Widowhood and Suttee -

Shiva, one of the points made by you in regards to your vedic-varnashrama vision is that renunciation in vedic society was purely voluntary.

In regards to this concept I call upon Elpis or others who are familiar with vedic texts to give evidence of this in regards to widows.

Many are of the opinion that widows in vedic times were expected and encouraged by society never to remarry but to remain unadorned, eat plain, non-spicy food and not to go out to social functions. If a widow was to do these things and on top of them even marry again, she was shunned by the society.

Is this true?

If you lived your whole live with your husband you surely know his spiritual status.
Lets say you notice your husband is spiritually very advanced when leaving his body. Why not follow him? Why stay here in this world of birth, old age, disease and death and look for "interesting" material comforts?

Apparently Rig Veda X.18.7 says: "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."

Wendy Doniger has: "These women who are not widows, who have good husbands, let them take their places, using butter to anoint their eyes. Without tears, without sickness, well dressed, let them first climb into the marriage bed."

There is some controversy about this hymn, but it appears that it is using the marriage bed as a metaphor for the funeral pyre.

You can read this in the fifth chapter of the feminist diatribe against Hinduism: GENOCIDE OF WOMEN IN HINDUISM. I am sure you will enjoy this site.

If a woman feels the utter devotion to a man to follow him in death, I suppose that is a decision that she will have to make on her own. I have a hard time finding it all that noble, though in certain instances it may well be--especially where old age is a factor. As a matter of fact, it is not at all uncommon that widows or widowers quickly follow their long-married partners into death. This seems to be in the natural order of things.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the suttee system, which at the best of times was voluntarily, was perverted terribly to the point where the majority of instances were cases where the woman was forced to follow the husband. The reality of the situation was far different from this idealized version of fidelity and love.

Sati as the Ultimate Chastity Belt

The wretchedness of a widow's life was, however, perhaps not the worst consequence of her husband's death. After all, she was still alive, in a manner of speaking. Many Hindus, mostly men, considered this intolerably lenient. They believed that if a woman's husband were happy, so should she be. If he were sad, so should she be. And if he were dead, so should be. So even creeping miserably around a relative's or spiteful in-law's home was too soft an existence. Any good widow (a Hindu oxymoron) would know better than to impose her tainted self on the world. That was what sati--immolation on the husband's funeral pyre--was for.

The "paramountcy of a woman's chastity" was the most compelling reason for sati, although financial and property considerations also cost many an inconvenient widow her life. One anti-sati crusader explained that relatives and in-laws feared that "if there was no cremation, widows may go astray; if they burn, that fear is removed. Their family and relations are freed from apprehension." From this perspective, "sati becomes the ultimate chastity belt."

The widow who willingly clutches her husband's snadals and climbs unaided to lie beside his corpse as the faggots are fired is truly reverenced. Once they are safely crisped, such widows are lauded and mythologized, much like Muslim suicide bombers who eagerly launch themselves as human explosives in order to ascend directly to paradise. The great difference is, huge numbers of satis have not gone willingly to their incineration...

For centuries, witnesses have reported force in supposedly voluntary satis. In the 17th century at Lahore, Frenchman François Bernier watched as a few Brahmins and an old woman immobilized a shivering and sobbing twelve-year-old widow with ropes, then forced her onto the pyre. He saw another sati prevented from escaping the billowing flames by men carrying long poles...

From The History of Celibacy by Elizabeth Abbott (Harper Perennial Canada, 1999), 353.

And from Dubois :

It is only after long and serious reflection on the many eccentricities and inconsistencies of the human mind that one can look without astonishment upon the deplorable scenes of which a few of the main features have just been described. It is indeed unaccountable how these Brahmins, who are so scrupulous and attach so much importance to the life of the most insignificant insect, and whose feelings are excited to pity and indignation at the very sight of a cow being slaughtered, can, with such savage cold-bloodedness and wicked satisfaction, look upon so many weak and innocent human beings, incited by hypocritical and barbarous inducements, being led with affected resignation to a punishment so cruel and undeserved. I leave to others the task of explaining these inconceivable contradictions, if, that is to say, it is possible to assign any reasons for such superstitious fanaticism, whose characteristic feature is to suppress all natural and rational sentiment.

Abbé Dubois, Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (written in 1802) p.367.

Certainly there are men that have and still do feel that way towards their beloveds. But name one society that has institutionalized husband-suicide?

The fact that husband-suicide has not been institutionalized might be a reflection of the possibility that women naturally are a degree or two more equipped to love. A possibility.

I am not sure if this discussion is useful. Sati has not been practised anymore for long. The British banned it in the 19th century. It is the gray past......

Jagat,
I asked this question before and nobody was able to answer.
Maybe you can.
Madri is told to have committed sati in Mahabharat.
Is this true or a later addition?
If it's true, why didn't Krishna stop her and use the oppurtunity to give a long discourse on the merits of staying alive and practicing bhakti like Mahaprabhu did?

I can't really answer why, except that Krishna wasn't there when it happened. What can I say, that was a case of a voluntary situation, so there may be some justification for it then. But I have no intention of defending it, or Hinduism, for allowing what may have been a literary situation meant to glorify one woman's faith and devotion to her husband to be converted into a kind of institutionalized murder.

Anyway, the point is only that some still seek to defend the practice. That's the only reason I brought it up.

Was sati an "aryan" pracitice that was brought into India or was it indigenous to the area?

Jatayu

If you lived your whole live with your wife you surely know her spiritual status.
Lets say you notice your wife is spiritually very advanced when leaving her body. Why not follow her? Why stay here in this world of birth, old age, disease and death and look for "interesting" material comforts?

I remember this incident. I lived in India when this happened and it caused a great outrage in the media. It was also noticed by the press, however, that this was the only known case of Sati, probably in the entire 20th century. It is a bygone phenomenon........

Can we just get some questions answered instead of facetious counter-questioning and silliness? This topic is otherwise good.

At the time the press acknowleged that more such cases could be taking place unheard of.

Yes, my question is whether sati was an "aryan" practice that was brought to India from outside or whether it was indigenous to the area.

Huh? Isn't Krsna everywhere?

This is a topic I have brought up myself many times in the past...

It is a cruel and sexist piece of Indian history no doubt, regardless of how much someone tries to justify it.

Justifying murder is a difficult task and probably can never be done, actually.

But the real concept of sati is that it is a voluntary act (self infliction to some, relief to others). Nowadays, assisted suicide is somewhat acceptable, so maybe if there is a need (?) for such a practice at all presently, in the distant past, sati could very well have been acceptable. Maybe not encouraged, as no one would encourage euthanasia, but nevertheless understood and accepted.

We might want to explore why, if sati was a prevelant "practice" during Krishna's sojourn on this earth, we don't have any evidence of Him denouncing it.

Was it prevelant during the time of Ram? As "maryada purushottama" or "dharma purushottama" did He denounce it? Seems like a fitting cause for his title.

The title might be precisely the reason he did not find need to denounce sati, but let it be.

We might also want to explore the possible reactions of that same sati promoting culture to the acts of men who would do the same upon the deaths of their wives.

Given the societal background would such men be viewed as "chaste", "honorable", "materially detached", etc, or would they be viewed as "slaves of their senses", "victims of lust", "henpecked husbands", "materially attached", etc?

Was it, during the time of Krishna?

Second option, I strongly believe. Because men and women can never be completly, absolutely equal.

Read Mahabharat to find out.

I'm asking you since you brought it up. Are there many examples of the sati-ritual in Mahabharata?

(EB , 1998, print edition, volume 22/p. 420,2b)

See here also: http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/women/sati/whysati.htm

Just in case anyone forgot, ever read Bhagavata? That big book'll tell you exactly how the practice of suttee (Sati) originated.

No, it doesn't tell how it originated. It tells of an instance when such a thing occured, but it doesn't prescribe the same for anyone, nor does it seek to establish it as a precedent for ordinary women to be followed.

It is also significant that Dhritarastra is not placed on a funeral pyre, but rather by the force of his mystic power he ignites himself as his spirit becomes liberated, and Gandhari, most likely liberated herself, also rids herself of her body, which has at that point become an unnecessary burden for her.

In this narration, both burned voluntarily; not merely the wife.

Solvyns was a Belgian traveller who sketched India as he found it over 200 years ago. His sketches are like snapshots. (If you go thru the pics you will find several Vaishnavas, some with Gaudiya tilak of Nityananda-vamsa, yet no 'kanthi-mala' neckbeads are seen anywhere. Only 2 strand thick beads hanging loose across the upper chest. Are neckbeads a more recent innovation?)

These include some graphic depictions of Sati in newly bustling Calcutta during the first surge of colonial prosperity. There is an excellent presentation of Solvyns' Sati pics here:

http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/hardgrave/Satiart.rft.html

One thing which seems to have been nowadays forgotten, along with much else from that era it seems, is this (scrolling right down):

"Besides the Faquirs and Beeshnubs [Baisnabs, Vaisnavas], the Joogees [Jugis], dealers in cloth and weavers, are the only people among the Hindoos who bury their dead: the cruel custom therefore of widows burying themselves alive with the bodies of their husbands, exists only in this division of the working cast, and is confined moreover to the country of Orissah and that of the Marattas. Travellers who visit only Bengal and Behar have very seldom an opportunity of witnessing these fanatic ceremonies..."


So Hindu Widows of Jugis buried alive. Worse than burning even.
***

Another fascinating, perhaps neglected point:

"The practice was prevalent in Bengal in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Benoy Bhusan Roy, in Socioeconomic Impact of Sati in Bengal, writes that suttee was most frequent among Brahmins, but that the practice was found among the families of lower castes that had distinctive positions in wealth or property. Indeed, the possible increased frequency of suttee may have reflected aspiration to higher social status among upwardly mobile sudra families..."

And (note 4): "...The practice may well have been most frequent among brahmins, but the various sudra castes together (principally those of higher status) accounted for the majority of instances of suttee..."

*!?!*

To me the act of sutee is the ultimate sexist act that could ever be preformed on a female!

It is an expression of male ownership over woman. Her life means nothing without the man, she is nothing as a woman unless she produces offspring etc etc......... ad nauseum..

A woman alone as a widow is a menace to society..

Better to flame Her..?

It is also because of the MANS insecurity that sutte was there I believe ..they wanted to make sure their women didn't go find any new men after they passed away, something like that..yes.

I mean how disgraceful to the family if that occured!

Better to Flame Her..?

And make sure there's no chance of them maybe meeting someone else they can share life with..

This and other sexist practices in India became rooted into the fabric of Indian culture because of the exaltation of celibacy and the anti-sex attitudes that prevailed in so many male dominated religious circles...


SCT

Ananad and Jatayu:

You have my blessings to be reborn as Indian village women and get the chance to show your chastity and love for your husbands through "voluntary self-immolation".

Are you people in your right mind?

Am I glad to be guruless and institutionless at the moment and not to be obliged anymore to have prejudices against modern thinking.


Blue Sapphire

Indranila,

I am wary of blessings from someone who is guruless, but I wouldn't be so sure about being "institutionless" if I were you; you do give credibility to contents of popular "womans" magazines, don't you?

And between you and I: I am completely out of my mind at the moment, but I can take care of it, not to worry.

I agree with this. That men who abuse women under their care do so out of insecurity. One example of this, in my view, is the imposing of certain kinds of dressing on women, such as the ridiculous burka (I am sorry but I have a strong opinion about this one). Also the other extreme, the encouraging of woman to expose their bodies, is another dictation that does not necessarily reflect women's own expression. I have observed that in the US (dutifully followed by the monkey world), there is a growing interest in all things Middle Eastish. I see more and more american born women convert, along with their family, I would assume, to Islam and quickly adopt the dress. Obviously to these woman the meaning of adopting this dress is not exactly the same as for those who were born in the culture. There is a dose of foolishness, I believe, in adopting that culture and religion out of a desire to be politically correct. The other extreme, the increased interest of some women to join "belly dance" groups, is just the other side of the same coin. Burka or belly dancing, in the West these are now oh, so liberating, while in the East, well, I imagine some of those burkas are so dense and covering all that the woman could even be hiding a tv set under it or get internec connection and the husband wouldn't even know. Or if he does know, as long as it is done under all that cloth, it is not dishonorable. So, who will mess with such perfect arrangement for both worlds?

Some people feel the same way about long saris and covering their heads with "chadaars", etc. that you do about burkas.
It's all relative.

Chances are people who feel strong distaste for saris and chadars will feel the same about burkas. Subtle differences one observes in what may appear common to different cultures and religions, becomes more and more a matter of personal taste and feelings. I suspect the next progressive step an individual would make after sorting out the externals, is what is the essence to be found in others that would more closely speak to oneself. Relationships on individual levels is what religions and cultures are made of, in the first place.

Do you think american women wearing saris with their heads covered and a yellow substance on their nose look any less ridiculous to the general populace than american women wearing burkas?

Not less ridiculous than any woman wearing, say, a catsuit, for example. I have already told you, if you want to know my personal opinion on things, send me a private message. What I think is not of general interest.

But if you insist, I think ANY woman wearing a Burka is more ridiculous than saris or even catsuits. To me, the last two options at least are colorful, or fun. In general, saris are accepted in the West as stylish and in good taste. Burkas speak of concealed lunacy.

Same with India-born girls and the type of attire expected of them in India or amongst their family members.



As adopting any foreign culture to be seen as "religiously correct".



Same type of westerners are interested in any kind of "ethnic dance" such as Bharat Natyam, Odisi, etc.

But I wonder if your feelings towards belly dancing would be different if you knew it originated in India?

The origin of a particular aspect of a culture is not of fundamental concern to me, but if any aspect of any culture or religion speaks to my heart, naturally I will be attracted to that. Diversity is to be respected, of course, but that does not mean I should make someone else’s attraction, mine.
That is actually what lends meaning to diversity, that differences will be kept as differences. Harmony requires coordinating differences.
So, you have your opinion, and I have mine. I respect your catsuit. Now, please don’t step on my sari!

A short sari; now that would be an interesting sight!

Some ladies just naturally happen to like to cover theirselves a bit more, since they don't enjoy walking around and having men stare at them (or rather, those parts of them that are visible from underneath the tight miniskirt and the wide-open tiny tiny shirt) all the time. Now, I don't mean pulling a chadar over your head here.

In Bengal and most other regions of India women don't cover their heads with veils. Of all places in India I went I saw this custom only in Vraja.

And some women like to dress provocatively. Do they do it for power? The danger? The excitement? Or is it a statement of some kind? Or is it just self-expression? Or are they mindlessly following the crowd?

I have daughters and on observing them, I see that they do many things to fit in with what is happening in their environment, at school, at the temple, etc. But when at home, where they feel comfortable being "themselves", as my younger daughter puts it, they like to wear Indian style long skirt. I think some women like to feel attractive but not necessarily for men. If being attractive will be provocative to the oposite sex, some women may even withdraw from that. I, my sisters, and many of my friends feel that way.

So yes, mindelessly, probably. Who knows where that really comes from.

My simple point is that this is the first instance of where such an event occurred, or rather described. The practice is named after that first Sati. Unless you have earlier references? I would be interested in those.

What does being guruless and institutionless have to do with anything? Sati is not practiced in ISKCON and so on, thank God for that!

Ah right you referred to the narration of the fourth canto, not the story of how Gandhari stepped into the pyre of Dhritarastra in the first canto.

In the narration of Sati, she did not step into the funeral pyre of her husband, if memory serves. She self-combusted for other reasons.

Yes, that is precisely the problem that I have with this practice!

Nice of you to mention the Dhritarashtra incident, I had completely forgotten all about that. In both cases we can see that the self-combustion was voluntary, and even Gandhari's entering the mystic combustion was also voluntary. It the presents a great mystery as to how this practice became a de-facto evidential method of proving a wife's chastity.

Considering that Sati's chastity for Shiva was not in question, and that she combusted because she felt thoroughly insulted at the insults suffered by her husband, how did anyone screw out the meaning that ordinary wives must burn themselves on their husband's funeral pyre in order to prove their chastity?

Don't forget, we are talking about Mother India, the land of miracles and mysterious events, the place where any damn mess is possible. Nay, make that probable.

I would not be so confident with the idea that the practice was named after her. Sati simply refers to a chaste lady. It is unlikely that the word, with or without the sati-ritual, was derived from her; rather, she was given the name. Just like we find that Indra's wife is Gauri, but certainly the name of the colour was not derived from her, but the other way around.

Ahaha!

But betelji, as we all know everything originated in India, or at least everything Indians admire.


Maybe you haven't seen the popular Indian family comedy from Britain where one of the characters is a father who nags his children constantly that 'everything is Indian'. It's hilarious and the Indian writers send up the whole genre brilliantly.

http://www.beebfun.com/ggm.htm

Go to this page for a soundbyte sample where the son is reacting to the father with 'You're always going on about how everything is from India. It's all bullshit!' 'That is also Indian!' says the father.

What about the sexy midriff and navel, both of which are visible in a sari?

I know alot of men who say the sari is the world's most sensuous dress, in their opinion.

Both of you are disregarding the case of Madri, who, according to the Mahabharat, did indeed step onto the funeral pyre, as opposed to self-combusting like the other (com)busty ladies.

What can be gleaned from her case? Especially since Krishna was present on the Earth at that time?

Aren't you pushing it beyond value here? There are way many alternatives for women to look provocative in the West than resorting to wearing a sari. These men you are talking about next will probably think that sari is the world's most sensuous dress "second to a burka!". I wouldn't be surprised.

Yes, I know. I'm not saying that belly-dancing originated in India. But there is a theory like that out there.

The issue I was trying to address was Anand's disdain for American women taking to Islamic culture or aspects of "middle eastern" culture these days.

She herself has taken to aspects of Indian religion and culture. Why begrudge someone else the right to adopt a culture/religion of their choice?

What is the difference? They chant in Arabic. She chants in Sanskrit. They wear burka or a scarf on their head when they go to the mosque. She wears a sari, "punjabi suit", "gopi skirt" or scarf around her chest when she goes to the temple. They fast during Ramadan. She fasts during Ekadashi. They may take an interest in "belly dancing". She may take an interest in Bharat Natyam.

I think the real issue here is WHY American, British, and European people are taking to religions/cultures that are not indigenous to them. Why don't more American people look into Native American Indian culture? Why don't more British people look into Druid culture? Why the fascination with the EAST? The West has some pretty good religious/spiritual history too. Seems like you people are looking for the "EXOTIC" only.

Betal nut,
Just so you don't keep making assumptions that will flop your theory somewhere down the line, I don't disdain belly dancers, either in the west or east. I have joined a group myself and am getting pretty good at it. I can assure you my group does not fixate on the "exoctic" of it.

Why do Indian and Middle East women want so badly look and feel like weterners? There is nothing exotic here, in contrast.

"Exotic" does not just mean "dark". Whiteys can look pretty exotic to darkies simply because of their "otherness".

As far as Indian and Middle Easterners wanting to dress western; I guess because they like western style clothes. And, many times, western style clothes are much more practical and comfortable than long flowing robes and scarves.

I personally feel that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".

I generally dress in the clothes of the cultures of the countries I travel to while I am there. It seems fitting to do so. And, like the cuisine of a particular region is most fitting to the climate and atmosphere of that region, clothing seems to work in a similar way.

What is or is not exotic is in the eye of the beholder, and the grass is usually perceived as greener on the other side.

No. Ask any male what one of the sexiest parts of a woman's body are and most will say naval, midriff, along with breasts and butt.

That about covers it all. Where do you get these statistics, anyway?

Middle East women dress in western clothes for comfort you say. Well, just coincidently the other day, a friend of mine from Florida told me, while we chatted on the phone, that someone she knows who works at a Victoria Secret in Orlando, told her that the biggest sales of the most daring articles in the store are sold to Middle East women who come to the store to shop dressed in Burkas.

Now, you know , and I know, that Victoria Secret's style intimate clothing is anything but comfortable. That stupid attire is worn for men. What covers it, and what is under it.

This just in!

Male Readers Self-Immolate During Racy Discussion.

Females claim innocence but evidence points to revenge motive....More to follow.

"Otherness". Does it work? Otherness is to be observed, maybe admired, but If you try to become the other, what happens to your self? Better let things remain distinct. Sari in the West is different than in the East. Same with Burka, etc. Trying to imply hidden meanings to the exchanging of dressing styles is imposing some idea that is not there, in reality. It does not work. People are all different from each other. The dress may look the same, but it means different things, according to who wears it.

Well, first of all, most Americans do not have a Native American background and thus the Native American spirituality is not indigenous to them. Some do take an interest, though. I have a Caucasian friend who is practicing the religion of the Indians of South Dakota. His wife (from Japan) even converted to that religion when they got married. Another friend of mine has spent a lot of time learning from Native American shamans, and he even, under tribal immunity, participated in a ritual involving the use of peyote in Arizona (or was it New Mexico?). Apparently peyote invokes a strong spiritual experience, an experience which is described in the books of Carlos Castaneda.

In general, many Westeners are taking an interest in the spiritual traditions of the Western world. I, for one, have met my fair share of Wiccas and Neopagans here in the U.S. True, most of them practice a hodgepodge of a system rather than a truly traditional and logically consistent one (but I guess logical consistency is too much too ask for). What the proportion is between such people and those looking towards the East, I do not know.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no need to look towards the East for substantial spirituality. The exotic element is present in the West, too.

If you need to talk about each others' underwear, please do that in private.

We still have not got an answer to the question on whether or not pyre jumping is advocated in the Vedas.
Nor did we get an explanation on why Madri did this and Krishna did not stop her.

Check out how one hindu site seeks to explain the death of Gandhari;

RAJA RAMMOHAN ROY from The Hindu Universe

‘Suttee System’ Or ‘Sahagamana

Rammohan’s brother Jagmohan died. His wife Alakamanjari had to observe ‘Sahagamana’ (that is, she was to be burnt alive with the dead body).All arrangements were made for cremation. All the relatives gathered. Alakamanjari put on a laced-sari and there was ‘Kumkum’ on her forehead. (A mark of Kumkum’ or vermilion on the forehead is considered sacred by a Hindu wife; it is an indication that her husband is alive.) Her hair was disheveled. Fear was written upon her face. The corpse was brought to the cremation ground. Rammohan begged his sister-in-law not to observe ‘Suttee’. Relatives objected to Rammohan’s words. They bound her to the corpse and placed her on the funeral pyre with the corpse. The pyre was set on fire.

Alakamanjari screamed and cried in fear, but she was not set free. Poor woman! She was burnt to ashes along with her husband. All the relatives praised her shouting ‘Maha Sati! Maha Sati!’ (a great wife) and went back.

This heart-rending sight of his sister-in- law’s ‘Suttee’ made a deep impression on Rammohan’s mind. Then and there he took a vow to put an end to this dreadful. Custom. Some people believed that the scriptures said that the wife should die along with her husband. Rammohan referred to all the sacred books. But, nowhere was it laid down that the wife should perform ‘Suttee’. This custom had come into practice in some age. Some people who knew it was wrong did not have the courage to condiment. The brave Rammohan took up this difficult task.

But his task was not easy. Lakhs of people had faith in Suttee system. Many people opposed Rammohan and abused him. Some even tried to murder him. But Rammohan did not flinch. Even the people of the West, who saw all this wondered, when even the government was afraid to interfere in this matter, Rammohan risked his life and fought against this evil practice. In the end, he won and the government made ‘Suttee’ a crime.

Along with fight for the abolition of ‘Suttee’, Rammohan started a revolution for women’s education and women’s right to property. He showed that woman enjoyed equal freedom with man according to Hinduism.

Madri stepped into the pyre of her own accord. As far as I know, there is nothing there to suggest that this would have been a wide-spread practice at the time, or that people would have been encouraged or even forced to the same.

Krishna did not stop her, because He was not with her at that time. Remember, Krishna and the Pandavas were contemporaries, and Pandavas were children at that time, so He was probably still enjoying life in Vraja, or perhaps had just come to Mathura.

In Bhagavata 3.1.40, Vidura inquires about the welfare of Kunti, mentioning that she only lived for the sake of her now fatherless children. Perhaps the wives shared this deep attachment for Pandu, and since Kunti agreed to take care of the children, Madri felt being without a further purpose in this world, and decided to seek the afterlife.

Do you find sati objectionable, if done out of one's free will? Is euthanasia objectionable, for that matter? In general, is it acceptable to renounce one's life if one feels it no longer serves a meaningful purpose?

Yes, I find suicide objectionable just as Mahaprabhu did when Sanatan Goswami was determined to commit it.

Where is the comparison between sati and euthenasia?
One is where a sick person who can no longer function like a human being but is rather rendered a vegetable, asks not to be artifically kept alive by the use of tubes and needles being stuck in their body, but to rather be left to die a natural death, and the other is where someone has to artifically go out of their way to die an un-natural death.

Moreover, I am yet to find an example in any "vedic" shastra of a man entering the fire of his dead wife. This is another indicator that the practice, even if not widespread, was a type of socialization of women and mental gynocide.

And as in the case of Chota Haridas?



I suppose it could be possible that in such a society, the wife would feel her life thereafter to be in vain, devoid of purpose. Is euthanasia acceptable for physical reasons, and if so, is it acceptable for psychological reasons? Where is the line drawn?



There is little doubt over the fact that men and women did not enjoy equal rights in all regards in the ancient Indian culture, nor in practically any major ancient culture for that matter.

The practice of sati is not, by the way, limited to the Hindu heritage. That hasn't been mentioned anywhere yet.

You said it yourself, "in such a society". What kind of society brainwashes women into thinking their lives are uselesss without husbands?

Also, which society or country are you living in, in which euthanasia is "acceptable"?

Last I read and heard, it is CONTROVERSIAL everywhere.

Both Jagadananda and I have pointed out that the practice is generally traced to a hymn in the Rg-veda. Whether such an interpretation is valid is another matter (I am a little doubtful). I guess one could search the brAhmaNa literature to see what references to the practice are found there.


This has nothing to do with MadrI, but if we are to trust KalhaNa, who authored a history of KazmIra entitled RAja-taraGiNI, then KRSNa was a rather liberal person. After defeating and killing DAmodara, the king of KazmIra, KRSNa gave the throne of KazmIra to DAmodara's pregnant widow YazovatI. I am citing a few verses from Stein's translation below.


I thought that you might like this story.

I wouldn't say that societies brainwash people. I do not think there is any particular individual or group of individuals that is plotting behind the scenes. Of course a low regard for a human being, or for any living entity for that matter, is not a sign of very internally evolved culture.



I did not say whether it was acceptable or not. It is open to discussion. A topic which we might want to take up one of these days.

I belive it is legally acceptable at least in the Netherlands, Belgium, Northern Territory of Australia, and Oregon US. The fact that it is controversial means that there are a great deal of people who think of it as acceptable.

If a woman thinks Sati is acceptable I do not consider that an act of 'Free Will' so much as manipulated and oppressed by anti female Males..

Some would call it brainwashed...I agree

I mean lets face reality..the MEN weren't pyre jumpin when the wives kicked the bucket now were they..


Also let me add that a woman who would feel her life serves no purpose whatsoever after the death of her husband is a victim of self-esteem destruction caused by anti-life fanatics!

The same people who would venerate the cow and step around ants......
advocating gynocide. What kind of society are we dealing with here?
Bi-polar?

Let us consider the origin of the idea of male superiority for a moment. Was it founded at a particular moment in time, where a group of men decided to begin the oppression of the females? Or is it rather derived from the early days of mankind, where superior physical strength was the essence of survival? I would tend to think it is the latter. As culture constantly evolves away from the realities in which physical strength defines one's place in the social hierarchy, the values become balanced.

Let us, therefore, not scorn the past in such harsh words, but rather think of it as an aspect in the evolution of human culture. If we theorize on the premises in my paragraph above, it is indeed hard to conceive how things would have evolved in any other way. There's an old saying we have in Finland, "Show ye not an unfinished work unto fools and drunkards." Our present state of civilization is a far cry from perfect, yet we try our level best to progress towards the ideals we consider essential in life. Let us not be harsh unto the ways of our ancient forefathers, lest we be the object of the same in a millennia or two.

Now, all of that obviously doesn't make forced sati any more acceptable; however, I believe it would be a good idea to take a more wholistic approach to the matter to avoid our verdict being a fool's judgement.

"Bi-Polar?"

Betal-nut darling, bi-polar is so last month. Haven’t you heard yet? Multi-polar is the newest mental disorder women are dying for today.

Can a culture with an intricately designed and divided social structure, as well as metropolis city centers replete with learning centers really be considered the same as a pre-historic cave man type of existence where survival of the fittest and "physical strength defines one's place in the social hierarchy", as you put it?

If physical strength defined one's place in that social hierarchy then why did brahmins place number one there and not ksatriyas or even sudras who I'm sure had to have plenty of strength in order to "labour hard in the service of the upper castes"?

Sorry Madhava, but your theory just does not jive.

But I have noticed that this is not the first time you seek to explain away this practice, comparing it to euthanasia and "free will".

Do I sense some hidden misogyny on your part?
Machismo?
Purusha bhava?

The attitudes of inequality towards women that are found in many religions are there because of fear of sex and women.

This attitude was not so prevelant in pre 800 AD India.

What exactly is there to "glean"?

Madri was overcome with the loss of Pandu and decided to "follow" him by jumping into his funeral pyre, leaving Kunti to take care of all the kids including hers. That's all there is to "glean."

It is legal in Denmark. Or some Netherlands country, Holland or somewhere I forgot.

brahma vA idam agra AsIt, ekam eva; tad ekaM san na vyabhavat. tac chreyo rUpam atyasRjata kSatram, yAny etAni devatrA kSatrANi, indro varuNaH somo rudraH parjanyo yamo mRtyur IzAna iti. tasmAt kSatrAt paraM nAsti, tasmAt brAhmaNaH kSatriyam adhastAd upAste rAjasUye, kSatra eva tad yazo dadhAti; saiSA kSatrasya yonir yad brahma. tasmAd yady api rAjA paramatAm gacchati, brahmaivAntata upanizrayati svAm yonim. ya u enaM hinasti, svAM sa yonim Rcchati, sa pApIyAn bhavati, yathA zreyAMsaM hiMsitvA.

Verily, in the beginning this (world) was Brahman, one only. That, being one, did not flourish. He created further an excellent form, the KSatra power, even those who are KSatras (rulers) among the gods, Indra, VaruNa, Soma (Moon), Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, MRtyu (Death), IzAna. Therefore there is nothing higher than KSatra. Therefore at the RAjasUya sacrifice the BrAhmaNa sits below the KSatriya. On KSatrahood alone does he confer this honour. But the BrAhmaNa is nevertheless the source of the KSatra. Therefore, even if the king attains supremacy at the end of it, he resorts to the BrAhmaNa as his source. Therefore he who injures the BrAhmaNa strikes at his own source. He becomes more evil as he injures one who is superior. - BRhad. U. 1.4.11

sa naiva vyabhavat. sa vizam asRjata, yAny etAni devajAtAni gaNaza AkhyAyante, vasavo rudrA AdityA vizvedevA maruta iti.

Yet he did not flourish. He created the viz (the commonalty), these classes of gods who are designated in groups, the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, VizvedevAs and Maruts. - BRhad. U. 1.4.12


sa naiva vyabhavat, sa zaudraM varNam asRjata pUSaNam; iyaM vai pUSA, iyaM hIdaM sarvaM puSyati yad idaM kiM ca.

He did not still flourish. He created the Zudra order as PUSan. Verily, this (earth) is PUSan (the nourisher), for she nourishes everything that is. - BRhad. U. 1.4.13


sa naiva vyabhavat. tac chreyo-rUpam atyasRjata dharmam: tad etat kSatrasya kSatram yad dharmaH, tasmAd dharmAd paraM nAsti: atho abalIyAn balIyAMsam AzaMsate dharmeNa, yathA rAjJA evam. yo vai sa dharmaH satyaM vai tat: tasmAt satyaM vadantam ahuH, dharmaM vadatIti, dharmaM vA vadantam satyaM vadatIti, etad hy evaitad abhayaM bhavati.

Yet he did not flourish. He created further an excellent form, justice. This is the power of the KSatriya class, viz. justice. Therefore there is nothing higher than justice. So a weak man hopes (to defeat) a strong man by means of justice as one does through a king. Verily, that which is justice is truth. Therefore they say of a man who speaks the truth , he speaks justice or a man who speaks justice that he speaks the truth. Verily, both these are the same. - BRhad. U. 1.4.14


tad etad brahma kSatraM viT zUdraH. tad agninaiva deveSu brahmAbhavat, brAhmaNo manuSyeSu, kSatriyeNa kSatriyah, vaizyena vaizyaH, zUdrena zUdraH; tasmAd agnAv eva deveSu lokam icchante, brAhmaNe manuSyeSu, etAbhyAM hi rUpAbhyAM brahmAbhavat. atha yo ha vA asmAl lokAt svaM lokam adRSTvA praiti, sa enam, avidito na bhunakti, yathA vedo vAnanUktaH anyad vA karmAkRtam. yad iha vA apy anevaMvid mahat-puNyam karma karoti, taddhAsyAntataH kSIyata eva, AtmAnam eva lokam upAsIta; sa ya AtmAnam eva lokaM upAste, na hAsya karma kSIyate, asmAdd hy eva Atmano yad yat kAmayate tat tat sRjate.

So these (four orders were created) the BrAhmaNa, the Ksatriya, the Vaizya and the ZUdra. Among the gods that BrahmA existed as Fire, among men as BrAhmaNa, as a KSatriya by means of the (divine) KSatriya, as a Vaizya by means of the (divine) Vaizya, as a ZUdra by means of the (divine) ZUdra. Therefore people desire a place among the gods through fire only, and among men as the BrAhmaNa, for by these two forms (pre-eminently) BrahmA existed. If anyone, however, departs from this world without seeing (knowing) his own world, it being unknown, does not protect him, as the Vedas unrecited or as a deed not done do not (protect him). Even if one performs a great and holy work, but without knowing this, that work of his is exhausted in the end. One should meditate only on the Self as his (true) world. The work of him who meditates on the Self alone as his world is not exhausted for, out of that very Self he creates whatsoever he desires. - BRhad. U. 1.4.15

(Translations by S. Radhakrishnan)

And I wonder why that might be?

Both in the barbarian society and in the more evolved society of conquering warrior kings, the superiority of a human was largely estimated on the basis of his physical prowess and cleverness in battle; yet the physically inferior beings, the opposite sex, had the power to enchant and bewilder even the greatest among the strong. The insecurity born out of that was the obvious reason behind the establishment of laws and traditions related to women.

In old societies, such as among the Vikings, where you read legends of respected women, they were almost invariably fierce warriors. That was the standard by which leaders were chosen, and by which respect was gained.

If only the feminist movement would have risen to arms and fought their war
for equality (or superiority?) a millennia or two ago, when there would have been no international community to prevent the use of such tactics, they would have much less to complain about these days.



What's the historical data do you have to support this?

Well, proving one's worth as a warrior was common in the Vedic society. Think of the marriage ceremonies you read of, where warriors would come and combat to win the hand of the princess by proving their abilities in a variety of ways.



Not mere physical strength as in big muscles, but the strength of a warrior.



For you, it seems there are no philosophers or scholars. There are only people who are either on your side or against you.

If believe it is appropriate to cast a judgement on practices without knowing what led to them, the very reasons for their existence. There may be unavoidable evils faced in the growth of the human race, practices we would certainly not condone nowadays, but which were predictable and practically natural in the climate of the times.

"Women enjoyed far greater freedom in the Vedic period than in later India. She had more to say in the choice of her mate than the forms of marriage might suggest. She appeared freely at feasts and dances, and joined with men in religious sacrifice. She could study, and like Gargi, engage in philosophical disputation. If she was left a widow there were no restrictions upon her remarriage."
Will Durant (1885-1981)

The history of the most of the known civilizations show that the further back we go into antiquity, the more unsatisfactory is found to be the general position of women. Hindu civilization is unique in this respect, for here we find a surprising exception to the general rule. The further back we go, the more satisfactory is found to be the position of women in more spheres than one; and the field of education is most noteworthy among them. There is ample and convincing evidence to show that women were regarded as perfectly eligible for the privilege of studying the Vedic literature and performing the sacrifices enjoined in it down to about 200 B.C. This need not surprise us, for some of the hymns of the Rig Veda are the compositions of rishnis or poetesses. Some twenty different hymns were composed by poetesses. Visvara, Sikaata, Nivavari, Ghosha, Romasa, Lopamudra, Apala and Urvasi are the names of some of them. Man could perform the Vedic sacrifices only if he had his wife by his side.
(source: Education in Ancient India - By A. S. Altekar p. 207-209 Nand Kishore & Bros. Varanasi.1965).

Women, who once enjoyed an honored position and are found in the Upanishads conversing freely with men upon the highest philosophical topics, had become virtual slaves in the joint family. With the expansion of Vedic religion in Northern India and possibly also under the impacts of threats from the outside, a definition of the place of women in the Aryan society took place, which amounted to increasing restriction of their independence and a clear preponderance of patriarchal rule. What has been described so far as "Vedic law for women" was largely the tradition followed in North India, the Aryavarta, the Hindu heartland, South India, and to some extent also Bengal and Assam, preserved elements of pre-Vedic matriarchy. In certain South Indian castes the line of inheritance is from mother to (eldest) daughter, and marriage is a "visiting" relationship. Naturally, women were more independence and free in every respect. Rise up woman," so runs a text of the Rig Veda (X, 18.8) "thou art lying by one whose life is gone, come to the world of the living, away from thy husband, and become the wife of him who holds thy hand and is willing to marry thee."
(source: Civilization Through The Ages - By P. N. Bose p. 126-127).

In ancient India, Hindu women did not veil their faces and they enjoyed considerable amount of freedom in society. But repeated attacks on Hindu India by foreigners through centuries changed the situation. (For more on foreign invasions, please refer to chapter History of Hinduism).
During such aggressions, and also when India was under foreign occupation, the honor and chastity of women often became the casualties. There have been numerous cases when Hindu women killed themselves rather than yield to indignities inflicted by the aggressors. As a result, Hindu society, became more protective about its women. The freedom of women was curtailed. To protect themselves Hindu women started to cover their faces with veils and started to stay home. Their participation in social events was greatly restricted.
(source: The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World's Oldest Religion - By Swami Bhaskarananda p. 52-53).

Arabs from Arabia, began entering Hindustan from around 800 AD.

Madhava I like you alot...

I take it all with a grain of salt. Nearly every tradition defends its benevolent treatment of women in the ancient past. These were likely exceptions rather than the rule.

Well Madhava, that is exactly what I've been trying to do with the thread -- understand what led to this practice.

You and GS say that Madri was so afflicted by grief over the death of her hubby that she willingly entered the fire. Fair enough. That may be true. But my question is and has been from the beginnning -- what were the elements in her particular culture that allowed someone to publicly commit suicide with no repise from family, friends, society at large. Certainly nowadays if my mother or your's were to do such a thing in front of others, we would try to stop them. It would probably make news and some laws might have to be enacted. So my quest is to find out why suicide in front of others[I] was not dealt with negatively by the law of the land[I]. The laws reflect the society as a whole, it's values, belief systems, etc. I feel that because female suicide was present without protest (supposedly) at that time, it is a reflection on how that particular society at large felt about women. Moreover, Madri and her family were well-known leaders of the society and with that position comes greater responsiblity to set an example for society and act for the benefit of other people. Krishna says in Gita that what great persons do, common ones follow. So what kind of example did her act give and what impact might it had on others? I don't see Madri's case as an isolated one of "she just wanted to do it and that's all there is to it".

Gargi, though often mentioned as an example of female presence in the Vedic canon, is only featured in one of the oldest Upanishads, namely the Brihadaranyaka. Even in that text, she certainly does not engage in "philosophical disputation," but rather, as any good disciple would, submissively inquired from Yajnavalkya about matters pertaining to the imperishable Brahman. Gargi, by the way, was the daughter of sage Vacaknu, and a bit of an insider. Interestingly, at the end of the sixth brAhmaNa, she is told: "'O Gargi, Do not ask too much, lest thy head should fall off!"

I browsed through Aitareya, Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Katha, Kausitaki, Maitrayana-bhramaya, Mundaka, Narayana, Prasna, Satyayaniya, Svetasvatara, Taittiriya, Talavakara and Vajrasucika. If you have references to other sources where Gargi appears, I would be interested in having them.



Does someone have further information on the RSnIs mentioned here? Which hymns are written by them?



The edition I have (Griffith, 1889) reads:


Comments from those of us more accomplished in Vedic Sanskrit? At any rate, the translation in the text of Bose suggesting remarriage in the midst of a funeral rite seems absurd.



But the practice of sati predates that, doesn't it?

I suppose they shared a different conception of honor and dignity than we do, and a different attitude towards death. "Today is a good day to die," as the proverb of a certain race of warriors puts it.


On the other hand, the women did not enter the battlefield alongside with their men, who faced death willingly and with a courageous heart, knowing that the pleasures of heaven await those who die in a righteous battle.

Imagine if Mr. Bush Jr. were to give a pep-talk to his troops in Iraq, eulogizing the glories and heavenly rewards of the men who died a in a battle for righteousness, in the name of democracy and the God of the great America.

There is a grand gulf of values between the ancient Indian society and the modern society. I would suggest we examine what's at the root of the values they held dear to themselves, and try to understand what led individuals to accept decisions such as Madri's, or on the other hand such as the men who died in battle for a cause they felt was worthy.

Let me put my simple suggestion. Madri did a prayachit. Pandu had a curse from a muni that if you do sex, he will die that was his curse. So both Kunthi and Madri were protecting him by not having sex. But latter Madri agitated him and that made him die. So not to suffer the consequence she decided to go with him to heaven. So she did a sin and she accepted punishment willingly. Just another version of it. (According to manu get punishment here itself than taking another birth and getting more punishment)

Well if that was true then how come Kunti also had three children? Kunti's children were the elder ones, and Madri's the youngest.

None of them were conceived by Pandu, if memory serves. Yudhisthira was the son of Dharma, Bhima of Vayu, Arjuna of Indra, and Nakula and Sahadeva of the Asvinis.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that, lol..

I will agree with that....

Men have always had a fear of women and thus a need to keep em rounded up!
In the so-called golden age and even today!

http://www.indianest.com/hinduism/panchkanya/pk01.htm

Jungian analysis of the panchakanya - five virgins of hindu epic lore.

The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987

Several of Krishna's wives performed sati upon his death, including Rukmini, Rohini, Devaki, Bhadraa and Madura
M.Bh. Mausalaparvan 7.18

Madri, second wife of Pandu, considered an incarnation of the goddess Dhriti, performed sati
M.Bh. Adiparvan 95.65

The 8 queens of Krishna, who have been named, with Rukmini at their head, embraced the body of Hari, and entered the funeral fire. Revati also embracing the corpse of Rama, entered the blazing pile, which was cool to her, happy in contact with her lord. Hearing these events, Ugrasena and Anakadundubhi, with Devaki and Rohini, committed themselves to the flames.
Vishnu Pur. 5.38

Now that's men and women alike, Ugrasena and Vasudeva too!

You ever see the movie 'Wicker Man'..?

With all this talk about characters in the Mahabharat, Puranas, etc. the question comes up...... have any of these characters or events been verified by neutral archeological evidence or by historians like many of the characters and events in the Torah and New Testament have?

Well, has anything in the history of India been verified in any way whatsoever?

Yes, there are many history books, indian and world that tells of histories. Looking through my world history book under India, there is no mention of Pandu, Dhrtrastra, etc. That is what I'm talking about.

Archeologists, with Bible in hands, went into the middle east to see what they could find and if anything matched up to what was written there. Many things did.
Has anything been done like that in India?

Buddhism generally has more success in verifying its claims than Hinduism. For example there is a place where Buddha is supposed to have been buried, and they have actually found an ancient skeleton there. The simple reason Buddhism is more successful though is that its claims are generally more reasonable. Extravagant claims require exceptional evidence. When the relationship between the evidence and the claims is in inverse proportion, then some other factor than history seems to be involved.

To be fair, many Buddhist myths are just that, with no evidence for them.

And there has been a Christian bias in biblical archeology, to the extent that I'm not sure what 'neutral archeological evidence' betelnut refers to. For example there is little evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed, and good reason to believe his cult emerged out of a mix of previous ones. The evidence for the Biblical Patriarchs is also sketchy and contradictory. The part of the bible which is most useful is just the names. It preserves some ancient names we would not have heard of otherwise, such as the Hittites, who were regarded as mythical till their literate civilization was discovered in Anatolia.

Constantly since the advent of Indian archeology they have been searching for the evidence of Ramayana, Mahabharata etc. First westerners, then Indians like the great BB Lal who thought he would find something because the westerners had been 'biased'. He was active in the 1950's after Independence, the assertion of a new Indian national identity. Nehru would have loved to find evidence of a great past for India as much as anyone. He had bad relations with his Hindu contemporaries, but he was still a Hindu himself.

But between the declining Indus valley civilization and the rise of Buddhism in mid 1st millenium bce, they have found no substantial settlements. Only some different types of pottery spread across the North, indicating nomads. Search 'painted grey ware' all researched by BB Lal.

That is why the push began to claim Indus valley as Hindu, just as Pakistan claimed it as 'pre-Muslim' and so the nationalistic struggle for history began!

Now they have found a previously unknown civilization in Persia, the Jiroft culture:

http://www.laputanlogic.com/story/2004/04/30-0001.html

This is very ancient, its artifacts have been found in the Indus valley, it may have legible writing (unlike the Indus 'script'), and it is midway between the Indus and slightly older Mesopotamian civilization. Indicating a path of influence outside present day India, in a place where the Vedic Zoroastrian sister culture emerged. What if the writing is decoded and found to be ancient Aryan Persian? Would this then be the source of India's Vedic culture?