2.14-16)

Alf Hiltebeitel, Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative, pp. 224-225
[MENTION=48620]Cpt. Rishwat[/MENTION] advise your Brahmin ladies to not get too close to dogs.

 

[Raw deal]

Aryan culture did not come from Arabia. Aryans are a central Asian tribe people who moved to Iran and Bharat (Pak and India).
Aryan culture is patriarchal and men are the helm of most things. They were nomadic and probably that is the reason they preferred their women to stay and home and make babies.

what's the difference between Arabs and central Asian people? They all look the same to me.. Its like saying Chinese and Japanese are different people..

 

[Slog]

what's the difference between Arabs and central Asian people? They all look the same to me.. Its like saying Chinese and Japanese are different people..

they are. and its fairly easy to distinguish between them as well as koreans if youhave functioning eyes and brains

how ignorant are you?


also please stop derailing thread.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

what's the difference between Arabs and central Asian people? They all look the same to me.. Its like saying Chinese and Japanese are different people..

Arabs and Central Asians like Kazakhs, Uzbeks are different. The only thing common to them is Islam. Probably some Arabs made love to Central Asian women. A few might have Arab blood. Central Asians have also added Asian mixture in their genes (Genghis Khan).

Look at below pictures. They do not look the same to me.

Arabs


Central Asian Kazakh people.

 

[tempus123]

The honest answer is yes.

It played a part too.

Wrong.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

From an academic publication (Oxford university press) :



Alf Hiltebeitel, Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative, pp. 224-225

[MENTION=48620]Cpt. Rishwat[/MENTION] advise your Brahmin ladies to not get too close to dogs.

I wasn't talking about text based stuff.

I know about them.

I said there is a world of difference between texts and usage of it in contexts.

I asked Can you find even 1-2 references in itihas or anything where a woman was thrown to the dogs?

Itihas plays a HUUUUGGGGGGGGGE role in telling us what's what along with texts.

Texts would say woment becoming arrogant can be thrown to dogs. What is considered arrogance? Wasn't Sita not following Ram's instruction and had a go at Lakshmana (accusing him of something really bad) and for what? To break a rule of her husband. She VIOLATED her husband's words and went ahead with her own decisions.

Was she thrown to dogs for NOT following it?

Texts would say a kshatriya female must commit Sati.

Ram's OWN MOTHERS didn't. What happened there?

Texts would say females can't lie to their husbands. Kunti kept the Karna lie for sooo long.

Was she punished?

If I dig in and check properly, I can find 1000s of cases where females would have done something and NOTHING from the texts would be subjected on them.

That's why Itihas plays a HUUUUGGGGGGGGGE role in telling us what's what along with texts.

And sex with any man (lower or higher caste) would have punishment. Not just lower caste.

 

[Raw deal]

they are. and its fairly easy to distinguish between them as well as koreans if youhave functioning eyes and brains



how ignorant are you?





also please stop derailing thread.

don't be too smart. Lol.
54% of Japanese men belong to haplogroup O, and more precisely to the subgroups O3 and O2b. Both of them could be of Han Chinese or Korean origin. A negligible percentage of the Japanese are O1 or O2a, two lineages that trace their roots among southern Chinese or south-east Asian people

Chinese and Japanese mostly look the same.

 

[tempus123]

Thanks for the detailed post bro. Really informative and I appreciate that you took out the time to type all this.

As for question. I think 'partly to blame' would have been better than just 'blame' but didn't want to make the thread title too long?

I do think it is an important incident. The way societies are shaped and what the ideals and culture in a given society are, are shaped in large part by the rules and morality the religion being followed imposes. I would say even now it is true but if you go back it was much much stronger influence.

It would have been true had Hindus considered sita ji impure. They didn't. More so everyone blamed rama, and as sif clearly explained, out of ignorance.

 

[Raw deal]

Arabs and Central Asians like Kazakhs, Uzbeks are different. The only thing common to them is Islam. Probably some Arabs made love to Central Asian women. A few might have Arab blood. Central Asians have also added Asian mixture in their genes (Genghis Khan).

Look at below pictures. They do not look the same to me.

Arabs
View attachment 61205

Central Asian Kazakh people.
View attachment 61206

leave kazhaks and Uzbeks. Compare Saudi Arabians with Iran Iraq people.

 

[Ottoman]

Well the Mahabharat is at another extreme. Quoting some laws of Dharma (which was changed by Brahman priests conveniently according to what benefited them) Draupadi was allowed to marry 5 men..But that's another discussion I guess.. [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], I think there might be some cultural impact as seen in Ramayan but I think it is Manu's laws which were more drastic and extreme.

How can someone change Holy Book bro its like changing norms & basic concept of religion (Bible has so many copies & Now you claim Brahman priests changed your Holy Book)

How can someone follow such religion which is not pure anymore?

 

[Slog]

leave kazhaks and Uzbeks. Compare Saudi Arabians with Iran Iraq people.

iran iraq is not central asia.

Iraq is Arab btw and so are Saudis too.

Iranians (Persians) look very different

 

[tempus123]

How can someone change Holy Book bro its like changing norms & basic concept of religion (Bible has so many copies & Now you claim Brahman priests changed your Holy Book)

How can someone follow such religion which is not pure anymore?

Mahabharata is not a holy book. It is just the greatest story ever told.

 

[Raw deal]

iran iraq is not central asia.

Iraq is Arab btw and so are Saudis too.

Iranians (Persians) look very different

wrong again.

During pre-Islamic and early Islamic times, Central Asia was a predominantly Iranian[5][6] region that included the sedentary Eastern Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians and Chorasmians, and the semi-nomadic Scythians and Parthians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia

 

[Slog]

wrong again.
During pre-Islamic and early Islamic times, Central Asia was a predominantly Iranian[5][6] region that included the sedentary Eastern Iranian-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians and Chorasmians, and the semi-nomadic Scythians and Parthians.

LOL. you are making absolutelu no sense. Also do try to read up what you are copy pasting.

so where do the arabs come into the picture. They are central Asian too? Anyone else?

anyways dont understand how is it related to the thread at all.

The thread is about a Hindu epic and its effect on Indian culture and practices. Other societies are irrelevant here and not under discussion

 

[enkidu_]

I wasn't talking about text based stuff.

I know about them.

You're one of the rare dispassionate Indian posters and it's sad to see you spin this issue all around.

If there weren't 24/7 news channels you'd barely hear of Haryanvi khap panchayats punishing disobedient women through gang-rape, so of course you'll not find many "legal certificates" attesting of these punishments. But if these are in theory, it means that they have been practiced too, if not yesterday, at least for few centuries in the past.

 

[Raw deal]

LOL. you are making absolutelu no sense. Also do try to read up what you are copy pasting.

so where do the arabs come into the picture. They are central Asian too? Anyone else?

anyways dont understand how is it related to the thread at all.

The thread is about a Hindu epic and its effect on Indian culture and practices. Other societies are irrelevant here and not under discussion

what's wrong in the posts I have posted..?? When I prove you wrong, you come back with silly insults. Lol..........)

Adios. Have a good day... !

 

[Slog]

I wasn't talking about text based stuff.

I know about them.

I said there is a world of difference between texts and usage of it in contexts.

I asked Can you find even 1-2 references in itihas or anything where a woman was thrown to the dogs?

Itihas plays a HUUUUGGGGGGGGGE role in telling us what's what along with texts.

Texts would say woment becoming arrogant can be thrown to dogs. What is considered arrogance? Wasn't Sita not following Ram's instruction and had a go at Lakshmana (accusing him of something really bad) and for what? To break a rule of her husband. She VIOLATED her husband's words and went ahead with her own decisions.

Was she thrown to dogs for NOT following it?

Texts would say a kshatriya female must commit Sati.

Ram's OWN MOTHERS didn't. What happened there?

Texts would say females can't lie to their husbands. Kunti kept the Karna lie for sooo long.

Was she punished?

If I dig in and check properly, I can find 1000s of cases where females would have done something and NOTHING from the texts would be subjected on them.

That's why Itihas plays a HUUUUGGGGGGGGGE role in telling us what's what along with texts.

And sex with any man (lower or higher caste) would have punishment. Not just lower caste.

what is itihas?

 

[Slog]

what's wrong in the posts I have posted..?? When I prove you wrong, you come back with silly insults. Lol.
Adios. Have a good day... !

lol what silly insults. You are just deflecting the questions which you do not have an answer to and copy pasting from Wikipedia without context or frankly, any understanding. Most of all this has NO relation to the thread.

Anyways good day to you to. You seem to need it. And atleast thread wont be further derailed.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

what is itihas?

Itihas is epics like Ramayana, Mahabharatha.

I also included Puranas in this though they are not itihas (Vishnu purana, Garuda purana, etc).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

You're one of the rare dispassionate Indian posters and it's sad to see you spin this issue all around.

If there weren't 24/7 news channels you'd barely hear of Haryanvi khap panchayats punishing disobedient women through gang-rape, so of course you'll not find many "legal certificates" attesting of these punishments. But if these are in theory, it means that they have been practiced too, if not yesterday, at least for few centuries in the past.

I am soooo sad to read this post brother.

I have seen you 1000s of times say these Islamists don't understand the intricacies of your text and just brutally apply it in a barbaric fashion.

And now you accuse me when I say something and give definite proof for my point of view.

Ok let's take your own logic.

Didn't Rajputs practice Sati crazily INSPITE of it not being compulsory as mentioned in the most AUTHENTIC of texts (official Ramayana and Mahabharatha by Valmiki and Ved Vyas)?

What happened then bro?

Name 5-10 cruelties to women that are unbearable (throwing to dogs or anything like that) taking place in any purana or itihas?

You are basing laws based on what illiterate and ignorant villagers DID? People who don't even know proper texts or how to apply them.

These are village heads. NOT religious heads.

Itihas does play a huge role in checking what needs to be done along with texts. Its a complex topic.

 

[JaDed]

From an academic publication (Oxford university press) :



Alf Hiltebeitel, Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative, pp. 224-225

[MENTION=48620]Cpt. Rishwat[/MENTION] advise your Brahmin ladies to not get too close to dogs.

Its not funny in any sense.I'm not a mod but you need to keep the discussion to a level without hurting any sentiments.
Plain Stupid.

 

[Slog]

Its not funny in any sense.I'm not a mod but you need to keep the discussion to a level without hurting any sentiments.
Plain Stupid.

Please report it and mention that it hurts religious sensibilities (if it does.)

 

[Itachi]

The honest answer is yes.

It played a part too.

The honest answer is no.

Those people who are misogynist, religion is just one aspect through which they express among many. Blame the root, not the medium.

 

[Itachi]

Even if you take Saudi out of it and let's just call them arabs, the point is, the pagan practices were removed and replaced with the advent of Islam so the arab holy book is now the Quran, whereas the Ramayana is still a revered holy book in India.

Ramayana isn't a holy book in the first place. It is just a story.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The honest answer is no.

Those people who are misogynist, religion is just one aspect through which they express among many. Blame the root, not the medium.

The medium has to be blamed too, if it helps perpetuate the vices. Now it is Bollywood [MENTION=77677]IgnitedMind[/MENTION] which is spreading misogyny.

 

[enkidu_]

I am soooo sad to read this post brother.

I have seen you 1000s of times say these Islamists don't understand the intricacies of your text and just brutally apply it in a barbaric fashion.

And now you accuse me when I say something and give definite proof for my point of view.

Ok let's take your own logic.

Didn't Rajputs practice Sati crazily INSPITE of it not being compulsory as mentioned in the most AUTHENTIC of texts (official Ramayana and Mahabharatha by Valmiki and Ved Vyas)?

What happened then bro?

Name 5-10 cruelties to women that are unbearable (throwing to dogs or anything like that) taking place in any purana or itihas?

You are basing laws based on what illiterate and ignorant villagers DID? People who don't even know proper texts or how to apply them.

These are village heads. NOT religious heads.

Itihas does play a huge role in checking what needs to be done along with texts. Its a complex topic.

Talibans apply fully the Islamic law, but neo Hindus shy away from classical Hindu law. You should ask Brahmins what was the need to come up with Dharmasastras if you could only read other smriti texts. Manu Law is Hindu Law. It has been such for centuries, and when the British wanted to have an idea of Hindu jurisprudence, they didn't read Ramayana but Manusmriti. All I quoted (and there's more) is found in the Manusmriti, and you're asking us instances findable in the epics. You have a flawed logic, a comparison would be to ask a Taliban where in the narrative sequences of the Qur'an you find stoning to death for adulterous women.

As you mentioned sati (which Mughal emperors Humayun and son Akbar tried to ban, before British succeeded), I'd like your views on this :

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/sati-pratha-the-burning-of-widows/

(and [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] would find the following link interesting too : https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/women-in-hinduism-2/)

I talked of khap panchayats not in connection to Hindu law, but mediatization. Who knows that in the 1800s, in some remote village, a woman has been eaten, on public place, by rabid dogs, considering that there haven't been report(s) of this ? That was the point.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Talibans apply fully the Islamic law, but neo Hindus shy away from classical Hindu law. You should ask Brahmins what was the need to come up with Dharmasastras if you could only read other smriti texts. Manu Law is Hindu Law. It has been such for centuries, and when the British wanted to have an idea of Hindu jurisprudence, they didn't read Ramayana but Manusmriti. All I quoted (and there's more) is found in the Manusmriti, and you're asking us instances findable in the epics. You have a flawed logic, a comparison would be to ask a Taliban where in the narrative sequences of the Qur'an you find stoning to death for adulterous women.

As you mentioned sati (which Mughal emperors Humayun and son Akbar tried to ban, before British succeeded), I'd like your views on this :

https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/sati-pratha-the-burning-of-widows/

(and [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] would find the following link interesting too : https://truthabouthinduism.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/women-in-hinduism-2/)

I talked of khap panchayats not in connection to Hindu law, but mediatization. Who knows that in the 1800s, in some remote village, a woman has been eaten, on public place, by rabid dogs, considering that there haven't been report(s) of this ? That was the point.

2 points:

1. What Britishers read is inconsequential as to what is the truth about the religion. Its like reading Gita and declaring you know about Hinduism which is utter BS cos Gita is just one text (very imp no doubt) but not everything.
2. Itihas HAS a major place in rule making and is accepted by scholars.

My stance is 100% fine cos its the religious take.

In 1800s ANYTHING could have happened in remote villages. What does that prove pertaining to a religious discussion? Nothing.

 

[tempus123]

Coming back to the topic, it would be interesting to note Sita ji's own viewpoint on this incident. Bhartrahari Ramayan explained it in detail. If anyone wants to know, I can touch upon it.
[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], Itihaas means history in it's literal sense.

 

[Slog]

Coming back to the topic, it would be interesting to note Sita ji's own viewpoint on this incident. Bhartrahari Ramayan explained it in detail. If anyone wants to know, I can touch upon it.
[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION], Itihaas means history in it's literal sense.

yes that what i know too.

Prolly SIF means precedent here?

do etouch on it

 

[Slog]

It would have been true had Hindus considered sita ji impure. They didn't. More so everyone blamed rama, and as sif clearly explained, out of ignorance.

Question. Isnt Lord Rama an avatar of God according to Hindu traditions?

But is he not infallible as Lord? Does not seem to be the case here if you say everyone blames him and questions his decision making?

 

[Itachi]

Smh.... Why people equate society with religion?

Those two are related yet different entity.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Question. Isnt Lord Rama an avatar of God according to Hindu traditions?

But is he not infallible as Lord? Does not seem to be the case here if you say everyone blames him and questions his decision making?

Hindu Gods make mistakes. They are prone to a lot of things like jealousy, ego like normal people.

 

[Slog]

Smh.... Why people equate society with religion?

Those two are related yet different entity.

it is undeniable that many societies derive their culture and morality from religion to some extent

 

[tempus123]

yes that what i know too.

Prolly SIF means precedent here?

do etouch on it

Neither Rama nor Sita held any ill feeling towards each other. Sita was the noblest of women and their intimate chemistry made sure that they continued to hold each other in good stead. Sita ji, described Rama as Maryada-Purushottam to her sons, who later went on to hold Rama's horse of victory.

In Hindu dharma, no ritual is complete without a wife, and when Rama had to perform Yagna for the expansion, people advised him to marry another princess. He refused and completed the yagna with the statue of Sita. Coming to know of this, Sita ji wept with pleasure knowing she still resided in his heart.. and how much he missed her. Every night Rama used to cry in his room chanting her name. The ideal pair never lived happily together.

 

[tempus123]

Question. Isnt Lord Rama an avatar of God according to Hindu traditions?

But is he not infallible as Lord? Does not seem to be the case here if you say everyone blames him and questions his decision making?

I think this is what separates Hinduism from other religions. I already mentioned it in many threads, both the incarnations, Rama and Krishna weren't beyond criticism, and in case of Krishna, even ridicule.

There wouldn't be a shrewder guy, who knew every trick in the book, than Krishna. I think one can raise a thread on him, and it would be an interesting read. He is the most knowledgeable Yugpurusha there is, in the Hindu mythology. Geeta is his lecture.

In short, he is the most interesting character of Hindu mythology.

 

[Slog]

Neither Rama nor Sita held any ill feeling towards each other. Sita was the noblest of women and their intimate chemistry made sure that they continued to hold each other in good stead. Sita ji, described Rama as Maryada-Purushottam to her sons, who later went on to hold Rama's horse of victory.

In Hindu dharma, no ritual is complete without a wife, and when Rama had to perform Yagna for the expansion, people advised him to marry another princess. He refused and completed the yagna with the statue of Sita. Coming to know of this, Sita ji wept with pleasure knowing she still resided in his heart.. and how much he missed her. Every night Rama used to cry in his room chanting her name. The ideal pair never lived happily together.

Why did Rama not take a stand and infact tied Sita's honor to her chastity?

Lets say if she had been taken advantage of then would it have been ok for Rama then to banish her? Not in my opinion. But considering she proved her chastity and even then he banished her because it was affecting his own reputation seems selfish here.

Atleast from my perspective the message being given is that a woman's honor depends on her chastity and if there are excesses it is okay to seperate from her for this reason.

 

[Slog]

I think this is what separates Hinduism from other religions. I already mentioned it in many threads, both the incarnations, Rama and Krishna weren't beyond criticism, and in case of Krishna, even ridicule.

There wouldn't be a shrewder guy, who knew every trick in the book, than Krishna. I think one can raise a thread on him, and it would be an interesting read. He is the most knowledgeable Yugpurusha there is, in the Hindu mythology. Geeta is his lecture.

In short, he is the most interesting character of Hindu mythology.

ok thanks.

informational

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Ramayana isn't a holy book in the first place. It is just a story.

But it is a source from which Hindu religion is derived so basically the same thing.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

But it is a source from which Hindu religion is derived so basically the same thing.

No.

Hindu religion is not derived from it. It is a story and Rama was consideres an Avatar of Vishnu as Rama was an ideal Son. Kids are asked to be like Rama when they are young.

What Rama did to Sita is debatable.

 

[tempus123]

Why did Rama not take a stand and infact tied Sita's honor to her chastity?

Lets say if she had been taken advantage of then would it have been ok for Rama then to banish her? Not in my opinion. But considering she proved her chastity and even then he banished her because it was affecting his own reputation seems selfish here.

Atleast from my perspective the message being given is that a woman's honor depends on her chastity and if there are excesses it is okay to seperate from her for this reason.

I think SIF already explained it, correctly. Do you have doubts on top of what he explained ? Also, according to the story, Sita wasn't even abducted (but that's a side story, and nothing much to add to it here).

The credit must also go to Ravana who abducted her (in Sri Lanka), that he waited for her consent before touching her.

 

[Slog]

I think SIF already explained it, correctly. Do you have doubts on top of what he explained ? Also, according to the story, Sita wasn't even abducted (but that's a side story, and nothing much to add to it here).

The credit must also go to Ravana who abducted her (in Sri Lanka), that he waited for her consent before touching her.

I understand what he says.

My point is that the takeaway from the story is not the best even if explained but generally I do get the message.

On a side note. So someone said these are just stories and not relgious texts? But are any religious practises, laws derived from this. Secondly according to Hindu tradition what is their position. I mean for Muslims Quran is a divine revelation so it is literally word of God. What about Hindu texts?

 

[Lurker_Ind]

I understand what he says.

My point is that the takeaway from the story is not the best even if explained but generally I do get the message.

On a side note. So someone said these are just stories and not relgious texts? But are any religious practises, laws derived from this. Secondly according to Hindu tradition what is their position. I mean for Muslims Quran is a divine revelation so it is literally word of God. What about Hindu texts?

IMO, only Vedas and Gita are the word of God.

The rest are just stories and legends.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Question. Isnt Lord Rama an avatar of God according to Hindu traditions?

But is he not infallible as Lord? Does not seem to be the case here if you say everyone blames him and questions his decision making?

His decision making was perfectly in sync with what had to be done.

The rule was that Kings must be BEYOND a shadow of doubt and if they put themselves in a position where they CAN BE DOUBTED (like Sita did), then they have to take in corrective measures till the doubt is cleared from their minds.

Now we can debate the Vedic rule but the decisions of Rama are perfectly in sync with what was supposed to be done.

If we flip this around and ask if Rama was doubted for something he did, he would have stepped aside as the King. No questions asked. That's what he did when Keikeyi used a boon to banish him unfairly so that Bharatha could be the king (and Bharatha didn't even know about it).

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

IMO, only Vedas and Gita are the word of God.

The rest are just stories and legends.

Brother...Slog is asking for actual religious take and I don't think your views are what is scholarly accepted versions.

Itihas is very very important in the whole scheme of things.

 

[Slog]

His decision making was perfectly in sync with what had to be done.

The rule was that Kings must be BEYOND a shadow of doubt and if they put themselves in a position where they CAN BE DOUBTED (like Sita did), then they have to take in corrective measures till the doubt is cleared from their minds.

Now we can debate the Vedic rule but the decisions of Rama are perfectly in sync with what was supposed to be done.

If we flip this around and ask if Rama was doubted for something he did, he would have stepped aside as the King. No questions asked. That's what he did when Keikeyi used a boon to banish him unfairly so that Bharatha could be the king (and Bharatha didn't even know about it).

Interesting and makes sense. Finally understand it I think

Just leaves a bad taste in the mouth because it is open to a lot of misrepresentation and misinterpretation. But from what I understand, the KEY here is what had been done by him as a KING rather than as a Husband or a Male. Def interesting. Thanks.

 

[tempus123]

I understand what he says.

My point is that the takeaway from the story is not the best even if explained but generally I do get the message.

On a side note. So someone said these are just stories and not relgious texts? But are any religious practises, laws derived from this. Secondly according to Hindu tradition what is their position. I mean for Muslims Quran is a divine revelation so it is literally word of God. What about Hindu texts?

Hindu texts are Upanishads, and Vedas. Ramayan and Mahabharat were stories, not the moral guidelines. To touch upon Mahabharata:

Did you watch LOTR ? Mahabharata is similar, on a grander scale, it's the greatest human story ever told. It had every human emotion, love, hatred, jealousy, bravery, dharma, adharma, all exhibited by almost all the characters. There was no right or wrong characters in it's context. It wasn't a clear fight of Good vs Evil. Both the sides used wrong tactics to outdo each other, and both had cunning shrewd people to lead them. The best among them, Krishna, made sure one side won, but the other side had enough firepower to inflict irreparable damage on the victors.

Geeta is one part of Mahabharata, at the start of war.

 

[JaDed]

I'm not a devout Hindu but i'm sure TP section will make me one.Good posts [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION]

 

[JaDed]

Here is the thing though religious laws will expire with time and change according to it what was valid 100 years ago is not valid now imagine something being applied 4500 years ago sounds absolutely weird.

 

[Ottoman]

Mahabharata is not a holy book. It is just the greatest story ever told.

As it is a story so that means its fiction?

 

[tempus123]

As it is a story so that means its fiction?

No, it's not a fiction. It's a story, probably true.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I'm not a devout Hindu but i'm sure TP section will make me one.Good posts [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION]

Thanks mate.

[MENTION=135126]tempus123[/MENTION] - Remember we had a discussion about this a long time back. Surprised by your posts. Your Ram and Sita posts are the exact official take.

Looks like your views about this and Krishna changed.

Became religious bro?

 

[tempus123]

Thanks mate.

[MENTION=135126]tempus123[/MENTION] - Remember we had a discussion about this a long time back. Surprised by your posts. Your Ram and Sita posts are the exact official take.

Looks like your views about this and Krishna changed.

Became religious bro?

What do you mean by "exact official take".. and no, my views about Krishna have always been the same.