asananth
0
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.
Dear Sangom,
Agree with you. I am myself a great admirer of Gandhi. All I am saying is we need to try and take the positives from the Great thinkers life. There is no point in judging them at this point of time. Even for a current incident it is difficult to ascertain the motives and intentions and more so if it had happened in the past. And one may differ on certain views even with the person one admires. For example I do not agree with Gandhi's view on economy or sex but the wonderful message we get from this great man is the message of love , non agressive approach to life and above all the sacrifices he has made. Imagine a 77 year old man walking alone in villages of Bengal amidst religious riots and violence trying to douse the fire of hatred with message of peace and love and succeeding. I cant think of any other human coming anywhere close to this. Mount Batten referred to him as one man army. He was much more. Army does not spread love in a war but only submissiveness from those defeated.
I have read most of his writings and what I understand is his marriage with Kasturba began in a traditional manner with the male playing the dominant role as was to be expected considering their background. However in the later stages the relationship became more balanced and towards the end many a times Kasturba playing the mentoring role. Relationships, I suppose, are very complicated and difficult to understand in all its facets.
I am digressing. My view is from every great figure in history there are strong positives which we can try to emulate and ignore what we perceive as weaknesses and avoid being critical and so also from mythology.
Have a great day!!!!