Guest guest Posted January 22, 2003 Report Share Posted January 22, 2003 Dear friends, Sati .. This is story of a fight by a single women against the entire gamut of great gods/sages who took part in the yagna of daksha. When there was a insult to her beloved shiva who is a ashutoshi she wanted to take revenge. She wanted to make it known to everyone that a honour of a women is her husband. women's honour should never be taken lightly. she proved her point by jumping into the fire to keep the glory. This is a sacrifice for the honour of womenfolk. Even today there are proud mothers & wives of india & world who sacrifice their son & husbands for the country & honour wearing a warp of righteousness or dharma as their guide. so they can honoured as gods. This however does not give automatic license to everyone to do anything & everything & call it satism. This act was later repeated by kannagi who burned madurai to prove her husbands innncense.such is also the case with paanchali too. Tara lived after her husband to take care of her son & sugriva as per her husbands instruction. Mandodhari knew that Ravana act of bringing in sita is not right yet lived with him knowing well ravana would get killed. Savitri faught with yama to bring life to her husband. Arundhati made the gods as her children when they tested her pativrata dharma asked her to give a feast in her natural form. These are the great women india & the world cherishes & hence praying or building temples for them is definitely a holy act. There are irrational idiots who justify martyrism by doing egoistic selfish deeds which are not dharmic & harm others hence this should be disregarded & not prided.Dont spoil satis name as this There is a third version of people who study all these details a little & pass comments like these. They say quoting from purusha sukta that brahmins are superior as they have come from the face of the gods & sudras from his foot .. padbhagum sudro ajayatha.. but they fail to realize that the brahmin & others worship & fall only on the feet of the lord & not on his face. Hence let us not jump to unfair conclusion of sati & other great pativratas who would anyway die even when they hear there husband is nomore & would do anything for their equally great Husbands. En Mayi Maatha Garbhey Sati with warm regards shankar Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 , krishnamoorthy shankar <junk74_in> wrote: > Dear friends, > Sati .. This is story of a fight by a single women > against the entire gamut of great gods/sages who took > part in the yagna of daksha. When there was a insult > to her beloved shiva who is a ashutoshi she wanted to > take revenge. She wanted to make it known to everyone > that a honour of a women is her husband. women's > honour should never be taken lightly. she proved her > point by jumping into the fire to keep the glory. This > is a sacrifice for the honour of womenfolk. > I guess these are stories that glorify "love" the way that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet glorify "love." That is to say, a giving up of one's own life due to injustice done to, or brought upon, a loved one, is romanticized and elevated. But was the Hindu law of sati based on these stories? Does anyone know how such Hindu law came into being? Was there a spiritual basis for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Dear mary & other friends, I admit I dont know anything about the Hindu law of sati. The spiritual part ... let me attempt Todays misuse of sati etc I feel it is a case of irrational human beings twisting & manipulating laws of dharma for their partisan ends. A body(mritha sarira) deviod of any sakti (that is a dead body) is also called shiva -- This bubbling with life that is sakti is us. That is why for anything & everything siva & sakti should be together. foot note:{ Even today for doing practises like Agnihotra a devout vedika marga Sanatana dharmista(also called Hindu in west) should have a wife & not for the sake of lust therefore this concept is unknown to shakespeare west. It is said a righteous angihotri has enough of power within him to control nature and gods. but leads a diciplined life for the betterment of the viswa(world/universe) vasudeva kudumbakam. During the time of marriage that is normally very early in life we say the saptasathi mantra wherein we take oath on the holy fire to be friends in joys & sorrow for following the path of penance & truth searching we remain as sakha(u can say friends but this is only the closest meaning). Now after the marriage a house holder wife is also called his ardhangini meaning his other half so in this sense a wife becomes a representative of a man in all respects. } Now doing a yaaga means you require a body that is the representative of shiva & sakti together. So without them The yaaga must fail. It is also said in vedaas ...nakarmana prajaya dhanena thaga --- meaning neither by karma / money/son we can attain greatness & only by thaga/sacrifice is required that means we require the thaga or sacrifice ( loss of strength) that is why we use sakti -- sati does a sacrifice for us here for .. te bramah loke paraantha kale.. bramah anandha or samadhi.. Thus I believe anyone & everyone should worship sati. Think of a hypothetical case of a spirit trying to chant a holy book & performing a religious rite do u thing this is possible. same Like using a tape recorder vedic chanting for doing a karma. we need a sarira or a body (siva) with sakti to act.so each & everyday we sacrifice our strength for drinking the nector of godhood. with warm regards shankar --- "Mary Ann <maryann" <maryann wrote: > , > krishnamoorthy > shankar <junk74_in> wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Sati .. This is story of a fight by a single women > > against the entire gamut of great gods/sages who > took > > part in the yagna of daksha. When there was a > insult > > to her beloved shiva who is a ashutoshi she wanted > to > > take revenge. She wanted to make it known to > everyone > > that a honour of a women is her husband. women's > > honour should never be taken lightly. she proved > her > > point by jumping into the fire to keep the glory. > This > > is a sacrifice for the honour of womenfolk. > > > I guess these are stories that glorify "love" the > way that > Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet glorify "love." That > is to say, a > giving up of one's own life due to injustice done > to, or brought > upon, a loved one, is romanticized and elevated. But > was the > Hindu law of sati based on these stories? Does > anyone know > how such Hindu law came into being? Was there a > spiritual > basis for it? > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Namaskar junk74_in, you state "It is said a righteous angihotri has enough of power within him to control nature and gods. but leads a diciplined life for the betterment of the viswa(world/universe) vasudeva kudumbakam. " "vasudeva kutumbakam" is incorrect ... the correct format is "vasudaiva kutumbakam" here it goes... Ayam nijo paro veti ganana laghucetasam Uttacharitanam tu vasudaiva kutumbakam Only base minds reckon whether one be kin or stranger Men of noble conduct take the whole world for their home(family) Rig veda VASUDA MEANS EARTH OR UNIVERSE VASUDEVA IS THE NAME OF BHAGWAN KRISHNA. regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Dear Maryann, Please Read this article. This throws light on the practice of sati. Sati (Self-Immolation by a widow) Hindu religious scriptures do not demand widows to comit Sati. The word sati has been confused with word Jauhar. In the medivial ages, when foreign Islamic armies attacked India, Jauhar or mass self immolation was comited by women when their husbads went to protect themselves from the perversions of the invading barbarians. It is worth noting that in past one hundred years there has been only one recorded case of "Sati" in India. This event was rightfully considered illegal and those involved were charged with murder. Here is an article by Sudheer Birodkar about Sati. Sati i.e. self-immolation by a widow would normally be looked upon as a negative aspect of culture. When confronted with questions as to why such a practice should have existed, a student of history with misplaced national pride would try to explain away such practices. According to Hindu mythology, Sati the wife of Dakhsha was so overcome at the demise of her husband that she immolated herself on his funeral pyre and burnt herself to ashes. Since then her name 'Sati' has come to be symptomatic of self-immolation by a widow. Today Sati is illegal. The country owes the abolition of this deplorable practice to the crusading efforts of Raja Rammohan Roy the 18th century social reformer. The reasons why this practice could have come into being are many. But the principal among them could be identified in the same milieu which gave birth to dowry. Closer examination of this practice of immolation supports this inference. Immolation as a widely prevalent practice can be seen only since the mediaeval period but there are reasons which trace its origins in antiquity. Even a casual observer will notice that immolation was more prevalent among the priestly and martial castes. Among other castes and aboriginal tribes it was nearly absent. The prevalence of Sati among the Brahmins and Kshatriyas was no co-incidence. Among the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, a bride was looked upon as a burden as she represented a drain on the family's income while not contributing anything towards it. If this was her status as a bride, it is not surprising that if she had the misfortune to become a widow, her presence in the family was dreaded. And apart from being considered an object of ill omen, her presence after her husband demise was a dead weight to her in-laws family. A widow's status as an unwanted burden was also a result of the taboos that prevented a widow from participating in the house-hold work as her touch, her voice, her very appearance was considered unholy, impure and something that was to be shunned and abhorred. Thus without her husband a woman's existence was not tolerated and an extreme but logical outcome of this was immolation. Other auxiliary reasons also went into making immolation a prevalent practice. The near impossibility of widow re-marriage arising from the taboos and prejudices that sanctified virginity of a bride was an important reason. Another reason could be the non-recognition of the individuality of a woman who was considered part and parcel of her husband, without whom she was a nullity. This attitude of looking at women is visible in the legal literature of antiquity. The Manusmriti considered to be one of the most important legal texts guiding ancient Indian polity (Editor's Note : Manusmriti is not considered to be a religious text) has injunctions which reflect this attitude. It says "a woman is undeserving for independence" (Ne stree svatantyam arahathi). Beliefs that a widow, especially a young one would fall into immoral practices for sensual pleasures was also used to stoke the fires of Sati. Strangely enough this logic was never applied to the men. Widowers were never an under- privileged lot. But the most visible factor that perpetrated Sati was the 'halo of honour' given to it. Especially in the medieavel ages Sati was given the status of an act of honour. This was mainly so among the Rajput martial caste of northern India among whom Sati took the form of a collective suicide after a battle in which male members had suffered death at the enemy's hands. Sati was even committed by women before their husbands were actually death when their city or town was beseiged by the enemy and faced certain defeat. This form of Sati was more popularly known as Jouhar. The Jouhar committed by Rani Padmini of Chittor when faced by the prospect of dishonour at the hands of a Sultan from Delhi has been immortalised in Indian history. In those days North India was under foreign subjugation. The most powerful kingdomset up by the invaders was the Sultanate of Delhi. But in Rajputana, the Rajputs had defiantly preserved their writ by resisting the Delhi Sultans. One such Rajput kingdom was at Chittor. In those days of the aribitrary feudal power structure, any feudal lord who took a fancy for any lady would claim her for himself even at the cost of killing her husband if she happened to be married or even by waging a war if she was queen or princess. one such lady of unsurpassable beauty was the Rana of Chittor named Padmini. Chittor was under the Rule of King Ratnasen, a brave and noble warrior-king. Apart, from being a loving husband and a just ruler, Ratansen was also a patron of the arts. In his court were many talented People one of whom was a musician named Raghav Chetan. But unknown to anybody, Raghav Chetan was also a sorcerer. He used his evil talents to run down his rivals and unfortunately for him was caught red-handed in his dirty act of arousing evil spirits. On hearing this King Ratansen was furious and he banished Raghav Chetan from his kingdom after blackening his face with face and making him ride a donkey. This harsh Punishment earned king Ratansen an uncompromising enemy. Sulking after his humiliation, Raghav Chetan made his way towards Delhi with -the aim of trying to incite the Sultan of Delhi Allah-ud-din Khilji to attack Chittor. On approaching Delhi, Raghav Chetan settled down in one of the forests nearby Delhi which the Sultan used to frequent for hunting deer. One day on hearing the Sultan's hunt party entering the forest, Raghav-Chetan started playing a melodious tone on his flute. When the alluring notes of Raghav-Chetan flute reached the Sultan's party they were surprised as to who could be playing a flute in such a masterly way in a forlorn forest. The Sultan despatched his soldiers to fetch the person and when Raghav-Chetan was brought before him, the Sultan Allah-ud-din Khilji asked him to come to his court at Delhi. The cunning Raghav-Chetan asked the king as to why he wants to have a ordinary musician like himself when there were many other beautiful objects to be had. Wondering what Raghav-Chetan meant, Allah-ud-din asked him to clarify. Upon being told of Rani Padmini's beauty, Allah-ud-din's lust was aroused and immediately on returning to his capital he gave orders to his army to march on Chittor. But to his dismay, on reaching Chittor, Allah-ud-din found the fort to be heavily defended. Desperate to have a look at the legendary beauty of Padmini, he sent word to King Ratansen that he looked upon Padmini as his sister and wanted to meet her. On hearing this, the unsuspecting Ratansen asked Padmini to see the 'brother'. But Padmini was more wordly-wise and she refused to meet the lustful Sultan personally. But on being persuaded she consented to allow Allah-ud-din to see her only in a mirror. On the word being sent to Allah-ud-din that Padmini would see him he came to the fort with his selected his best warriors who secretly made a careful examination of the fort's defences on their way to the Palace. On seeing Padmini, the lustful 'brother' decided that he should secure Padmini for himself. While returning to his camp, Allah-ud-din was accompanied for some way by King Ratansen. Taking this opportunity, the wily Sultan treacherously kidnapped Ratansen and took him as a prisoner into his camp. Allah-ud-din showed his true colours and demanded , that Padmini be given to him and in return Ratnasen was to get his liberty. Word was sent into the palace about the Sultan's demand. The Rajput generals decided to beast the Sultan at his own game and sent back a word that Padmini would be given to Ala-ud-din the next morning. On the following day at the crack of dawn, one hundred and fifity palaquins (covered cases in which royal ladies were carried in medieveal times) left the fort and made their way towards Ala-ud- din's camps The palanquins stopped before the tent where king Ratansen was being held prisoner. . Seeing that the palanquins had come from Chittor; and thinking that they had brought along with them his queen, king Ratansen was mortified. But to his surprise from the palanquins came out, not his queen and her women servants but fully armed soldiers, who quickly freed ; Ratansen and galloped away towards Chittor on horses grabbed from Ala-ud-din's stables. On hearing that his designs had been frustrated, the lustful Sultan was furious and ordered his army to storm Chittor. But hard as they tried the Sultans army could not break into the fort. Then Ala-ud-din decided to lay seige to the fort. The siege was a long drawn one and gradually supplied within the fort were depleted. Finally King Ratnasen gave orders that the Rajputs would open the gates and fight to finish with the besieging troops. On hearing of this decision, Padmini decided that with their menfolk going into the unequal struggle with the Sultan's army in which they were sure to perish, the women of Chittor had either to commit suicides or face dishonour at the hands of the victorious enemy. The choice was in favour of suicide through Jauhar. A huge pyre was lit and followed by their queen, all the women of Chittor jumped into the flames and deceived the lustful enemy waiting outside. With their womenfolk dead, the men of Chittor had nothing to live for. Their charged out of the fort and fought on furiously with the vastly Powerful array of the Sultan, till all of them perished. After this phyrrhic victory the Sultan's troops entered the fort only to be confronted with ashes and burnt bones of the women whose honour they were going to violate to satisfy their lust. These women who committed Jawhar had to perish but theirmemory has been kept alive till today by bards and songs which glorify their act which was right in those days and circumstances. Thus a halo of honour is given to their supreme sacrifice. But this halo of honour has to be seen in the light of the above complusions of alien rule in Inda during the medieveal ages. From the 13th century onwards up to the coming of the British, the position of women was insecure due to the arbitrary power structure associated with the feudal society and the rule of the Sultans of Delhi. Although during the reign of the later Mughals the situation had improved relatively, women in the medieaval ages were often exposed to the lust of feudal overlords. Their insecurity increased after the demise of their husbands. This compulsion which was resultant of a particular age was by far the most important reason for the prevalence of Sati during the middle ages. Although the Mughal emperor Akbar tried to curb this practice, he could not eradicate it completely. As long as circumstances made necessary the existence of such an anomalous and inhuman practice, all efforts to stamp it out were bound to fail. But with the passing of the feudal power structure and entry of the industrial age under the British, the compulsions of the medieaval age which helped the existence of Sati were no longer there. Hence the efforts of Raja Rammohan Roy succeeded while those of emperor Akbar could not. One last reason that needs to be mentioned in this context is that of grief and remorse experienced by a widowed lady. Women as such are more sensitive and emotional than menu This explains in part the readiness of some woman to commit Sati. But it should be borne in mind that the proportion of voluntary Sati was far less and the reasons behind voluntary Sati Though facts were blown out of proportion to justify this practice. However, in conclusion it can be observed that a complexity of factors contributed over different periods to make Sati a prevalent custom. source -Vivaaha.Org is a Global Hindu Electronic Networks (GHEN) website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 , krishnamoorthy shankar <junk74_in> wrote: > That is why for anything & everything siva & sakti > should be together. > > foot note:{ > Even today for doing practises like Agnihotra a > devout vedika marga Sanatana dharmista(also called > Hindu in west) should have a wife & not for the sake > of lust therefore this concept is unknown to > shakespeare west. Regardless of the reasons given for the doctrine of marriage, it is still a doctrine in the west and, as such, is similar to any other doctrine (including Hindu) that men and women should be married. > Now after the marriage a house holder wife is also > called his ardhangini meaning his other half so in > this sense a wife becomes a representative of a man in > all respects. > Now doing a yaaga means you require a body that is the > representative of shiva & sakti together. So without > them The yaaga must fail. Isn't each of us a representative of both Shiva and Shakti? Each human body, whether male or female? If so, then why the necessity of marriage? It may be a preference, and desirable by many, but is that because the man Shiva needs the woman Shakti? I thought the awareness of the wholeness of our own being as it is is what enlightenment is. I ask these questions because I think laws are made to make people behave in certain ways thought to be ideal at the time the laws are made, but after much time goes by and things change internally and externally, the laws may no longer serve in the best interests of each and all. As far as worshiping sati, it seems no different than worshipping Jesus Christ in that it would mean worshipping someone who chose to die rather than live beyond whatever insult someone less enlightened committed. I wonder if it is now possible to bring the joy of life, the bliss of existence, into the world in the face of insult, rather than die in a fire or on a cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Dear Mary Ann & friends, > Regardless of the reasons given for the doctrine of > marriage, it is still a doctrine in the west and, as such, is similar to any other doctrine (including Hindu) that men and women should be married. --- Not necessary - Bhisma did not get married,When veda vyas wanted his only son suka bramah rishi to get married he ran off from house - The great nachiketa describes regarding this family wife etc beautifully in nechiketas upanishad to yama. Also adi shankar acharya has written punar api jananam -. It is only by viel of maya we feel a person as female & male when this unwinds then everythings become suddha chaintanya atma. Necessity of marriage -- it is not possible for everyone to be sri aadi shankara charya or others so to a second less degree we get clouded by the viel of maya & get married. Then also the veda says okay then this is way u have to practise Dharma as a house holder. do nitya agni hotra & feed the devas they in turn will give this world a lot of benifits which inturn will feed so many pious souls & by their blessings & performance of dharma they can be get a sanyasa yoga thus final emancipation. Do Karma yoga without thinking of the fruit after asking yourself if it is dharma etc etc ... >Man Shiva needs the woman Shakti ? Nice thought in this world of maya .. Just Thinking of sage durvasa's words in sakti mahimna sostra wherein he say to devi You Paasa ankusa & Bow & arrow are always victorious after seeing this world i am convinced.. >people behave in certain ways thought to be ideal at > the time the laws are made, but after much time >goes by and things change internally and >externally, the laws may no longer serve in the best >interests of each and all. This vedic religion has been sustaining for years years lakhs crores & crores have come & passed with it is still young & growing means each & every mind intellect -- have passed this checks of quality. It is only in this religion we can ask why & you will get the answer for each & everything -- as i have always repeated let me repeat - atho tha dharma jigyaha- ask rationally what is dharma With the background & poor knowledge of the dhrama sastras I am not competant to enquire & ponder if at all on this Vedic Religion of sanantna dharma as a correct religion or not. With warm regards shankar Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 , "asimhavahini <asimhavahini>" <asimhavahini> wrote: > Dear Maryann, > > Please Read this article. This throws light on the practice of sati. > Namaste. Thank you for this informative article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.