• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Why most members do not show their real Photo in their profile here ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raji Madam

This link gives some answers to your/ renuka madams Questions

"Recently I went to the temple for some special puja, after all the puja finished the gurukkal (priest) asked for three sumangalis to perform aarati, then came three ladies to perform the aarati, of which one of them is a widow. Immediately one of the ladies told her that she cannot do the aarati because she is a widow, later arguements broke out.
I was very upset about the incident, more over it happened in a temple. The worst thing is that the widow cursed the

other lady saying that she will also be a widow one day."







Response by a Swamiji to the above question posted in that link

In Hindu tradition widows can choose to remarry or remain single. Widows who intend to stay single dedicate their life to the upbringing of their family, to live for a cause or to live in the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. If a widow chooses this path she is respected as a brahmacharini (celibate women dedicated to spiritual pursuits), and is generally enjoined to live a life similar to monastics. One of the signs that they have choosen this path of life is that they wear plain white clothing (though these days many will wear either whitish saris or white saris with designed borders).



Widows who choose not to remarry may also be initiated by a swami to be a sannyasini and may wear yellow or orange saris. These widows follow the tradition of sannyasins, where they do not participate in community functions such as weddings except to observe and give their blessings. They may however, lead prayer groups during holy festival, give discourses if they are qualifed to, and can certainly do pujas and perform aarati on such occasions or on any occasion where there is gathering of people for spiritual purposes.


Widows who intend to remarry will follow the customs of an unmarried girl. Her attire would be what she normally uses, though she is enjoined not to use the red kungkumum on her forhead and as with an unmarried girl, use the black kungkumum instead. These signify that she is open to marriage proposals.


These are the general guidelines for widows in Hindu culture. Widows have a choice on how they apply them. For instance, a widow who choses not to remarry may still her usual attire and wear the red kungkumum as a remembrance of a late husband. There is no bad karma in this and the community is enjoined to respect her wishes. There is actually no Hindu scriptural reference that regulate what a widow should wear and what she should not, or what she can or cannot do. In general Hindu society, widows are given the choice of indicating their status by what they choose to wear. By status I don't mean whether they are a widow or not, instead it is to indicate whether they intend to remarry or not. I must also state that these same guidelines also apply to a husband who has lost his wife. However, if you observe our community men are not enjoined by the community to observe the guidelines as much as women.


When it comes to the incident in the temple you brought up, the simple answer is that, it would have been alright for the widow to perform the aarati along with the other ladies. In this situation, the priest should have known better and advised the congregation to avert the arguement.


I can see why the arguement took place. This is because of the misunderstanding about the concept of sumangali, which has created a ridiculous taboo about widowhood. The basic mistake in this situation is where people understand sumangali to mean good luck when actually it means the bearer of goodness, and has nothing to do with good or bad luck. The tradition of sumangali was created to culturally and ceremoniously honour womanhood as the nurturer and nourisher of society (the Lakshmi of the society).


According to the tradition of sumangali any lady or girl can be a sumangali for any occasion that calls for it. There is however a general hierarchy in who is given the first consideration to take on the responsibility of the sumangali. In this hierarchy the first choice is given to mothers (the sumangali can also be a highly respected elder mother of the community even if she is widowed), the second choice is given to ladies who are married though are not yet mothers. The third level of this privilege is given to unmarried women or girls, this includes widows who intend to marry. So as you can see, even a widow can perform the duties of a sumangali.


Concerning widowhood there is also unjustified taboo about widows wearing white in the community. Many widows who intend not to remarry shun this practice because of the misplaced view of the community where wearing white is associated with bad luck, when in actual fact this is a noble and profound tradition. White, in Hinduism, is the colour of spirituality. It indicates the purity, virtue, justice and dedication to high-minded causes. It is simply so far from the truth that white colour is associated with bad luck or anything of the sort.

The information that I am sharing with here was learned from highly respected and learned priests in India, the Sivachariyas and the Deekshitars.



Aum Shanti,
Swami

Widowhood in Hinduism


Please go through this.
Probably this clears most of the misconceptions about women widower.


If you have any questions on Hinduism or Hindu culture you can send them to [email protected].
 
Last edited:

P J Sir,

Since you wrote, 'My response', I was wondering why you signed as 'Swami'!

After viewing the link, I got the answer that it is not your response! :)
 
Raji Madam

Edited that part which says " my Response"

Probably most of the questions about Female widower is answered there.
 
Last edited:
........... Probably most of the questions about Female widower is answered there.
I am reading 'Female widower' for the first time! I thought widow is a lady who lost her husband and has not remarried and

widower is a gentleman who lost his wife and has not remarried.

To follow the age old traditions even in this century is not at all acceptable to me, Sir. When a man does not have any change

in his appearance after the demise of his wife, why only ladies should forgo many good things which they have been enjoying

since childhood days? A lady who loses he husband need NOT remarry (probably she would have had enough with the first one!)

but why should she be humiliated as 'ill omen' and deprived of a few items reserved only for 'sumangalis'? Any way, I can not

change this society. You might have seen another thread in which a lady is afraid to meet her mom and bring her home, just

because she has not met her mom within ten days after the demise of her father. (It is in the G D forum). As Renu says we

have a very long way to go!
 
I am reading 'Female widower' for the first time! I thought widow is a lady who lost her husband and has not remarried and

widower is a gentleman who lost his wife and has not remarried.

To follow the age old traditions even in this century is not at all acceptable to me, Sir. When a man does not have any change in his appearance after the demise of his wife, why only ladies should forgo many good things which they have been enjoying since childhood days? A lady who loses he husband need NOT remarry (probably she would have had enough with the first one!) but why should she be humiliated as 'ill omen' and deprived of a few items reserved only for 'sumangalis'? Any way, I can not
change this society. You might have seen another thread in which a lady is afraid to meet her mom and bring her home, just because she has not met her mom within ten days after the demise of her father. (It is in the G D forum). As Renu says we have a very long way to go!

Smt. Raji Ram,

I feel it is a package deal given by our ancient rishis, smriti kaarakas and so on including our ancestors. Our sanatana dharma believed in the dictum "na stree svaatantryam arhati" (no woman or, woman at no time, deserves independence.) and she was considered as mere chattel of the male, especially the husband. The wife (any woman, for that matter) was not envisaged to have a life without her husband and so, on the death of the husband, she had to undergo either 'sahamarana' (which later came to be called "Satee") or death along with; or she could have 'anumarana', or "follow in death" in cases where she was pregnant at the time of death of the husband, and the wife used to be burnt along with some memento of her dead husband (turban, chappal, walking stick, etc.).

Most tabras believe that much of the rest of the Sanatana Dharma is very salutary and divine but this control on the freedom of women does not gel with today's notions of female emancipation for many women. Menfolk, on the contrary, perhaps may be opting for both these facets of Sanatana Dharma because it helps to ensure their superiority over women in the society. So, it is a choice - either accept Sanatana Dharma in toto or reject it completely, I believe. Alternatively, there must be some social revolution to change the mindset of sumangalee women who themselves are the main force behind ostracizing widows, just so that they (the sumangalees) can feel a sense of superiority.
 
Mr. Sangom sir,
I have sightly different take.
So, it is a choice - either accept Sanatana Dharma in toto or reject it completely, I believe.

I believe in santan dharma there are bunch of interpretations for any action. We can pick and choose the best possible explanation. It depends on your position in society and how much you care for it. A women of disrepute can be a CM and priest and dignitaries will fall at her feet. But if one is a widow and poor they have to suffer humiliation.

The society changes slowly, only the brave break the mold. If women (all women) join forces the society will change.
Rajiji and other enlightened ladies of this forum should raise the voice, some of the emancipated male voices would be with you. This stupidity has gone on too long. In this age the constitution has given women the right, even for Tamil Brahmin ladies. Let us use the constitution to trump "out dated Traditions" .

Why do we accept meekly the humiliation to our women folks? It is similar to the practice of Apartheid, unless we start organized protest it will keep perpetuating.
 
Last edited:

Dear Sangom Sir,

I read that the practice of 'sati' was enforced for a queen because she will kill her husband - the king - and get married to another

stronger king, if re-marriage was allowed for her! What makes me confused is, if the queen can kill the king to re-marry, the king

could also kill the queen to get a more beautiful lady as queen! It is: 'Show me the man, I will show you the rule'!

I fully agree with what you say here:


Alternatively, there must be some social revolution to change the mindset of sumangalee women who themselves are the main force behind ostracizing widows, just so that they (the sumangalees) can feel a sense of superiority.

But who will 'bell the cat'??? :noidea:
 
I have attended some Poojas at my cousins house where they do almost yearly some Lakshmi Homam.
I have witnessed there where 3 old sumangali ladies will be asked to hold a tray of aarthi I think and asked to walk into the house and the doer of the Homa and his wife are supposed to call these 3 women in by saying "Vaa Maa Vaa Maa" cos these 3 are supposed to represent Lakshmi.

I found the whole thing really weird that a Sumangali can represent Lakshmi!

That's why I find all these just glorification of a married woman.

No one realizes that glorifying a married women is an indirect insult cos that goes to show that a woman is only worth something if she has a husband with her and worth nothing if she is not having a husband.

So all that we talk about Paramaatma being in the indweller in everyone is just blah blah blah!LOL

Why should a person be without worth if she has no husband?
Whatever happened to the Paramaatma indwelling in us?


That's why I feel we Hindus are the ultimate "Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin" Malay for "Do not Practice What We Preach"
 

Dear Sangom Sir,

I read that the practice of 'sati' was enforced for a queen because she will kill her husband - the king - and get married to another

stronger king, if re-marriage was allowed for her! What makes me confused is, if the queen can kill the king to re-marry, the king

could also kill the queen to get a more beautiful lady as queen! It is: 'Show me the man, I will show you the rule'!


Dear RR ji,

To solve the problem..let the queen and king both have their own harems.

So Ahmisa is better than killing each other for a new person!LOL
 
Dear Sunder Ji

I got your notification in my personal mail id and not on the TB Forum - I think there is a technical glitch.

Many members have posted various things about various Temples [ including myself ], before.
Please do not take as some kind of filtering / editing your posts - nobody has any ulterior motives
and I am sure everybody will like to read your post on Sri Ranganatha Swamy.

By a copy of this, I request Praveen Ji to please sort out the issue.

Sunder Ji, please don't get disheartened - we are all one family, we all enjoy, appreciate and learn a
lot of things from one-another.

Guruvethunai
Yay Yem
 
Dear Renu

Your post # 74

Ok, I will put up my 'moonji', as avatar, if you revert back to that 'diva' pic of yours. Agreed ?

Don't worry about Drishti, there are enough 'senior' ladies like Tmt VR and Tmt RR to
" Sutthi Pottufy " for you - with coconut, lemon, camphor, whole pumpkin etc etc.

Then the question arises, how to get Raghy Sir, Prasad Ji, Sheikh, Amala, Amritha et al to follow suit?

Yay Yem
 

Dear Sangom Sir,

I read that the practice of 'sati' was enforced for a queen because she will kill her husband - the king - and get married to another

stronger king, if re-marriage was allowed for her! What makes me confused is, if the queen can kill the king to re-marry, the king

could also kill the queen to get a more beautiful lady as queen! It is: 'Show me the man, I will show you the rule'!

I fully agree with what you say here:




But who will 'bell the cat'??? :noidea:

I don't think that 'satee' was for queens only. There are enough documentary evidence to show that it was for all tiers of society, including poor farmers, ordinary people etc. The idea was that a really chaste woman would not hesitate to end her life along with her husband's. As to the queen killing the king, etc., this possibility applied also to the common man as evidenced by the folk saying "கொண்டு வந்தால் தந்தை,... கொலையும் செய்வாள் பத்தினி,...". I have heard one or two anecdotal accounts of wives doing black magic on the husbands (with the help of some maantriks), making him mad so that he ran away from home and was untraced, and the women carried on their secret liaison (because in those days remarriage of such women was a strict "no, no".

Husbands killing wives is happening even today right from the illiterate classes up to the IT people.

 
Dear Renu

Your post # 74

Ok, I will put up my 'moonji', as avatar, if you revert back to that 'diva' pic of yours. Agreed ?

Don't worry about Drishti, there are enough 'senior' ladies like Tmt VR and Tmt RR to
" Sutthi Pottufy " for you - with coconut, lemon, camphor, whole pumpkin etc etc.

Then the question arises, how to get Raghy Sir, Prasad Ji, Sheikh, Amala, Amritha et al to follow suit?

Yay Yem

Dear Sir,

I do not want to put my pic becos I have to be good if I have my pic here as my avatar.

Without a pic I feel more free to be BAD!LOL
 
Dear Renu,

I guessed that you will write something like this!! :lol:

Dear RR ji,

You see the suggestion solves a lot of problems and prevents loss of lives.

Ahimsa Paramo Dharma.

BTW I find it hard to believe that when the Kings are having a nice time in harems..the Queens does not mind it.

I am sure the queens also will be having some side kicks..after all there are many ministers too in the palace..surely some connections would happen too.

Which woman will tolerate husband having a harem and she only has him?
She will only keep quiet if she also has some chinna veedans.

So I really do not buy all these stories that the queens did not mind their husbands having harems.
 
Last edited:
Dear Renu

Your post # 90

You are correct - no woman will tolerate husbands having a harem. But that is the emancipated woman
of these days. References made here are from a different time-period when women had no choice/voice.

Matrimonial alliances were made mainly due to 'political' reasons and the demographic imbalances
in society. Akbar, it is said had appointed numerous eunuchs to oversee his wives and keep a tab
on their escapades !

We have enough records of polygamy and polyandry.

So, no big deal, really.

Yay Yem
 
Dear Renu

Your post # 74

Ok, I will put up my 'moonji', as avatar, if you revert back to that 'diva' pic of yours. Agreed ?

Don't worry about Drishti, there are enough 'senior' ladies like Tmt VR and Tmt RR to
" Sutthi Pottufy " for you - with coconut, lemon, camphor, whole pumpkin etc etc.

Then the question arises, how to get Raghy Sir, Prasad Ji, Sheikh, Amala, Amritha et al to follow suit?

Yay Yem

Dear YayYemJi,

Apologies in advance but I'm sure you quite understand that some of us value and treasure our privacy (i dont even have facebook!) and the last thing we want to do is to show our "moonji" to all and sundry!. We have already shown to some close acquaintances here anyway! :) and traumatised them for life!! hehehe...
 
Dear Tmt RR

Your post # 92. What's the yardstick - performance or the lack of it ?

Either way, I don't think they had much of a choice - especially when surrounded
by so many maids, and menfolk's testosterone levels spiking without prior notice.

Almost every other story goes " Once upon a time, there was king XYZ, who had three wives ......"
And then the twists and turns start with the second/third wife begetting a male offspring before
the first. Then starts the rivalry, enmity etc with the succession etc etc.

I think it was partly due to demographic imbalance - must've been a time when the female population far
exceeded the supply of eligible male contenders and when not every woman got a man to marry.

But then we also hear of handsome princes in all their grandeur standing line, with bated breath and hearts
pounding - to be garlanded by the daughter of an emperor [swayamvaram] and start think whether
males were in excess supply or whether it was for political reasons.

In today's context, I am sure eligible men too would fight the demons with bare hands or cross the oceans
on a shaggy wooden raft or walk across the deserts and mountains by foot to win the hands of a lovely
lady. And if that lovely lady had a surname "Gates " or a " Buffet " these men bound to have a lot of company
while on the 'mission' assigned.

So, I don't think that any Maha Rani let go of anything, willingly.

Yay Yem
 
Dear Amala Ji

Your post # 94

I see no reason for you to be apologetic - I fully agree with you and respect your right to privacy.

I was trying to needle Dr Renu, with that "My Moonji" stuff. But she seems a 'hard nut to crack'.

Mam, I somehow think you are a very humorous person - let's get some rib-tickling stuff.

Yay Yem
 
To me this post appeared to be rather strident in views expressed and I would like to record what little I know of some aspects of hinduism. My post seeks to give counter points to the points raised by the poster.

I have attended some Poojas at my cousins house where they do almost yearly some Lakshmi Homam.
I have witnessed there where 3 old sumangali ladies will be asked to hold a tray of aarthi I think and asked to walk into the house and the doer of the Homa and his wife are supposed to call these 3 women in by saying "Vaa Maa Vaa Maa" cos these 3 are supposed to represent Lakshmi.

Many of us who do the navaratri vratham also call young girls aged between 3-11 years for the puja and partaking of food etc.after the puja. We also call them "Vaa Maa Va Maa" etc. We consider them to be representative of Maa Durga or Parvathi. So what is wrong if the sumangalis are supposed to represent Shr Lakshmi?

I found the whole thing really weird that a Sumangali can represent Lakshmi!

I fail to see why it should be weird that a Sumangali can represent Lakshmi. BrahmaNas or others partaking Shradha offerrings are supposed to represent vasu, rudra and aditya categories of pitrs. If such personification is permitted then why a sumangali cannot represent Shri Lakshmi?

That's why I find all these just glorification of a married woman.

Why should a married woman not be glorified? Life itself is a glorification of succeeding aganst so many odds. All women (and men for that matter) should be glorified because they pursue the things they want to accomplish against all odds and impediments.

No one realizes that glorifying a married women is an indirect insult cos that goes to show that a woman is only worth something if she has a husband with her and worth nothing if she is not having a husband.

This negative analogy is many times resorted to, but a closer look will immediately reveal its inapplicability. If I appreciate Malaysian culture it does not mean that I indirectly insult other culture. If I celebrate diwali it does not mean that I indirectly put down christmas. If I praise a dhanika it does not mean I am doing a ninda to a pauper.


So all that we talk about Paramaatma being in the indweller in everyone is just blah blah blah!LOL

Why should a person be without worth if she has no husband?
Whatever happened to the Paramaatma indwelling in us?

How can the concept of paramatma indwelling in all of us become a blah blah? Unless that concept is present, why would anyone consider a sumangali as a Shri Maha Lakshmi?


That's why I feel we Hindus are the ultimate "Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin" Malay for "Do not Practice What We Preach"

I think the correct understanding should be that is the constant pursuit of trying to move from the existing level to the ideal level. It is all fashionable to say hindus only preach and do not practice etc. but then it is true of all religions and non religions too.
 
Zebraji,
You wrote:
This negative analogy is many times resorted to, but a closer look will immediately reveal its inapplicability. If I appreciate Malaysian culture it does not mean that I indirectly insult other culture. If I celebrate diwali it does not mean that I indirectly put down christmas.

Try telling that to a Muslim or a jewish person. That is why they invented "happy holidays" as opposed to saying "merry Christmas".
We may not mind it but it is not accepted worldwide.
But by praising only the married women, and ignoring the widowed women, we do insult the widows. Let us not kid ourselves.
Accepting the mistake is the first step in rehabilitation. Denial is the usual cause of failure.
 
To me this post appeared to be rather strident in views expressed and I would like to record what little I know of some aspects of hinduism. My post seeks to give counter points to the points raised by the poster.



Many of us who do the navaratri vratham also call young girls aged between 3-11 years for the puja and partaking of food etc.after the puja. We also call them "Vaa Maa Va Maa" etc. We consider them to be representative of Maa Durga or Parvathi. So what is wrong if the sumangalis are supposed to represent Shr Lakshmi?



I fail to see why it should be weird that a Sumangali can represent Lakshmi. BrahmaNas or others partaking Shradha offerrings are supposed to represent vasu, rudra and aditya categories of pitrs. If such personification is permitted then why a sumangali cannot represent Shri Lakshmi?



Why should a married woman not be glorified? Life itself is a glorification of succeeding aganst so many odds. All women (and men for that matter) should be glorified because they pursue the things they want to accomplish against all odds and impediments.



This negative analogy is many times resorted to, but a closer look will immediately reveal its inapplicability. If I appreciate Malaysian culture it does not mean that I indirectly insult other culture. If I celebrate diwali it does not mean that I indirectly put down christmas. If I praise a dhanika it does not mean I am doing a ninda to a pauper.




How can the concept of paramatma indwelling in all of us become a blah blah? Unless that concept is present, why would anyone consider a sumangali as a Shri Maha Lakshmi?




I think the correct understanding should be that is the constant pursuit of trying to move from the existing level to the ideal level. It is all fashionable to say hindus only preach and do not practice etc. but then it is true of all religions and non religions too.

Dear Sir,


I have only one answer and one question for you:

The Answer: Glorification leads to Pride and Pride leads to Prejudice.

The Question: What ever you have mentioned in your post..about the Status of a Sumangali....why can't everything you mentioned be conferred upon a Amangali too?

For example: Why not let an Amangali represent Lakshmi and we tell her "Vaa Maa Vaa Maa"?
Only then its fair an square to anyone.
It is so obvious it is some divide and rule man made policy!LOL
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top