"sati worship" (was Shaktism: Toward a Definition?)

[Guest guest]

Good point Nora, this is IMO is absolutely true. It is also some

crazies who burn women and build temples for them. Just because some

mad people do it, this should not be inferred as a custom of

mainstream Hinduism. Even during the heydays of Sati(at the times of

Raja Ram Mohan Roy about 300 years back in Bengal), the incidence of

this was a few thousand every year and the reason was primarily

economic. IMO it is usually either the British or in post-independent

India the communists who make it look like every Hindu family does it.

 

If anything Hinduism accords a very high status to women, this most

certainly true in my state of Kerala. Long time back, women were

allowed to do the sacred thread ceremony and officiate over sacrifices

like male priests. They had more previleges than men. It was Sage

Shwetaketu, the uncle of Asktavakra who imposed the present

restrictions on women because his mother walked out(only women could

do this, men were not allowed to do so) of his home with a neighbour

in front of his unprotesting father.

 

Aum Namasivaya

yogaman

> Good questions. In my opinion, we should not be allowed to

construct

> new shrines. It is easier to say No but we need to take into

> considerations of other various factors such as poverty etc, and

the

> general social well being of the women [ widows in particular ]. I

> believe Sati arises as a result of social pressure and people who

> advocates Sati uses Religion to justify their actions