the concept of sati

[Guest guest]

 

 

Dear Max,

Thank you very much for your kind message.

I greatly appreciate your effort and sincerity in communication.

I think you are intelligent enough to understand that I never said or implied

that “sati is wonderfully romantic and recommendable for every household”.

 

I understand your point about the pativrata, and I want to express my firm

belief that in today’s society, with Kali yuga people and circumstances,

pativrata has become mostly unfeasible and hence not recommendable, while in

previous times it was the norm, or indicated as an ideal, for a particular class

of women.

 

However, the original Kama Shastra has gone almost completely lost, so western

scholars tend to miss the difference between the “pativrata-type woman” and the

“free-type woman”.

There was no moral condemnation or belittling of “free women”, and they also

married and had children, but with a different social and familiar context.

They were largely considered on a par with men (not only with their men but with

all men), not subject to father, husband and son, and rather they were very

respected in society They were generally very learned, and normally sitting in

public assemblies with men to discuss about the state’s affairs. Many kshatriya

ladies, even of royal families, were in this category.

This is too often forgotten by modern Hindus, who simply do not have the

shastric knowledge of such social system.

 

Furthermore, in Indian history there have always been women who have chosen an

ascetic life independently from widowhood, and they were considered on a par

with men, too.

Vedic psychology categorizes two types of women: those who only aspire to the

position of wife and mother, and who actually enjoy pativrata (it has its

particular dramatic and emotional flavor and interesting returns) – and those

who don’t, and rather have other aspirations.

Neither of the two groups is condemned or considered “higher” or “lower”.

They are different, that’s all, and Vedic knowledge simply acknowledges the fact

and provides for both with appropriate guidelines.

 

Vedic knowledge explains that there are different “departments” of dharma – some

are called “temporary”, some are called “permanent” or “transcendent’, some are

called “ordinary” and others are called “extraordinary”.

A concept that is often unknown or overlooked by those who examine Hinduism is

the Vedic definition of “desa, kala, patra”.

Not all injuctions are valid for all persons, in all places and in all times and

circumstances.

Sati is a great example of this.

 

In old times, when kshatriya men fighting invaders afforded a life of luxury to

their viwes and needed to have a wife who, back home, was fully dedicated to

their comfort and support, the concept of pativrata was much more relevant than

today.

Today, the concept of pativrata is more likely to be exploited by unqualified

men and greedy family members who commit a serious crime by pushing (in one way

or another) a widow to death or to a life of disgrace or “inauspiciousness”.

In no instance Vedic culture forces a widow to self immolation or recommends

anyone to kill or push a widow to die or even to mistreat her. This concept of

mistreatment or violence to widows is a recent concept, born from the clash with

different cultures.

We don’t find it anywhere in Vedic literature.

This is a point that I thought I had explained already.

 

The concept of “inauspiciousness” also needs to be clarified very well – even in

the eyes of many Hindus.

A widow is as “inauspicious” as a sadhu, a sannyasi, or a yogi, because both

(widows and ascetic men) are removed from sense gratification, abundance, etc.

A widow, like a sannyasi, is not connected any more with the materialistic

rituals of Karma kanda, and therefore cannot bring prosperity and material

gratification to the family and society.

I acknowledge that such concepts elude the understanding of many Hindus, but

instead of labelling them as “social evils” or “fundamentalist crap” or fighting

to totally eradicate the value of the original concept, we need to clarify them

in their true light and meaning, eliminating the cultural superimposition and

bias.

 

I need to explain to all our readers that we must find a strategy that helps to

bring Hinduism (i.e. Vedic knowledge and civilization) to its proper and true

light, without any western bias – something that I concede is not easy at all.

Sincere and open discussion, aimed at eliminating bias, is the only solution.

 

Again, I will say that we cannot indiscriminately apply our western ideas,

context and circumstances to India, otherwise we will most likely even aggravate

the problems, no matter how good our intentions are.

 

I may bring the example of child labor.

In the last years in the West (and later in India) there have been extensive

campaigns against child labor, with wide boycotting of goods manufactured by

companies that employ child labor and even sanctions.

I want to state as clearly and strongly as possible, that I am NOT a proponent

of child labor.

 

But it is a fact that, as a result of the western boycott campaigns, many

children have been fired from their jobs and inevitably they ended up in the

prostitution and begging jobs – that are not controlled by boycotting campaigns.

The problem is that there are no positive alternatives – just condemning the

result is just not enough. The forgotten children did not receive an education

and they didn’t get their childhood back: they simply slided into a worse hell

than before.

Even when forced to go to school by the government, they drop out almost

regularly, and then just end in the streets.

 

We need to go deeper and further in our understanding and action.

We need to understand what will be the practical result of our reaction, and try

to understand what positive alternatives we have.

This is precisely why I appreciate your approach so much, and I feel inspired in

continuing the discussion.

 

And I want to add that I am practically engaged in developing alternatives for

women and children here in India where I live.

My position is not an “armchair philosopher’s” stance, or a blind defence of the

social status quo with its mistaken conceptions and habits. But I am trying to

understand the people, not just to condemn them.

 

I also want to clarify that I do NOT agree with the “religious authorities” who

prescribe, encourage or imply the intrinsic value (or did so in the past) of

sati as a general social practice.

Their interpretation is simply an interpretation (a wrong interpretation, in my

opinion), that does not take into stride the concept of desa, kala, patra.

In my opinion, sati has no intrinsic value, but only a personal value: the

personal right to end one’s life, that is denied in modern societies. My strong

belief is in support of freedom, whenever one’s actions do not infringe someone

else’s freedom.

There may be cases when such a choice is understandable and respectable.

In this light, I would read the meaning of the Rg Veda passage, calling for

widows to "step into the pyre, without any affliction and well-adorned."

To me, this means, “if you have decided to immediately join your husband in the

afterlife without waiting for your natural death, do so with a happy heart”.

I may seem extremist, but I really do believe that giving up this life may

sometimes be better than remaining attached to a situation that does not offer

what we want.

 

Our point should not be persecuting women who really want to give up this life,

but creating positive alternatives in society.

As an example, I am trying to create a group of “ascetic women” who reclaim

their feminine power according to the original Vedic concept, and I have had

good responses.

I am personally offering an example with my life, of which I am very happy.

There is still a lot of work to do, and I can assure you that life is not easy:

but results are coming and not only on the ordinary platform.

 

The same problem can be observed in the case of casteism.

There are two major mistakes in regard to the issue of castes: 1. considering

birth in a particular family or group as the only possible qualification, and 2.

negating all/any difference among people (saying that everyone has or must have

the same qualities and tendencies).

The truth as always is in the middle (in medio stat virtus – the Golden Path):

there are indeed differences in the tendencies and qualities of individuals, but

they are not determined by their birth, and they can even change within one’s

lifetime.

However, society needs to be divided in occupational categories, with their

specific rules and duties. Otherwise we end up having people who want only

rights and no duties and whimsically jump up and down from one position to the

other running away from duties.

 

Many “Hindu religious authorities” have a distorted idea of varnas, and there is

a very lively debate in today’s Hindutva (specifically, RSS and VHP) about the

need to review the interpretation of jati – that is not even expressed in any

Vedic text. You may be glad to know that I am personally participating in this

discussion and action.

 

The role of women, the nature itself of women, is a subject comparable to the

issue of casteism: we need to carry on a serious debate WITHIN Hindutva to

clarify the point and bring it to respect the spirit and not only the letter of

the Shastra.

As I think I had mentioned some time back, I consider that this is a very

important work, and I am trying to contribute my energy and resources, but “from

the Hindu side”.

 

We must absolutely avoid to condemn wholesale wrong interpretations or

malpractices (such as forced sati) by defining them as factual teachings of

Hinduism, and hence condemn Hinduism and its texts. Or equating Hindutva with

fascism, as some biased and uninformed people tend to do.

The problem of scriptural sources is compounded by bad and biased translations,

as I have already mentioned, so we need to go to the Sanskrit source and wash

away the garbage that was added with the declared purpose of destroying the

faith of Indians in Hindu scriptures.

 

The relationship between a married couple is not easy to manage, and it should

not be subject to the judgment of society without considering the particular

psychology of individuals.

This is what I meant when I said that western people feel inspired by the

extreme romantic act of Romeo and Juliet and “tout court” throw a blanket

condemnation over all the genuinely romantic cases described in genuine Hindu

shastras. This is simply cultural bias.

I am sorry if my observation hurt the cultural identification of some, and I

want to specify again that it was not intended to glorify forced “sati” at all.

The romanticization of lovers committing suicide belongs to the romantic field

(and as I said there are many examples of it in western romantic literature and

folklore, too), not to today’s life especially in sordid episodes when the widow

is heavily drugged so that she will not try to run away, or put to shame or

persecuted/ostracized by the community if she does not comply to the

expectations of society and family.

 

I also want to condemn the “commercialization” of the “sati” concept, as per the

Rajasthani Tourism guide. I consider it a real disgrace.

 

PKD

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Parama Karuna

 

It is hard for me to understand why you embrace

such an idealized view of pativrata. I don't

believe it was as freely chosen as you indicate,

nor that women who chose an ascetic life enjoyed

being on a par with men. They faced more severe

obstacles, as the biographies of many sadhvis

indicate -- and that is the tip of a much bigger

iceberg.

>A widow is as “inauspicious” as a sadhu, a

>sannyasi, or a yogi, because both (widows and

>ascetic men) are removed from sense

>gratification, abundance, etc.

 

More than that, the widow is associated with

death, and concepts of husbandly lordship

demanded that she not remarry, but live a life of

renunciation that, unlike sannyasis, she has not

chosen out of spiritual resolve. Society thrust

it upon her. Many widows would like to live life

fully, but have been prevented by rigid social

strictures dictated by pativrata.

>Again, I will say that we cannot

>indiscriminately apply our western ideas,

>context and circumstances to India

 

No, sorry! Plenty of Indian women have challenged

these ideologies, and they did not need "Western"

ideas in order to do so. They did it and do it in

their own right.

>Our point should not be persecuting women who

>really want to give up this life, but creating

>positive alternatives in society.

 

Excuse me, who has persecuted such women? If

anything it is their own kin who urge them to

such acts. They don't have to be drugged and

dragged; strong familial pressure and the

knowledge that they will live a marginalized and

miserable life, and possibly starve after

rejection by their families, is coercion too.

Plus they were taught all their lives that this

is what they ought to do.

>The problem of scriptural sources is compounded

>by bad and biased translations, as I have

>already mentioned, so we need to go to the

>Sanskrit source and wash away the garbage that

>was added with the declared purpose of

>destroying the faith of Indians in Hindu

>scriptures.

 

I am not convinced by conspiratorial talk of this

kind. There have been bad translations in the

past, but going back to Manusmrti, I see little

difference between various translations when it

comes to the deep social prejudices its author

expresses against women, Dalits, and so on.

>The relationship between a married couple is not

>easy to manage, and it should not be subject to

>the judgment of society without considering the

>particular psychology of individuals.

 

This is exactly what pativrata ideology does: it

decrees a set hierarchical relationship without

regard to the individuals involved, their gifts

(and their faults). Society upheld this

subordination for a very long time.

>This is what I meant when I said that western

>people feel inspired by the extreme romantic act

>of Romeo and Juliet and “tout court” throw a

>blanket condemnation over all the genuinely

>romantic cases described in genuine Hindu

>shastras. This is simply cultural bias.

 

What you say here sounds to me, sorry to say,

like bias. What makes R and J extreme, but

exempts the one-sided "sati" suicides? You still

haven't explained why only women are expected to

carry out these spousal suicides.

 

We clearly have very different ideas on this!

 

Jai Ma,

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net