Sati, Manusmriti etc

[Guest guest]

While Sati was practiced by Hindu women willingly during the medieval

period to escape being raped and enslaved by followers of Islam,

their ancestors probably were never required to suffer a similar fate.

 

Mainly, because there seems to be evidence that women re-marriage was

allowed at that time.

 

The following is an extract from agnivivAha **smriti** which one of

my acquaintances posted.

-------------

"2)The kshatriya is asked to hold an arrow during marriage, while the

vaishya a bag having a toad in it, and the shudra a piece of cloth.

3)One who abducts a woman is recommended the death punishment or

payment of a heavy fine.

4)The wife may choose a new husband under the following conditions:

a) the male is sterile b) the male indulges in promiscuous dalliance

or visits public women c) the male has no interest in married life

and takes saMnyAsa d)the male dies e)the male vanishes during a

journey or voyage. Ideally if the male dies, the female must take the

brother of the male."

---------------

 

Above **smR^iti** is dated to somewhere between 100 to 600 CE.

I suspect that it might be even earlier.

 

I was even told that a few other smriti-s hold this view apart from

myself being able to check the actual sanskrit verses in a fairly

early **purANa** which has the same above mentioned contents.

 

As for Manu Smriti comprising of negative opinions about women, one

should also be reminded that **Manu clearly says that** "if women are

honored/pleased the deva-s(gods) are also pleased".

Similar sentiments are echoed elsewhere in non-tAntric Hindu

literature. Added to that, Manu smriti is not the only source of

Hindu code of conduct and traditions. Most westerners and Indians

alike get their mind stuck in a couple of Manu's statements and for

some strange reason find it hard to come out of it.

 

Regards,

sa.

[Guest guest]

>While Sati was practiced by Hindu women willingly during the

>medieval period to escape being raped and enslaved by followers of

>Islam, their ancestors probably were never required to suffer a

>similar fate.

 

The Mahabharata and some of the Puranas indicate otherwise. Krishna's

wives are described doing thus, for example.

 

However, I agree that the evidence you bring forward shows that it

was not universal by any means. There was no one standard in ancient

times.

>Most westerners and Indians alike get their mind stuck in a couple

>of Manu's statements and for some strange reason find it hard to

>come out of it.

 

You must have missed my post of two weeks ago, "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."

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net