The concept of Sati

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

The explanation of Wikipedia under “jauhar” or “jowhar” as started in Rajasthan

during the Muslim invasions is also confirmed by my historical sources.

I am sending separately A SHORT EXTRACT of the chapter of my book about the

History of India, only relevant to the Muslim invasions.

If anyone is interested in getting the complete CHAPTER (not book), please ask.

 

By reading the descriptions of the historical facts written by the Muslims

themelves, it is easy to understand why the Rajputi women preferred to kill

themselves rather than falling into the hands of the invaders.

There are scores of similar examples in the history of Europe during invasions,

and I believe also in the history of the Americas.

Personally, I consider it a “honorable death”, preferable to humiliation, forced

sexual slavery, abuse and torture. Which was/is not exactly the “remarriage of

widows” in Muslim society.

 

However, I do not agree with the Wikipedia’s statement that Jauhar is not

related to Sati, or “widow burning”. It is the same thing. It is not “occasional

confusion”.

I do not know from where the writers of the Wikipedia got this idea of the

“occasional confusion”. Who is giving them the authority to pontificate over

things that do not belong to their culture, and on which basis they are doing

that? They do not quote their sources, either!! Why should I accept what they

say as the unquestionable and absolute truth?

 

Those Rajputi women were widows, and the reason why they immolated themselves

was the same reason why other kshatriya widows performed sati.

People become moved and inspired when they read about Romeo and Juliet

committing suicide on the body of each other, and yet they consider voluntary

sati in India as barbaric.

I don’t understand.

How many people in the west have committed and commit suicide out of despair or

let themselves die of grief on the death of a spouse? Yet, nobody is accusing

them of being “barbaric”.

Suicide is an action that only concerns the person who decides to end his or her

life – not the state or the society.

And I believe that the current controversy on euthanasia in the west is telling

a lot about misconceptions about life and death, and the dignity of both.

Where is this excessive attachment to life coming from?

Do we believe that this life is the all in all, and we are willing to consider

even a wretched life as a positive asset – a life sentence better than

execution?

 

And regarding the “ascetic life”, what is the problem with that? Thousands of

men also choose an ascetic life for its objective value.

 

We should not confuse, however, the practice of voluntary sati (as I had

mentioned in a previous posting) with the murder of widows on the “pretext” of

sati.

When sati is not completely voluntary (and without pressures of any kind, social

or familiar etc) it amounts to murder, and as such it must be strongly condemned

and punished.

 

And the first step should be clarifying what is the conclusion of the Shastra

and what is criminal activity, not blaming criminal activity on the Shastras.

If we state that the murder of widows is enjoined by Hinduism, we are creating a

problem, not a solution.

 

Regarding the “paradise on Earth”, I am sorry but India before 700 CE was

actually the richest and happiest place in the known world, as confirmed by the

amazed reports of many travelers.

The evidence is overwhelming, although not generally included in the western

school books or university courses of the Christian Establishment.

 

PKD

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Oh yes sati is wonderfully romantic and recommendable for every

household and jauhar was a superb honourable deed.

no further comment

, "Parama Karuna Devi"

<paramakaruna@r...> wrote:

> Dear Friends,

 

- fundamentalistic crap- snipped

[Guest guest]

>People become moved and inspired when they read

>about Romeo and Juliet committing suicide on the

>body of each other, and yet they consider

>voluntary sati in India as barbaric.

 

I won't defend the romanticizing of lovers

committing suicide, but widow suicide is a

one-way street, never expected from men. It

didn't/doesn't occur in a social vacuum, but out

of the ideology of pativrata, in which a wife is

vowed to the lordship of her husband and her life

considered worthless and inauspicious without

him. In the context of many religious

"authorities" prescribing this death to widowed

women as their utmost duty. Th

 

As for the Shastras, there are conflicting views

in the great diversity of Hindu tradition, so I

don't believe we can say they speak with one

voice. In many senses "Hinduism" is a construct

of Europeans; the tradition is not monistic, as

Shaktas must know. So to condemn the promotion of

"sati" deaths is not to condemn Sanatana Dharma,

it is to uphold it in its true sense.

 

On another subject, I think you make a good point here:

>Now someone may come up and say that pope John

>Paul II was also a Shakti worshiper because he

>was “a devotee of the Black Lady of Chestokowa”,

>like many other Catholics are “devotees of Mary

>the Mother of Jesus”. Too bad they worship her

>for having completely abdicated her feminine

>power (according to their version, of course).

 

Although I think the common folk see their Black

Madonna in a different light than the popes and

theologians! She carries much of the ancient

veneration within her. But the clergy certainly

insist on subordinating her to Father and Son.

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net