Hello Kunjuppu,
Will Durand in his History of Civilisation says "Do not judge a historic or mythological person by the values of our times". I am not referring to your message about Gandhi but to an earlier one about kings and Gods.
There is no point citing how many men have betrayed their wives. I suppose one can quote equal examples of women who have betrayed men. But that is not relevant.
All of us are products of History and economics of the time we live in and cultural modes,faith are greatly influenced by them.
One of the anthropologist(I forget who it was) argues in his book about peruvian civilization that prior to agricultural revolution, which began with the invention of plough, food was mainly obtained by gathering them in the fields which was more reliable than hunting which was uncertain. Since the woman bought in a steady supply of food every day whilst men were away hunting which was uncertain, woman's status was equal to that of women. But plough which required physical strength tilted the scales. Taking it further one might extrapolate and say till 1970s operating machinery, waging wars, farming all required physical strength,more than the intellect. Woman naturally were naturally restricted to desk jobs,nursing, teaching and the like. Technology has changed everything and the emphasis is more on the skills,intellect, drive and leadership which I suppose women possess in equal measure. However there is always a lag in accepting the changes . You will agree that compared to three decades ago there is more visibility of women in all fields including academics,science,industry, politics and the numbers can only grow. At least the younger generation of both sexes seem to accept equality betwen them as a matter of fact having seen each other in not very different numbers in MBA, Medical and in Engineering in IT. Truth cannot be hidden very long. I think it was the famous scientist James Jeans(I am not sure) who said there are no converts . The non believers die and for the new generation it is all a simple matter of fact like the planets going around the Sun. My generation will fade away along with our prejudices . Hard for us to change our hard held belief however untrue they might be and the younger generation will wonder what was the fuss we were all making. Nice to be young in this fascinating world and nicer to be a woman with all the avenues denied so far opening up.
Have a great day!!!
Shri Ananth,
Though the above post is addressed to Shri Kunjuppu, since there is a reference therein to "to an earlier one about kings and Gods", and since you have not specified which posters you have in mind, I think my interfering will be permitted.
I agree that we we live in the cultural modes and faith of our lifetimes. But here we have to keep in mind that even during the times of Rama (king-God), Swami Raghavendra (Saint, now deified!) or Mohandas Gandhi (glorified by history as the Mahatma of the twentieth century), the cultural norms required a man to look after his family (wife, children and aged parents) first and foremost and to adopt vaanaprastha and/or samnyaasa only after all his responsibilities to the family were duly completed and the person had the good health required for an ascetic's life.
Of course people like Sankara, Ramana, etc., took to sanyaasa very early in life; they did not contract a family through marriage and did not produce children. Sankara's duty was only towards his mother and there can be difference of opinion as to whether he discharged that duty properly, but he did not drag in an unsuspecting girl in the prime of her youth to be his wife, enjoy family life (sexual pleasure) with her, produce some children, and then one sudden day, leave her in the lurch and make grandiose spiritual claims.
Now, in the case of Rama, he was a case of indecisiveness that he would act on hearing some common man's gossip with his wife, without even consulting the eminent gurus like Vasishta (his kulaguru), Sadaananda (Janaka's kulaguru) or Vishwaamitra (who taught him many things including the balaa and athibalaa mantras). Therefore, whoever wrote Uttarakaanda - this is now generally held to be a later addition to the original Ramayana of Vaalmeeki - might have had a score to settle with the Ramaayanists and wanted to paint Sita as a personality towering above even Rama, imho. What Raghavendra did cannot be justified except on the premise that the Madhva matham of Sudheendratirtha wanted a successor and Raghavendra felt it to be acceptable, eventhough his decision resulted in the suicide of his wife of less than 25 years age. I, therefore, hold the firm view that Raghavendra's action cannot be justified under any circumstances and those who value women's role in society, should boycott him and his ashram.
MKG was an abnormal person imo. He was definitely obsessed with sex which he covered as "brahmacharya" and did many things which will shame any ordinary person. He is better not discussed because people will not be able to evaluate him as yet another ordinary human being and the discussions may result in yet another flare-up. Nevertheless, even during MKG's times the general rule was that if a man gets married and takes a wife, then it is his duty to provide for her and the children born of such wedlock until the children are adults. The case of the irresponsible tabra which I have mentioned in my earlier post, happened during the early 1900's and is thus contemporaneous to MKG. So, we can compare the two.
Last but not least, you state,
"All of us are products of History and economics of the time we live in and cultural modes,faith are greatly influenced by them." I do not think we can refer to the "history of our times"; we make the history of our times through our thought and action. The "history of our times" will follow after our time, and will become "history" for our succeeding generations. The history which we follow is the cumulative result of our understanding of all the past history and what we choose to adopt therefrom during our times. Please let me know if my above understanding is wrong.