Widows and Hindu/ Brahmin tradition

AS you all know I am new here and I safely assume you have guessed my mindset on Brahminical ways and Hindu tradition
In right earnest after having read the section description ( If you absolutely believe that our current ways are supreme and that traditions should not be questioned in any way this is NOT the thread for you) I have shifted to this section
My question is why are Widows shunned in the Hindu/ Brahmin tradition
what have they done wrong to be a widow except for a tryst with fate
Shud the custom be followed even now
especially in the Kanchi matt context?
Open minded discussion is welcomed

Its just a social issue, nothing to do with the scriptures.

People began expecting things like "'this is how it should be followed" and everyone just heeded it.

Maybe the idea of shunning widows came about in the medieval times, dunno (??).

Why did it come about, also i dunno, except that women started being treated as inferior at some point, and if the breadwinner is gone, then the idea was that she too better be gone with him or stay around without asking for much.

Methinks the reason was poverty, and inablitity to provide for dependents.

good thread arun.

i do not know how this happened as in no way it makes sense ie the the disfigurement of widows.

the muslims and the british who ruled india practice widow remarriage. their women are not physically mutilated after the husband's death.

if she is considered a burden on her return to her home after attaining widowhood, would it not make sense, to keep her pretty, so that she can be married off again?

even if i think of the wealth aspect. pre 1950, the girls had no right to the father's wealth. hence the concept of dowry, which in a way, is her share of dad's fortunes. so it cannot be that of scheming male relatives.

fear of muslim lascivious behaviour? would it not apply equally to all young girls, and probably one reason for child marriage? if at all, the widow would be equally qualify to be married off again.

the concept of sati was the utmost degradation of the widow abuse culture. all clothed under the cloak of religion.

fyi, there is a place in thiruvallikeNi in chennai, called brahma theertham. it is a place solely for brahmins to perform the obseqies for the departed ones.

a few years, i had to go there with my sister to particpate. in the next booth, a very young woman, was dragged by her brother (i presume) by her hair, cursing her for having lost her husband (the word m**dai uttered several times) and handed over to the waiting barber, who in front of everyone, clipped her hair off. my sister puked.

even much later in varanasi, a similar thing happened, to a tamil brahmin widow, who had sought to commit suicide with her deaf daughter, by jumping into the ganga. she was rescued by the locals, and turned over to the ganapadigal, who i had engaged. due to some death in his family, this widow took over the shraddha cooking. but only after head was shaved and wearing widow's weeds.

fortunately, in my own family, it has been over 70 years since such things have happened. and since we have moved, unlikely ever to happen again. another brahmin practice, hurled deservedly to the dung heap of history.

recently, my widowed cousin, celebrated her daughter's marriage in chennai. she was right in the centre of things and given the due respect by the community. arun, don't you ever let anyone justify what does not seem right to you, under the guise of the puranas.

also nowadays, the girls are wage earners. money brings along with it, its own respect. i would imagine, even if the son passes away, the in laws would go the extra mile to keep the dil at their home. for after all without the paycheck, maybe they would starve

thank you.

good god, thank god, i have not seen nor heard of such instances...

if something like this happened in my family, i think a man pulling a woman by hair is more than enuf reason for a woman to ensure the man's head is shaved off instead of hers, if he done anything a wee bit more, perhaps his head wud have been chopped off instead of hair.

but i really thank the women of the past 3 or so generations who went all the way to ensure women have freedom of choice and have dignity in being 'women' in the present generation..god bless all those women. now i really beleive maatru devo bhavah.

kunjuppu-ji,

are you saying it was purely a dharma based practice? not because of poverty, dependency, etc?

I am new here again
and find that everyone are addressed with a Ji or a sri
I take the liberty to address
kunjuppu as just kunjuppu and expect everybody to the same with me
dear kunjuppu
that was a great reply
but you and HH have to comment on the Kanchi matt and widow thing
I remember that Paramacharya was ready to see Mrs Gandhi ??? (Am I correct?)
How can I possibly accept a person who considers it as a sin to even set his eyes on a window as a Guru
That is the conflict!!!!

it is easier to answer arun first.

arun, elsewhere in this forum, in other posts, i have more than once, clearly stated my views on kanchi mutt. participating in that thread, i feel, would only inflame passions, and i think it is best, that i do not contribute there. there are many here who revere the mutt to different extents, and i have to respect that.

happy, re the widow disfigurement that i witnessed: those people practising it, had an aura of poverty over them. i have always found that it is the poorer of our class, who are more fanatical about the practices of the tradition.

i find they do not always have a positive attitude to observances, but appear to be tied to them more as some caged ritual.

the poor TBs seem not to have the initiative or the strength, or even further the desire, to escape from the clutches of poverty, ignorance and hopelessness. for the middle and upper classes, these are but a captive source of cheap labour in the form of cooks, care givers, household help and chavundis, and i suspect that they would keep them that way. enough said.

the practice of widow shearing and physical disfigurement ceased in my family about 60 years ago or so. it was my great aunt, and the initiation process was of such trauma, that it was whispered among the parents of my generation.

apparently the lady was the prettiest of the family and lost her husband within months. her brothers treated her, not to dissimlar, to the incident at brahma theertham in my earllier posting.

such great and long lasting was her grief and sense of loss, the household turned to one of sorrow for the next two generation, as her sense of loss weighed heavily on the family and dampened any family celebration.

her brothers (my grand uncles) harvested some bitter fruits for their adherence to stupidity. yet these were book learned lawyers and accountants, proving once again, that old adage about 'Ettu sorakkai'....

thank you.

Dear Sri arunshanker Ji,

Maha Periava did see and talk to widows. He was shackled as a Matathipathi in protecting tradition. He has talked about it extesively. He refused to talk to Ms. Indira Gandhi at one time not because she was a widow. He would have talked to her, except as a PM then, she did not listen to his request on a matter regarding Hindu Temple Act.

I am slowly understanding this great muni.

And this widow thing has been discussed before. We all judge our saints with our own tinted glasses based on our own likes/dislikes. There are even a few in this Forum who think that Gandhi Ji was not a Hindu and Swami Vivekanada Ji was not a great person.

Sri kunjuppu Ji,

The main reason a lot of our TB brethren cling to ideas based on 'mooda nambikkai' (yes, the treatment of our widows in such shabby fashion certainly belongs to that realm), is because they need the support of their relatives, just in case, if they are in the street. So, they want to show that they are pucca TBs, and this takes the risk out.

Regards,
KRS

Arun/HH/Shri.kunjuppu,

Off late,I could'nt resist myself from penning down my views,inspite of knowing it as a sensitive issue (with my own experience),and as cautioned by Shri.Kunjuppu too. Let me attempt to share some politically correct thoughts,like a slippery eel.

There is absolutely 'nothing-wrong' in Acharyals view on Caste/Widow/untouchablity/and denying Puri Temple entry to Mrs.Gandhi..Any learned man of 'Hindu traditions/scriptures' knows very well,that hinduism is very complex-inter twined in nature, and one has to take such an odd stand(against the current custom),for the simple reason,.... if any one such custome/ 'Point' is taken out, it will have huge logical impact in other doctrines/philosophies..For eg, Caste-Karma-Twice born-Reincarnation ideology will totally collapse, just if one item 'Caste' is shunned out. Or there is nothing wrong in Acharyal covering his feet with a cloth,when a dalit does a paadha-puja,cos purity (not hygiene) is an important aspect in ritual/varna..Thats one reason you'll find the scripturally strong people, dont buy our liberal views on current customs, and we conveniently take ease in throwing remarks as 'Fundamentalist", which is again wrong, on our part.

I dont want to discuss this subject further in detail,cos I know many of them are not competent/mentally strong enough to take it positively, but I have learned this from my readings on Inter-religious studies in line with Doctrines/Philosophies.

Also, I have seen HH often saying 'That bad thing is not seen in Scriptures",without understanding that they do exist (in one or yet another hindu schools),failing to understand,those things were only applicable to those time-lines/era.. Its a very good aspect, "hinduism evolved and continue to evolve" very much, but many of us fail to understand, that not alone 'hindus' evolved, but also hindu philosophy should theologically evolve. We failed to utilse this positive aspect..We are caught up in our failure to distinguish between 'Hindu Society' & Hindu Philosophy.

In this context, the need of the hour is a good theological approach,without which we may find Acharyals in line with the Galileo-Pope..Need of hour is,the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth alligning with a worldview.

I think the learned Acharyals, should do a thorough massive scriptural-theological work,like how it happened in Europe for over a long period of 300 years since renaissance.

Dear Sapr,

sapr333 said:

Arun/HH/Shri.kunjuppu,

Off late,I could'nt resist myself from penning down my views,inspite of knowing it as a sensitive issue (with my own experience),and as cautioned by Shri.Kunjuppu too. Let me attempt to share some politically correct thoughts,like a slippery eel.

There is absolutely 'nothing-wrong' in Acharyals view on Caste/Widow/untouchablity/and denying Puri Temple entry to Mrs.Gandhi..Any learned man of 'Hindu traditions/scriptures' knows very well,that hinduism is very complex-inter twined in nature, and one has to take such an odd stand(against the current custom),for the simple reason,.... if any one such custome/ 'Point' is taken out, it will have huge logical impact in other doctrines/philosophies..For eg, Caste-Karma-Twice born-Reincarnation ideology will totally collapse, just if one item 'Caste' is shunned out.

so if just one thing 'caste' is removed, according to you, several concepts will collapse...am sorry but its rubbish. you say this because you have not understood several things about caste occupation jaatis, karma as inborn innnate vasanas, etc becoming dwija by removal of vasanas and so on, and reincarnation by transmigration of souls. And nothing of this has anything to do with temple issues..


Or there is nothing wrong in Acharyal covering his feet with a cloth,when a dalit does a paadha-puja,cos purity (not hygiene) is an important aspect in ritual/varna..Thats one reason you'll find the scripturally strong people, dont buy our liberal views on current customs, and we conveniently take ease in throwing remarks as 'Fundamentalist", which is again wrong, on our part.

whatever is this feet covering with cloth thing (i've never seen it) seems like a social practice, no scriptural thing in it. and what you call as 'scripturally strong ppl' are not scripturally strong, if they were "scripturally strong", then they wud not be following moodanambikais.


I dont want to discuss this subject further in detail,cos I know many of them are not competent/mentally strong enough to take it positively, but I have learned this from my readings on Inter-religious studies in line with Doctrines/Philosophies.

talk about it, discuss it. sooner or later someone will, if not you.

but i think you have no idea abt hindu scriptures, nor philosphies, you are going by social practices as it came to be in the aftermath of unforseen conditions, and seem bent on passing 'judgements', making comparisons and doing some evaluation thingy.

Also, I have seen HH often saying 'That bad thing is not seen in Scriptures",without understanding that they do exist (in one or yet another hindu schools),failing to understand,those things were only applicable to those time-lines/era.. Its a very good aspect, "hinduism evolved and continue to evolve" very much, but many of us fail to understand, that not alone 'hindus' evolved, but also hindu philosophy should theologically evolve. We failed to utilse this positive aspect..We are caught up in our failure to distinguish between 'Hindu Society' & Hindu Philosophy.

go ahead. write your philosophy, who is stopping you.

this is similar to some tamils who had not been doing any 'evolving' of themselves but instead blamed some nayaks for "promoting" telugu when they cud not find tamil poets of stature to promote in the first place, they overlook that it had already been some time since tamil poetry had already declined, they also overlook that several inscriptions and most written works as 'records' were in tamil, just that they had no poets and prose writers then...and all that judgemental stand thru their own tinted glasses was made just because it suited some 'tamil nationality' ideology of how great 'dravidians' they were and how badly they were "subjugated" by 'aryans'...obviously the 'persecuted' mentality of the lankan issue was playing inside their head...


In this context, the need of the hour is a good theological approach,without which we may find Acharyals in line with the Galileo-Pope..Need of hour is,the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth alligning with a worldview.

cannot understand the galileo-pope connection...i wonder what is this 'need of the hour' again....and rational thru whose tinted glasses? this whole worldview is such a crazed out idea of ppl who think they can use it to homogenize everything...people on their own will reject things they outgrow after a time and take up things as it suits their needs...no one needs to 'interfere' to ask ppl to do things in some particular manner...

I think the learned Acharyals, should do a thorough massive scriptural-theological work,like how it happened in Europe for over a long period of 300 years since renaissance.

its not for us to decide what others should do. its like i have no reason or wish to follow what you say and you have no reason and wish to follow what i say, we can agree to disagree, move on, live life by our own terms (i do beleive in "live and let live").. .

Click to expand...

Dear Sri sapr333,

I take offense to this posting, especially towards the words you have cited below.

Please understand that you are a guest here. And also please understand that you are allowed to post here because we have deemed that as a non hindu you mean no harm to us.

But this posting defies that assumption. It fails to understand that Hinduism already has all the 'theological' underpinnings it needs. In other words, you are again seeing Hinduism with your coloured 'monotheist' glasses, without understanding our root principles.

If this seems harsh to you, it is because, well it is harsh. Please do not go as a guest in to a house and start questioning how that house is run, based on your own concept of a good housekeeping!

sapr333 said:

Arun/HH/Shri.kunjuppu,


Also, I have seen HH often saying 'That bad thing is not seen in Scriptures",without understanding that they do exist (in one or yet another hindu schools),failing to understand,those things were only applicable to those time-lines/era.. Its a very good aspect, "hinduism evolved and continue to evolve" very much, but many of us fail to understand, that not alone 'hindus' evolved, but also hindu philosophy should theologically evolve. We failed to utilse this positive aspect..We are caught up in our failure to distinguish between 'Hindu Society' & Hindu Philosophy.

In this context, the need of the hour is a good theological approach,without which we may find Acharyals in line with the Galileo-Pope..Need of hour is,the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth alligning with a worldview.

I think the learned Acharyals, should do a thorough massive scriptural-theological work,like how it happened in Europe for over a long period of 300 years since renaissance.

Click to expand...

Sappr said
In this context, the need of the hour is a good theological approach,without which we may find Acharyals in line with the Galileo-Pope..Need of hour is,the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth alligning with a worldview.

Actually i don't see anything offensive here
The vatican lost its credibility by simply adhering to the Earth is flat etc., theories in spite of proof to the contrary
I think all of us should lessons from history and change towards liberalism
rational and systematic study of religion is very in the context
HH says "nd rational thru whose tinted glasses?" let me tell you
Galileo proved certain things and they are the same when looked into with any glass for that matter
rationality is closely related to science is also close to being universal
not matter what the glasses are
Again HH says
".people on their own will reject things they outgrow after a time and take up things as it suits their needs"
are not the matts and other religious bodies doing the same
KRS says "Please understand that you are a guest here. And also please understand that you are allowed to post here because we have deemed that as a non hindu you mean no harm to us."

In order to maintain harmony, I silence myself, like Galileo..

sapr333 said:

Also, I have seen HH often saying 'That bad thing is not seen in Scriptures",without understanding that they do exist (in one or yet another hindu schools),failing to understand,those things were only applicable to those time-lines/era.. Its a very good aspect, "hinduism evolved and continue to evolve" very much, but many of us fail to understand, that not alone 'hindus' evolved, but also hindu philosophy should theologically evolve. We failed to utilse this positive aspect..We are caught up in our failure to distinguish between 'Hindu Society' & Hindu Philosophy.

In this context, the need of the hour is a good theological approach,without which we may find Acharyals in line with the Galileo-Pope..Need of hour is,the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth alligning with a worldview.

I think the learned Acharyals, should do a thorough massive scriptural-theological work,like how it happened in Europe for over a long period of 300 years since renaissance.

Click to expand...

Sapr,

1) If i give you a list of things to be "set right" in the quran, are you willing to take it to a mullah and get things "set right" in line with "worldview"?

2) If i give you a list of things from the new testament to be 'set right' as per 'worldview' of ethics, are you willing to take it to the pope to be changed....one might write off things like saying, well, incest is present in the bible, but are people following it today, so whatz important is what ppl follow, and can provide various kinds of explanations..In any case are christians willing to remove things from the bible to make them acceptable to present day morality? Or are they willing to include the nag hammadi texts into the present day bibles...

can you change everyone according to your ideas of what is 'rational' or whatever is 'worldview'..

in hindu scriptures we have no 'wrong' things as such things, its all about social practices that happened or came to be despite the scriptures. and after the downward trend of social practices happened some ppl wanted things scripturally sanctioned. Such things naturally will be overridden with time in future since they are not religious in nature anyways...

no matter in what way you try to see, you can never find ancient knowledge with the kind of intensive and extensive dimensions elsewhere, whether it is science, philosophy, arts, music, name it, the hindu scriptures have it..

arunshanker said:

Sappr said
In this context, the need of the hour is a good theological approach,without which we may find Acharyals in line with the Galileo-Pope..Need of hour is,the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth alligning with a worldview.

Actually i don't see anything offensive here
The vatican lost its credibility by simply adhering to the Earth is flat etc., theories in spite of proof to the contrary
I think all of us should lessons from history and change towards liberalism
rational and systematic study of religion is very in the context
HH says "nd rational thru whose tinted glasses?" let me tell you
Galileo proved certain things and they are the same when looked into with any glass for that matter
rationality is closely related to science is also close to being universal
not matter what the glasses are
Again HH says
".people on their own will reject things they outgrow after a time and take up things as it suits their needs"
are not the matts and other religious bodies doing the same
KRS says "Please understand that you are a guest here. And also please understand that you are allowed to post here because we have deemed that as a non hindu you mean no harm to us."

Click to expand...

Arun,

My reaction to Sapr was not based on the few quotes you state, its because of my rather long interaction with him.

When i said "rational thru whose tinted glasses?" i did not mean to compare with galileo or something scientific..

And is it possible to make all religions aligning with worldview? It cud also seem that someone who professes worldview as his religion is trying to apply its principles in other schools of thot.

And also he got the sentence and the intended meaning wrong, which he says i said ("I have seen HH often saying "that bad thing is not seen in scriptures"), he goes on to say "they do exist (in one or yet another hindu schools)", what does he mean to say by "yet another hindu school"?

Am sorry but his postings can come across as that of someone trying to specifically evaluate things in islam (like 72 virgins and things in hinduism (like kallar or hindu gods), but he has not yet made mention of things in christianity for evaluation or auditing...

Dear HH,

once again,In order to maintain harmony, I silence myself, like Ibn Rushd Averroes

sapr333 said:

Dear HH,

once again,In order to maintain harmony, I silence myself, like Ibn Rushd Averroes

Click to expand...

Dear Sapr,

Yet i wud like to know your view on this:

2) If i give you a list of things from the new testament to be 'set right' as per 'worldview' of ethics, are you willing to take it to the pope to be changed....one might write off things like saying, well, incest is present in the bible, but are people following it today, so whatz important is what ppl follow, and can provide various kinds of explanations..In any case are christians willing to remove things from the bible to make them acceptable to present day morality? Or are they willing to include the nag hammadi texts into the present day bibles...

Click to expand...

happyhindu said:

Dear Sapr,

Click to expand...

happyhindu said:

Yet i wud like to know your view on this:

2) If i give you a list of things from the new testament to be 'set right' as per 'worldview' of ethics, are you willing to take it to the pope to be changed....one might write off things like saying, well, incest is present in the bible, but are people following it today, so whatz important is what ppl follow, and can provide various kinds of explanations..In any case are christians willing to remove things from the bible to make them acceptable to present day morality? Or are they willing to include the nag hammadi texts into the present day bibles...

Click to expand...

Dear HH,If you are all for ears,without anybiased view, here I go...


I would stress the importance of the word "Theology/Theosophy', and the necessity of those studies while talking about 'scriptures' , be it any religious scriptures.I do believe, theologians/philosophers do carry an important role in guiding religious mass,correcting their misconception/misinterpretation, not alone its heads.

If I were to share you the events occured during Galileo, it was a theological error. Galileo,who himself was working in Jesuit lab under their guidance, didnt wait to publish, until theologians finished their work to find a coherent answer in scripture.

Science/Nature/Scripture should sail smooth right!!.. Thats why some one said, "Scientist tread a long journey,climped the icy rocky mountains for to reach the peak(quest of God), only to find theologians/philosophers are already sitting there 500Yrs ago..Thats the point I was driving out here..


Secondly, I (intentionally) stayed away from talking about Biblical Incest, just not to deviate the subject here. Here again, I quote the role of Theologians/Philosophers while reading any religious scriptures.

Incest is very well recorded in Bible,where a king has sex with his step daughters. Not alone incest, rape,polygamy,polyandry is all well recorded...

Prophet Mohammed once read bible, and saw incest there,shocked, and claimed 'Bible is corrupted", cos he believed 'Holybook' cannot have such things..

Famous American president Thomas Jefferson, took a scissors and deleted all of them, and called it as Jefferson's Holy bible.

Look what a theologians response to it.. "Bible is not God given book',dropped by the man on sky. Rather, its a recording of the 'history of the Jewish tribes guided by God'.. And subsequently, the king who indulged in incest was punished by God. Thats the moral of the story.. ie, To err is human - God's delivers justice and punishes the wrong,even if he is a holyman/prophet.

Similarly, Islamic philosophers like Ibn Rush Avvero, tried to remove the wrong interpretations in Koran'ic 72 houries, which our suicide bombers are following..Unfortunately,Ibn's writings were burnt,only later to be copied by Europens after renaissance.

This is what I was opposing your repeated points,claiming that,so&so is not in scriptures etc.. .I just gave a generic opinion, just to remind you that, it may(could) be there, but one should have a theological/theosophical/Philosophical approach to them.. Orelse, it will end up like Galileo..


I think I have fairly well explained the importance of the role of Theologian/Philosopher by citing those 2 instances from history of various religions..

Dear Sapr,

sapr333 said:

Dear HH,If you are all for ears,without anybiased view, here I go...

I would stress the importance of the word "Theology/Theosophy', and the necessity of those studies while talking about 'scriptures' , be it any religious scriptures.I do believe, theologians/philosophers do carry an important role in guiding religious mass,correcting their misconception/misinterpretation, not alone its heads.

we do have very many sages and monks who explain philosophies and things in various scriptures, going from the literal to the intended meaning, to remove misconcepetions / misinterpretations..i suspect you have not tried to seek a teacher physically, but speak from points gathered from internet sources...


If I were to share you the events occured during Galileo, it was a theological error. Galileo,who himself was working in Jesuit lab under their guidance, didnt wait to publish, until theologians finished their work to find a coherent answer in scripture.

Science/Nature/Scripture should sail smooth right!!.. Thats why some one said, "Scientist tread a long journey,climped the icy rocky mountains for to reach the peak(quest of God), only to find theologians/philosophers are already sitting there 500Yrs ago..Thats the point I was driving out here..

I do not think science / nature / scriptures can all profess the same things, because each has its own role and own level of development. The point you are making can seem misplaced. Nor do i think its a good idea to mix up religion (of the social kind) and science, and judge each thru the glasses of the other.

Secondly, I (intentionally) stayed away from talking about Biblical Incest, just not to deviate the subject here. Here again, I quote the role of Theologians/Philosophers while reading any religious scriptures.

i wish you had also included examples from the bible in your evaluation of ethics, morality judgements, etc atleast at some place if not the 'why i am not a hindu' thread...it cud come across as a delibrate stand to not touch the bible, but yet seeking to judge other religions..

Incest is very well recorded in Bible,where a king has sex with his step daughters. Not alone incest, rape,polygamy,polyandry is all well recorded...

Prophet Mohammed once read bible, and saw incest there,shocked, and claimed 'Bible is corrupted", cos he believed 'Holybook' cannot have such things..

Famous American president Thomas Jefferson, took a scissors and deleted all of them, and called it as Jefferson's Holy bible.

Look what a theologians response to it.. "Bible is not God given book',dropped by the man on sky. Rather, its a recording of the 'history of the Jewish tribes guided by God'.. And subsequently, the king who indulged in incest was punished by God. Thats the moral of the story.. ie, To err is human - God's delivers justice and punishes the wrong,even if he is a holyman/prophet.

There are hindus who do not consider the smritis, puranas, upanishads, as god given books. To me, all books are man-written.

Biblical stories are recent, some are authenticable. Puranic stories are far too ancient, sections are insane yes (like someone sitting inside the cloud, animals talking, etc), but the stories of tribes, kingdoms, etc may have some basis to it, stories could have been added to older sections of the puranas.

If judgement is what you are looking for, then the puranas also tell stories to show falsehood never wins, to show the necessity of 'values' and so on.

Similarly, Islamic philosophers like Ibn Rush Avvero, tried to remove the wrong interpretations in Koran'ic 72 houries, which our suicide bombers are following..Unfortunately,Ibn's writings were burnt,only later to be copied by Europens after renaissance.

This is what I was opposing your repeated points,claiming that,so&so is not in scriptures etc.. .I just gave a generic opinion, just to remind you that, it may(could) be there, but one should have a theological/theosophical/Philosophical approach to them.. Orelse, it will end up like Galileo..

May i know which are the 'repeated' points i have claimed that so&so is not in scriptures. Wud be glad if you cud list them, so i can clarify.

I think I have fairly well explained the importance of the role of Theologian/Philosopher by citing those 2 instances from history of various religions..

Click to expand...

happyhindu said:

Dear Sapr,
In any case are christians willing to remove things from the bible to make them acceptable to present day morality? Or are they willing to include the nag hammadi texts into the present day bibles...
Yet i wud like to know your view on this:

Click to expand...

I getting the hang of this I guess Mr Sapr is an adherent to the Christian view of things
and about HH
I have to say the Bible itself has no historicity as is Jesus
there are not neutral non biblical references to the existence of a person called Jesus Christ and there is a great deal of anomaly on the dates of the gospels in the bible
But this has been researched and written by Christians themselves
Ref: Howard M. Teeple (March 1970). "The Oral Tradition That Never Existed". Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1): 56–68. doi:10.2307/3263638

arunshanker said:

I getting the hang of this I guess Mr Sapr is an adherent to the Christian view of things
and about HH
I have to say the Bible itself has no historicity as is Jesus
there are not neutral non biblical references to the existence of a person called Jesus Christ and there is a great deal of anomaly on the dates of the gospels in the bible
But this has been researched and written by Christians themselves
Ref: Howard M. Teeple (March 1970). "The Oral Tradition That Never Existed". Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1): 56–68. doi:10.2307/3263638

Click to expand...

Arun,

There has been a lot of research on the historicity of things mentioned in the bible, from the life of Christ, to curiousity about migratory routes. They receive a lot of funding and approach it as a subject of history. Yet, faith does not diminish, since in most cases faith overrides proof.

Their biggest advantage is that politicians do not interfere in their affairs. And they are in a safety zone to exist and function as religious instiutions. The icing on the cake is that they are lucky enuf to receive govt funding for their institutions.

Indians on the other hand can very well do research on the historicity of a mutt and historical characters. Our biggest disadvatage is that there are all sorts of people who can make all sorts of allegations based on the simplest of historical works (we are the gossipy type, the kind that can add its own spices to a bland finding). We have no riches, the mental maturity to see history as history alone. Nor do we have any safety zone in a country where politics thrives on divisiveness. About politicians, and those with a political-social outlook, the lesser said, the better...

Then tehre are all kinds of people, like missionaries, islamists, etc who will go all the way out using one or two lines from a work to "proove" things, while conveniently overlooking everything else, like pointing out one or two tiny cracks on a wall of a huge house, not sure they wud allow just that touch of cement to seal it...all to self-promote themselves, etc. They are the kind that will overlook shortcomings in their own systems of belief and tend to create discord of the self-triumphing kind...

Wonder why I was tempted to break my silence, upon HH's post ...

Saying goes, Athenian fool is the greatest of all fools..

sapr333 said:

Wonder why I was tempted to break my silence, upon HH's post ...

Saying goes, Athenian fool is the greatest of all fools..

Click to expand...

I don't care much abt silence, but wud need an explanation on the second sentence, with the context and the reason for making the comment.

Folks,

I was harsh with sri sapr333 not just because by his question he laid out his assumptions about Hinduism - as though Hinduism has not developed a 'rational' view in it's theology. On the contrary, Hinduism's theology is much closer to the nature of things hence supremely logical than any of the so called Abrahamic religions.

He can question what he questioned, if he takes pains to study Hinduism properly. Without doing the proper work on the theology of Hinduism and throwing statements like he did is what is not acceptable. We have had extensive discussions about 'absolute morality' versus Dharma centered morality. He has not grasped the profound difference between the two and how they play a role or not in the advancement of civilization. He also does not seem to understand the theory of Karma. One just can not evaluate a religion from the principles that only form a small part of the entire religion. Akin to a frog in a well trying to imagine an ocean.

I have asked Sri sapr333 to read a book 'Encountering God: A spiritual journey from Bozeman to Banares' by one Professor Diana Eck of Harvard who beautifully and thoughtfully has written about the comparison of Christian and Hindu theology and philosophy. I am again asking him to read this book, if he has not yet done so.

Regarding all the inconsistencies in other religions, I would ask Srimathi HH Ji to leave them be. I know why you raised this question, but let us discuss issues that concern Hinduism. This is just a request.

Regards,
KRS

KRS said:

Folks,
I was harsh with sri sapr333
KRS

Click to expand...

Shri.KRS, You were not harsh on me... Not at all ... Yes,indeed you were harsh towards a person, but not towards the point.

In my post #8, all I'm explaining was the notion of 'Theology',and how it could be useful to get rid of few evils of the society(any society), and I have cited Galielo eg. May be, you may not have liked it,cos I fixed the thelogical central authority to, Shri.Acharyal (or) may be because I refered an eg of Pope-Galielo, in line with Arun's stand on 'widow status'.

Anyways,knowing it as a sensitive issue,which I had voluntarily said earlier in one of my post, I intentionally stayed away and I silenced myself.., but when H.H sought my response on 'Incest, I thought, it was a good opportunity to explain the forum(esp you), what 'THEOLOGY' is all about (not what bible is all about).Btw,I persume, your subsequent advice to HH is, not to dig muck in another religious scriptures,cos every religion has some...But my stand out there was, every scriptures when looked with the 'literal' eyes, will have such mucks, but we need a theological approach,to correct/explain it.And I have even cited the Taliban-72 houries,where a good theology could have helped them to correct it.

Instead of appreciating that approach, you were quick enough to paint an imaginary enemy out of me,but not on my posts.. Wonder why you took back all our past history, when we were just talking on a simple subject of 'Theology-Widow status"!!!.

I would have appreciated,if you had intellectually responded back that'Hindu tradition has no role of theology, and its only a western concept'. I would have bought that meaningful point,and remained silent.. Yes,Islam too rejects theological approach..Instead,you said,Hinduism's theology is much closer to the nature of things hence supremely logical than any of the so called Abrahamic religions".And if so, you never responded theologicall to any of Arun's questions on sorakkai/widow topic....I would call it as ignorance (Sir,pls dont it as personal)

And once again you quickly went to paint me an abrahmic in public,which is not a warranted one here.. I could be a Moslem yesterday, a hindu today, and abrahamic tomorow, and in that sense, does your response holds universally right,for all time-lines.. And again, you went on to say, that Im surviving because of 'You felt I was no-harm', again,makes me wonder what that harm is all about in a place of debate..It only infers me that you are not open to critics (from common public),inspite of knowing that the world/human race/Religions has developed only because of the acceptance of good critics.In this context,Im sure Im not a 'Frog in the well" as you projected me here.Having said that, all my posts were civil in nature I guess and never were offensive to the mission/Goal/Guidelines of this forum.

Lastly your reference of ' Diana Eck " book... definitely will buy it soon.. However, going through the few book reviews, once again, it exposes your lack of Knowledge about 'Theology'..That book is all about spritual journey in understanding various religions.. Yes, at some point it talks about theology, it says "Every individual hindu is a theologian'.Yes,thats why we get contradicting opinions(in this very forum) on Widow status/Sorakkai threads.A good collective central theological approach would have sorted this confusions,wich again prove my earlier view right.. and hence I suggested this responsiblity to Shri.Kachi Periyaval, which made you emotionally furious it seems, just because it came from a person like me who shares opposite view..

Im sure, had Arun said that, you wouldnt have got this much furious, cos you said, Im a guest here at your mercy!! Once agin,I request you to investigate the depth message in the posts, not the personality!!


PS:

1)Moderator Shri.KRS, you may delete this post, if you feel, its not fit for records. Apologize, if my tone of writing was too much personal.

2) Its not that I failed to counter your arguments in God why Or Kancha Book thread..I intentionally stayed away,cos I felt that the debate is not taken sportively...

sapr333 said:

Anyways,knowing it as a sensitive issue,which I had voluntarily said earlier in one of my post, I intentionally stayed away and I silenced myself.., but when H.H sought my response on 'Incest, I thought, it was a good opportunity to explain the forum(esp you), what 'THEOLOGY' is all about (not what bible is all about).Btw,I persume, your subsequent advice to HH is, not to dig muck in another religious scriptures,cos every religion has some...But my stand out there was, every scriptures when looked with the 'literal' eyes, will have such mucks, but we need a theological approach,to correct/explain it.And I have even cited the Taliban-72 houries,where a good theology could have helped them to correct it.

Click to expand...

Sapr,

You presume that there is no good theology in hinduism and in the previous post tried to explain the role of theologists / philosophers in religion.

To me, it came across as a weak attempt to portray the role of theologists (as whatever they are supposed to be as philosophers) as important people in explaining religion. And in that sense, since they (theologists) are present in christianity, they dilute the presence of (what you call as) 'bad things" everywhere, but in christianity, according to you, the "bad things" are present as something that can be 'explained' away with role of god's justice prevailing.

What you wish to see 'bad things' existing in other religions, are also explained the same way, by their own "theologists", but you choose to not see that. Instead, you insist on the role of a "theologist" in correcting religion, as though theologists do not exist in other religions.

And you want to introduce 'theology' to other people, and even claim that it "exposes (their) lack of knowledge about theology" with ppl who have already dealt with it. I should think this is amusing.

Hindus have sages and monks who ARE the theologists / philosophers, who do the role of explaining scriptures correctly, and at the same time, they are also yogis. This concept of a yogi cum whatever is this 'theologist' is alien to the west.

You always seem to refer to theology and philosophy as the same things. Within the 4 walls of a boundry called a "theory", which a theologist seeks adherence to, to be called a christian, there is no room for philosophical thinking.

The whole concept of a theologist functioning as a philosopher was borrowed from the east. Wherever philosophy cud not be fitted into the theory of christian thot, it had to exist as an adjuvant or an independet entity, not as a part of the christian religion.

I have not only read the bible, but also have friends who hold MAs and PhDs in theology, and work as missionaries in the country where i live as well as in India. They have failed to convince me.

I was offended when you said bad things exist in "yet another hindu school". I do not care for silence or whatever you think is harmony (to me its silence of convenience), but to be able to comment like that, i want you to explain how many hindu schools have you explored so far, what books / parts have you read in each of those "schools", how much sanskrit do you know to be able to understand the nuances of what is being explained or be able to translate yourself, and how many hindu teachers have you sought to explain the hindu scriptures to you so far.

And i also want you to list what you claim that i have been "repeatedly insisting that bad things do not exist in scriptures".

Since you have come down to the level of insistence based on what you see is the "correct way of doing things" (that is, use 'theologians / philosophers', align religions with worldview, judge morality, judge selective things like houries, etc), i too will bring out my insistence. Take it easy, it not to counter you personally, its just your thots..