C
Devadasi system is a remnant of the effects of a historic mistake. The people who invented this perhaps were sincere in their belief that the Deities in the temple needed dedicated souls to serve them. but the idea was badly conceived. The single woman soon found it difficult to carry on in the society without a male's support and fell prey to rich men looking for pleasure for money. Sathir was a dance form in which special stress was placed on certain movements to appeal to the carnal desires of men. This was modified by later artistes and it became the popularly accepted Bharatanatyam dance form.
I feel there is no need to revive the Devdasi system as temples do not need them. For men looking for a nights stand there are regular whorehouses and they need not look for artistes.
Is it true that rich men DON'T 'search' for artists? :spy:
Please see the web to know the plight of some pretty women artists! :sad:
Men are men.
Sati was not a Hindu practice. It came into the culture midway because of Muslims forcefully taking away the women from a vanquished king. When Dasarath died his wives did not end up with him in funeral pyre. That is sufficient proof. When Muslims lost power in India sati was no more a self preservation measure. So it went without any one lamenting.The Colonial-India took steps to prevent the Devadasi system.
The British Raj has taken steps to prevent the Devadasi system in their colonial, but for the political reasons, some of our leaders hide the facts, and trying to divert the common peoples' attention against them. There is no mood to accept the facts that we have been exist with negative arguments. A wrong idea, like that the English is our enemy has been imposed upon us aged longer.The neutrality will be realized if examined.
We should not refuse that the British Raj played an important role in abolishing the cruel 'sati' practice were widely spread in the North India. It has been revealed by an evidence that a Devadasi woman in Tamil Nadu also take into the sati. While this, the British India forbidden all these ill-practiced by stern action
Sati was not a Hindu practice. It came into the culture midway because of Muslims forcefully taking away the women from a vanquished king. When Dasarath died his wives did not end up with him in funeral pyre. That is sufficient proof. When Muslims lost power in India sati was no more a self preservationWhen Padu measure. So it went without any one lamenting.
Sati was not a Hindu practice. It came into the culture midway because of Muslims forcefully taking away the women from a vanquished king. When Dasarath died his wives did not end up with him in funeral pyre. That is sufficient proof. When Muslims lost power in India sati was no more a self preservation measure. So it went without any one lamenting.
In mahabharata:
When Pandu died, Kunti decided to die on her husband’s pyre being a Sati but Madri insisted that she will not be able to live in the world alone with the guilt that her husband died because of her. She chose to become Sati instead and leaped on Pandu’s pyre leaving her two sons with Kunti. Kunti was now a mother of five sons with no husband and no palace.
https://thegreatindianepic.com/tag/madri/
I do not believe there was Islam at the time of Mahabharata. So Islam was NOT the cause of Sati.
This does not change the position of facts one small bit.
It is Kunti who decided on her own. It is Madri who decided on her own. They decided with their own free will on the basis of their own circumstances like my friend's wife who died the moment she knew that her husband was no more.
This does not change the position that there was no Sati practised as an established ritual in the Hindu dharma. So Dasarath's wives decided not to die and they lived. Ramayana is older than Mahabharata chronologically.
Whereas, it is a fact that the sultans and mughals who ruled from Delhi and elsewhere did take away by force the women folk from a defeated king and it is also recorded history that such women died either in the pyre of their husband or by lighting a funeral pyre for themselves to escape the fate of ending up as a sex slaves in the harem of a sultan or a lesser General. So even Sati as we know it and as we call it was a later day phenomena and that practice came about with all its halo of veneration only because of the Muslim kings and their aboriginal ways. Britishers ended this abominable practice by using their law making powers because they were in power after defeating the muslims and they did not have the kind of harems that the muslims had.
The Englishman has also a lot in the history of his evolution to feel ashamed off. Burning at the stakes is just one of the many examples. Not that they were born angels.
This answers post #33 and 34.
Sati as self-preservation. Wow! What are they preserving and who are they preserving for?
It is well-known that the main Indian person who worked with the British to outlaw sati was Raja Rammohun Roy. He was not fighting the Muslims.
Roy was a Bengali who saw the plight of 100s of widows who were forced to commit sati when their decrepit old husband died. This was often the case in Bengal where 100s of old girls were married to one old man so that the girls' caste was "preserved".
Sati as self-preservation. Wow! What are they preserving and who are they preserving for?
It is well-known that the main Indian person who worked with the British to outlaw sati was Raja Rammohun Roy. He was not fighting the Muslims.
Roy was a Bengali who saw the plight of 100s of widows who were forced to commit sati when their decrepit old husband died. This was often the case in Bengal where 100s of old girls were married to one old man so that the girls' caste was "preserved".
Important achievements are dismissed flippantly because they are inconvenient truths.
Even though "sati" is outlawed, but still today widows are deprived of getting any share of husbands wealth. Poor women have to flock to Vrindavan.
In south,west or the mid India sati was not heard of and was not practised.
Mahabharat did not happen in South India, Sati was practiced there.
The ancient Hindu tradition called ‘sati’ (or ‘suttee’), wherein a widow would burn herself to death on her husband’s pyre, was initially a voluntary act that was considered to be quite courageous and heroic, but it later became a forced practice. Although sati is now banned all over India and no longer practised, it has a rather dark history that you must know.
According to ancient Hindu customs, sati symbolised closure to a marriage. It was a voluntary act in which, as a sign of being a dutiful wife, a woman followed her husband to the afterlife. It was, therefore, considered to be the greatest form of devotion of a wife towards her dead husband.
With time, it became a forced practice. Women who did not wish to die like this were forced to do so in different ways. Traditionally, a widow had no role to play in society and was considered a burden. So, if a woman had no surviving children who could support her, she was pressurised to accept sati.
Historical records tell us that sati first appeared between 320 to 550 CE, during the rule of Gupta Empire. Incidents of sati were first recorded in Nepal in 464 CE, and later on in Madhya Pradesh in 510 CE. The practice then spread to Rajasthan, where most number of sati cases happened over the centuries.
Initially, the practice of sati was confined to royal families of the Kshatriya caste and only later spread to the lower castes, becoming widely practised among all social classes.
Sati was at its peak between the 15th and 18th centuries. During this period, as many as 1000 widows were burned alive every year, most commonly in India and Nepal.
https://theculturetrip.com/asia/ind...behind-sati-a-banned-funeral-custom-in-india/
So Mr. Vaagmi as usual partial Knowledge or accepting only the facts convenient to your position.
So friend, You are as usual copy pasting "convenient" material available on the net dozen a dime.
I make a simple request to you. Please give me proof that Sati was a part of practices stipulated in Hindu Dharma.
If you have any material from Dharmic scriptures(Sruti, Smriti etc.,) please validate your position with them. Then I will accept Your position. Till then your words will remain unvalidated.
Your copy pasting convenient passages from some unheard of sites in the net is just as good as manufacturing them for argument's sake. Period.
As usual, your understanding is muddied.
Show me where I said that Sati was prescribed in Dharmic scripture?
It was practiced and I have shown more than enough proof for that.
It is similar to saying:
Show me you have Vashnava Gene in your body, then I will believe that you are an Iyengar.
LOL. You are losing your temper now. And you are indulging in name calling.
Read my posts again before going to sleep. You will find that I have been saying right from the begining that Sati has nothing to do with Hindu dharma and that you have been arguing against that quoting lengthy C&P passages from net.
And it is obvious from what you have written above that you are losing sleep because of Iyengars. LOL.
Tell them that you have a friend in me-an iyengar and they may relent.
Dont get nightmares of Iyengars. They are sharp but good people
God bless you. Sleep well.
Dont get nightmares of Iyengars. They are sharp but good people
God bless you. Sleep well.
Dear friends
With the serious efforts taken by the Raja Ram Mohan Roy the Bengal viceroy, Lord William Pending has enacted the law in the year 1829 and banned the 'sati' practice. However, this practice adopted in some independent states were not under the British Raj's direct control. Only in the year 1987 the Rajasthan Govt enacted the law in her state, and this was conceded as an act in the assembly in 1988.
Here a reasonable doubt may rise to the readers as that, why the Rajasthan Government takes a very long time to enact this act, even it was enacted as a law to prevent 'sati' in the Britis Raj, say in the year 1829. Does it really need 159 years to frame a law to the Rajasthan state in freedom India, though the British- India achieved 159 years ago?
One who easily understands at that time the Hindu Kingdoms were ruled over in the Rajasthan and it is an independent state as well. It's an important thing to note that no Mughal or Nawab rulers ruled in the Rajasthan at that time. Here this was why the HINDU KINGS couldn't take steps to prevent the sati practices in their native state? What else could it have been except for the reactionary 'Hindutva' policies of our Hinduism?
Are Iyengrs sharp compared to Iyers or is it a general statement?
Are Iyengrs sharp compared to Iyers or is it a general statement?