spiritual enforcement

[Guest guest]

{Moderators' note:

 

dear bhAgavathAs - srI vivEk has forwarded an argument regarding vEdAs.

This is something that comes up very often, and I request learned members

and scholars in our group to come up with cohesive and logical

arguments to present our case.

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

}

 

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha My name is Vivek. My friend has been arguing about

eating non-veg and things like that. recently he has mailed me this.. please

help me answer him.here is a copy of the

mail>>>>>-----\

------------------------- The most sacred of Aryan scriptures are the Vedas, and

the Rig Veda, the oldest veda, explicitly sanctions the custom of sati. The

following famous `Sati Hymn' of the Rig Veda was (and still is) recited during

the actual immolation of the widow [ Kane 199-200 ]: -

 

Rig Veda X.18.7 : " Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living,

enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium ( to their eyes). Let these

wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well

adorned."

-- [ Rig Veda X.18.7 ] [ Kane 199-200 ]

 

In recent times some Aryan apologists have arisen who try to prove that this

verse does not sanction sati. This concept arises from a mistaken reading of the

word agne or agneh , which they believe is agre . This is a wrong

interpretation, and other evidence exists that the Aryans definitely practiced

Sati from the earliest times. These fabricators distorted the Sati verse which

directs the widow to enter the pyre (agneh) so as to mean that the wife was to

rise from her pyre and go to the front (agre). These fraud Brahminist historians

also wilfully ignore several other citations from scriptures which explicitly

allow Sati :

 

The Garudapurana favourably mentions the immolation of a widow on the funeral

pyre, and states that women of all castes, even the Candalla woman, must perform

Sati. The only exceptions allowed by this benevolent author is for pregnant

women or those who have young children. If women do not perform sati, then they

will be reborn into the lowly body of a woman again and again till they perform

Sati. [ Garuda.Purana. II.4.91-100 ] [ Kane 237 ].

A sati who dies on the funeral pyre of her husband enjoys an eternal bliss in

heaven [ Daksa Smrti IV.18-19 ] [ Sm.Samu p.30 ] [ 1200, p.65 ]

According to Vasishta's Padma-Purana, a woman must, on the death of her husband,

allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre [ DuB.345 ].

Yajnavalkya, the most important law-giver after Manu, states that sati is the

only way for a chaste widow [ Apastamba.I.87 ] [ 1200, p.65 ]

The Yogini Tantra enjoins upon Brahmana widows to burn themselves on the funeral

pyre of their husbands [ Yog.T. II.303-308 ]. Vaisya and Sudra widows were also

allowed to do it. It was prohibited to unchaste women and those having many

children. [ 1200, p.67 ]

 

The Vyasa Smrti gives one of the two alternatives for a Brahmana widow, ie.

either to become a sati or to take up ascetism after her tonsure [ Vyasa Sm.

II.53 ] [ Sm.S. p.362 ] [ 1200, p.67 ftn.136 ].

 

What more can I say about these golden verses from the `Holy' Vedas, the Gita

and the Puranas - guidelines for every true Hindu woman ! Needless to say,

bigoted Hindu fanatics like Vivekananda, `Mahatma' Gandhi and the Ramakrishna

Mission always ignore these verses in order to fool gullible Westerners that

Sati does not exist or is the result of some Pakistani ISI conspiracy.

Further, the Vishnusmirti gives only two choices for the widow:

 

Vishnu Smirti.XXV.14 : "If a woman's husband dies, let her lead a life of

chastity, or else mount his pyre"

-- [ Vis.Sm. xxv.14 ] [ Clay.13 ]

 

Brahma is one of the main Aryan gods, being the creator of the world ( later he

was identified as an incarnation of Vishnu ). One of the Puranas is named after

him, the Brahma Purana. Like other Puranas, it was composed after the Vedas (

Pandits hold 4000 B.C., Indologists 700 B.C.) This scripture also sanctions

sati:

 

Brahma Purana.80.75 : " It is the highest duty of the woman to immolate herself

after her husband ",

-- [ Br.P. 80.75 ] [ Sheth, p.103 ]

 

Once again we hear that sati is sanctioned by the Vedas:

 

Brahma Purana.80.75 : " [ Sati ] ... is enjoined by the Vedas ",

-- [ Br.P. 80.75 ] [ Sheth, p.103 ]

 

and

 

Brahma Purana.80.75 : " [ Sati is ] greatly reputed in all the worlds "

-- [ Br.P. 80.75 ] [ Sheth, p.103 ]

 

Long life is promised to the sati:

 

Brahma Purana.80.76, 80.77 : " She [ the sati ] lives with her husband in heaven

for as many years as there are pores in the human body, ie. for 35 million

years. "

-- [ Br.P. 80.76, 80.77 ] [ Sheth 103 ]

 

Vishnu Dharmasutra XXV.14 contains the statement:

 

Vishnu Dharmasutra XXV.14 : " On her husband's death, the widow should observe

celibacy or should ascend the funeral pyre after him."

-- [ cf also Vishnudharmottarasutra VIII.p.111

for the same verse ]

[ 1200, p.65 ] [ Vis.Dh.Sh.XXV.14 ]

 

Several other scriptures sanction widow-burning. Some of these are as given

below [ Wilk ]:

 

"It is proper for a woman, after her husband's death to burn herself in the fire

with his copse; every woman who thus burns herself shall remain in paradise with

her husband 35,000,000 years by destiny."

 

"The wife who commits herself to fames with her husband's copse shall equal

Arundathi and reside in Swarga (heaven)."

 

"Accompanying her husband, she shall reside so long in Swarga as the 35,000,000

of hairs on the human body.

 

"As the snake-catcher forcibly drags the serpent from his earth, so bearing her

husband [from hell] with him she enjoys heavenly bliss."

 

"Dying with her husband, she sanctifies her maternal and paternal ancestors and

the ancestors of him to whom she gave her virginity."

 

"Such a wife adorning her husband, in celestial felicity with him, greatest and

most admired, shall enjoy the delights of heaven while fourteen Indras reign."

 

"Though a husband had killed a Brahman, broken the ties of gratitude, or

murdered a friend she expiates the crime."

-- [ Wilk ]

 

What more need we say about the `liberal' verses from the `holy' Hindu texts ?

All these astonishing citations can be verified; the references are given in

full at the end of this book. There is no secondary step in between; I have

directly cited from the holiest Hindu law-books. These quotations show that Sati

is deeply enshrined in Hinduism as a virtuous act right from the Vedic age. It

is hence an inherent part of Hinduism and is not due to any `Puranic

corruption', but was practiced during the `wonderful Golden Vedic Age' by the

Aryan savages.

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavadhas,

This was taken from the following site -

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mohammed.butt1/islamicstore/pdf_files/hinduism

pdf

It is very much clear that it is the islamic preachers who are trying

to clearly misinterpret the vedas in order to project it wrong.

 

We can ask a very simple question. If Sati was what was preached by

Vedas, why did not kunti in Mahabharata go for it? What Adiyen mean

is why she was not forced? She had so many other relatives who could

take care of her children. Adiyen means, she would have been forced

if it were a forceful act. Volunteering is different from forcing.

Vedas "allowing" the same, is different from Vedas "demanding" the

same. Why it was never in our ithihasas? This gives us a clear

understanding that down the lane, there was "some" puranic/smrithic

misinterpretation that has happened. Moreover this Sati was prominent

in North India and not in south. Also, it was more of a volunteering act

and not a forceful act that down the lane became a forceful one.

Moreover, when the Vedas are talking so many things about the

ultimate lord and the eternal truth why would it force a female to

commit such a horrifying suicide. It could have said that she should

have some peaceful death. Doesn't this clearly explain some stupidity

portrayed by some people who misinterpreted the Vedic statements?

 

Not only was Sati, but also the untouchability that was more

prominent from the North(I don't deny that it was in south too)! Many

prominent anamolies in the Hindu system were pretty much from the

North India. There are lots of those who are/were a mix of kshatriyas and

vaishyas(power

and wealth) but who claimed themselves as brahmins and had done enough

nasty

things in the name of "hindus". Adiyen don't really know when this anamoly

started,

but it was significant enough to damage the name of the brahmins alone.

This is a global phenomena

as we could see that this has happened in the 1917 Russion

revolution(Czars) and the French revolution

(Aristocrats/Nobles) (Adiyen's knowledge is based on the Tale of Two Cities

by Charles Dickens).

Whenever someone says Aryan, they mean brahmin:)) pretty much explaining

their

aversion only to the brahmin caste while aryans were not just brahmins

alone.

Adiyen have not heard of any of our purvacharyas or

others from the "Vaishnava sampradayam"(in the past 500 to 600

years) "forcing" a widow to jump into a fire. If at all it had

happened, my guess is that it was a volunteering act. Adiyen keep

asking myself a simple question, if brahmins were supposed to beg and

eat, how could people tell that they enslaved the kshudras and

moreover, contradicting to this mess, was that, the kshudras were

untouchables:)) i.e kshudras were supposed to physically serve

brahmins, but they were untouchables and whatever they touched would

not be touched by brahmins etc. Adiyen don't know whether all these

contradictory things were just made up or were in reality and even if

it were in reality, whether it has to be attributed to those spoilt

individuals or to the vedic system/society itself. God Knows!!!

Adiyen's personal opinion is that our history(recent) has been

garbled enough that no one knows what really happened, but everyone

is against brahmins!!!

 

Moreover there are lots of design aspects too that might have been a

consideration. Women who are loyal to their husbands(not just

physically, but mentally too) were called pathi-vrathas. I haven't come

across pathni-vrathans as their counterparts. The concept of

virginity(gaining and

losing the same) and the capability to reproduce(gaining and losing)

were/are for women. Though it does exist for men it was/is never prominent

("in general", men don't lose the capability to reproduce until they die as

per the modern science).

Only women bear the children and not the men. There

might be lots of spiritual reasons behind these too. Probably those

who are well versed in the yoga(shastram, not the margam) may be able

to address the issue from this perspective. Pathivrathas were as

powerful as the great tapasvis("kokkendru ninaitthayo konkanava?").

Kannaki was able to burn the entire madurai just by her thought.

Nowhere in the ithihasa puranas Adiyen have heard about this kind of

power for males(i.e just based on their physical/mental

celibacy/virginity).

 

The word Agni has several meanings in Sanskruth(It might mean fire,

purity, heat and in fire itself there are so many classifications

like kalagni, kamagni, yagyagni etc). In fact, if I remember right,

agni became available for burning junks(like our garbage etc) and

other things only after a curse by a Rishi. Until then Agni was used

only for cooking and for yagnyas. Unless one learns the Vedas from

the right person, one would not understand the context and hence

would blindly try to interpret and give "kudharkkams" like that

of "Yadhava Prakasa" who misinterpreted one of the statements of the

Veda that it was comparing the lord's face to something nasty, while

the Vedic scripture actually was comparing the lord's face to

the "Sun".

 

Adiyen too request the learned scholars of this group to kindly

address these and give a proper explanation for these.

 

Ramanuja Dasan!