RE: This Wify issue

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, this term "wife" is a modern invention. Term

used to

describe a person performing/assuming a certain role just like the

word Hinduism, paganism etc. In the Stone Age there is no such thing

as wife because woman are like man too, both are hunters.

 

Environmental changes lead to social changes and women have began to

hunt less and choose a more domesticated life allowing the men to do

the hunting and they concentrate more on the agricultural aspect.

 

".. As human evolution progressed, more and more time was needed

to

look after infants, so females no longer had time to hunt, and male

co operatives hunting becomes essential in order that the men could

bring enough food home to feed the family. As a result, male-female

bonding in monogamous unions was an essential and a very early

development. While most accounts of human evolution have assumed that

all advances in human physical and cultural development were led by

men, a number of recent studies suggest alternative possibilities and

have pointed out the vital role which must have played by women"

An

Excerpt from : Women in Prehistory by Margaret Ehrenberg.

 

Social and Environmental factors does play an important role in the

development of Religious thoughts and thinking. In the olden days,

this wify role are being performed mainly by women but we are

undergoing social changes right now, more and more men are doing

the "wify" thing.

 

The most logical thing to do is to change this perception we have of

DEVI because when we keep on thinking DEVI as the wife, remain

stuck on her wify role ignoring her other more dynamic aspect.

[Guest guest]

Hi Nora! Thanks for your interesting post on this topic. In the past

couple days, the question has occurred to me: when did

"marriage" actually begin? When did the first marriage take

place? And what was its purpose, or purposes? I looked this up

online and found precious little -- if you or anyone out there can

name further books that might include this in historical context,

I'd appreciate it! I'd also like to know the historical origins from

the Eastern perspective; what I found was western-based. Here

it is (from: http://www.astradome.com/marriage.htm), for what it's

worth:

 

"Marriage

 

Are we still dealing with remnants of past attitudes concerning

women and marriage?

 

The word marriage derives from the Latin maritare, union under

the auspices of the Goddess Aphrodite-Mari.  Because the

Goddess's patronage was constantly invoked in every aspect of

marriage, Christian fathers were opposed to the institution! 

 

The following are quotes from past Saints & Scholars:

 

Origen declared:  "Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of

sexual passion."

 

St. Jermome:  "The primary purpose of a man of God was to "cut

down with an ax of Virginity the wood of Marriage."

 

St. Ambrose:  "Marriage was a crime against God, because it

changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and

woman at birth.  Marriage was prostitution of the members of

Christ."

 

Tertullian:  "Marriage was a moral crime, more dreadful than any

punishment or any death."  It was spurcitiae, "obscenity," or

"filth."

 

St. Augustine:  "Marriage is a sin." Augustine also expressed

disgust at feminine sexual and maternal functions.  He coined

the saying that birth is demonstrably accursed because every

child emerges "between feces and urine."

 

St. Paul: Dammed marriage with faint praise, remarking that to

marry was only better than to burn.

 

St. Jerome:  "Every man who loves his wife passionately was

guilty of adultery."

 

[Christian] Church customs reflected this view.  There was no

Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century.  Catholic

scholars say the wedding ceremony was "imposed on" a

reluctant church, and "nothing is more remarkable that then

tardiness with which liturgical forms for the marriage ceremony

were evolved."  It is perhaps not remarkable to find that these

liturgical forms were not evolved by the church at all, but

borrowed from pagans' common law.

 

The Anglican marriage service came from Anglo-Saxon deeds

used to transfer a woman's land to the stewardship of her

"houseman" (husband). 

 

About wedding ceremonies in Greece and the Balkans, an

authority on Greek religion wrote:  "With the modern Greeks as

with other Europeans, the religious service of their church is

intrusive, no real part of the ceremony of marriage, but an

elaborate way of calling down a blessing on the ceremonial, or

what is left of it, which constitutes the real wedding."

 

The Christian priesthood was fighting ancient traditions in which

it was remembered that male spiritual authority was dependent

on marriage. 

 

Early Israelites also barred unmarried men from the priesthood. 

They thought a priest's spells and invocations would be

powerless if he had no wife.

 

So much depended on a man's ability to remain married, in the

most ancient times, that the first rules of marriage invented by

men seem to have been rules for insuring permanent

monogamy.  Thus a husband could hold on to a woman's

property and children by binding the woman herself. 

 

Hellenic Greeks believed that men should seize every possible

advantage in forcing wives to be obedient and (especially)

faithful.  Greek patriarch foreshadowed the patriarchal religion

which, "in the form seen in Judaism, Christianity, and

Mohammedanism, is basically nothing other than a

formalization, by means of a projection upon deities, and the

demand for obedience to their revealed command, of the father's

desired sexual control of his wives and of their female children,

and the forcible exclusion of male children from sexual activity."

 

The Greeks contempt for wives eventually led to their cult of

homosexual romance, ignoring their families and taking young

boys for true-love relationships.  Some scholars say this

belittling of marriage was founded on fear of women.

 

The Council of Trent decreed that a person who even hinted that

the state matrimony might be more blessed than celibacy would

be declared anathema - accursed and excommunicated.  The

earliest form of Christian marriage was a simple blessing of the

newly wedded pair, in facie ecclesiae - outside the church's

closed doors - to keep the pollution of lust out of God's house."

 

Amazing, huh!? I am looking forward to finding more information

from other sources.

 

-- Mary Ann

 

, "N. Madasamy"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> In my opinion, this term "wife" is a modern invention. Term

> used to

> describe a person performing/assuming a certain role just like

the

> word Hinduism, paganism etc. In the Stone Age there is no

such thing

> as wife because woman are like man too, both are hunters.

.... In the olden days,

> this wify role are being performed mainly by women but we are

> undergoing social changes right now, more and more men are

doing

> the "wify" thing.

>

> The most logical thing to do is to change this perception we

have of

> DEVI because when we keep on thinking DEVI as the wife,

remain

> stuck on her wify role ignoring her other more dynamic aspect.

[Guest guest]

Hello Mary Ann. I think to answer to your question we have to go back

to the ancient's world. No! Not the ancient but way back to the

probably the Old Stone Age days. I think it will be very difficult to

answer to the question: when did marriage actually take place or

what's its purpose or purposes. I think in the Old Stone Age,

there

was never the idea of "Marriage" as we understand now. Two

human

beings, find the company of another, and feel that each can provide

better security and comfort etc. It's the natural law of growth

and

survival. If I live with another or with a group, I can get better

food and do not have to life in fear, why choose a solitary life.

Death is when you are being chased out from a group or clan. The

merging of the male and female give rise to new life. New life is

needed in order of the group to survive and to continue.

 

Marriage is thus a natural process culminate from the fact that as

human began to live as a society, the survival of the group and the

need of the continuation of the social bonding, gives rise for the

need of social order.

[Guest guest]

My husband is a professional anthropologist at a

prominent univresity in the USA. Please allow me to

share a few things he has taught me.

The quotes from Ms. Ehrenburg's book refer to

times hundreds of thousands of years ago, perhaps over

a million years. The enormous length of time that a

human mother must tend for her young is determined by

the very immature state in which babies are born. Most

other mammals can walk and fulfil most adult

activities very soon after they are born. Human babies

are totally helpless for the first year, almost

helpless for several more years. It is necessary that

one parent stay with them while the other parent

hunts; it is simply logical that the mother remain

with the infant because she is the baby's source of

mmilk. This is simple biology, and has been true for

probably a million years or so.

As for the question of monogamy, there is no good

evidence as to how far this goes back in history.

Stone Age did not generally purchase marriage

licenses, so there is no way to tell what they did on

this issue. The only evidence comes from existing

societies such as native Australians and the Bushmen

in southern Africa. These people live much the same

way that everyone's ancestors did 50,000 years ago.

The Bushmen are very monogamous, and I believe that

most of the native Australians are also.

 

Sister Usha

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sister Usha for sharing that information you have gain from

your husband. You are indeed lucky. The field of Anthropology and

Archeology has always been one of my areas of interest but I have

never got the chance to meet one. My source of information is from

the

book and Anthropology & Archeology magazines that are available

here. The only time I meet or have the privilege of meeting is a

sociologist [Ass Prof] from the University of Singapore, from the

department of Indian Studies. She is also a member of our group and

been keeping quiet, probably observing us. The last time we meet over

dinner, we had an interesting discussion about religion and its

impact

on the society. This is because she is doing a research on a

particular

group of devotees: The Muneeswaran [one of the popular deity from

South India and in the South East Asian especially in Singapore and

Malaysia ]

 

When I read Mary Ann questions, in my opinion it is more social based

than religious, because as I have remarked yesterday in my previous

message, personally I believe social and economic factors does play

an important role in the development of religious thinking. Religion

does

not operate in a vacuum. To understand the religious practices we

need

to go back and understand the other factors that influence religion.

Buddhism does not just appear out of nowhere. It is a result of

social,

political and economic changes that is happening during that

particular

period of time.

 

I would like to extend an invitation to you and your husband to

Singapore/Malaysia.

[Guest guest]

, "N. Madasamy"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> The most logical thing to do is to change this perception we have

>of

> DEVI because when we keep on thinking DEVI as the wife, remain

> stuck on her wify role ignoring her other more dynamic aspect.

 

 

The tantra shastras describe Devi as the wife of Shiva.

 

Devi herself addresses Shiva as natha/husband in a number of

places in both nigamas and agamas. Her dynamic aspect is better

understood by looking upon Her as Shiva's consort. The wife and

husband relation between Devi and Shiva has no resemblance to the

human wife/husband relationship.