Originally posted by myviewprem
I have diff view
I respect your views wholeheartedly.. 
Is loved one in life only spouse or lover
I didn't mention that.. Maya would die for her Mom too! I didn't mention about spouse/lover.. But I would like to discuss about it more..
Cannot ppl live for their parents or siblings
Parents spend 25 years of their life all their hard earned money on kids and forgo all life pleasure, sleep etc to bring us up and young folks will start acting crazy in love as if love is everything and lover is only family thats wrong.
Your siblings there with you for first 25-30 years of life take care of you, save you from all problems and punishments and lover comes you forget the siblings. Cannot ppl live for those that have lived for them for 25 years when they were small and vulnerable and sacrificed all for siblings sake.
Cannot ppl live for their kids or neice and nephews
Why our society thinks only lover or spouse is everything and without them other person should not live or act as if world is over
Will parents agree on this point? The same parents who had grown up & brought up us in decent manner only wants to have a life with strangers! They only say or point out someone(he/she) will take care of her/him like all combination of relationship (Like a Mom.. Dad.. Friend.. Siblings)
So who is wrong here?
Parents or we?
In love marriage too, she/he expects the same thing from their partners (who expects a mom,dad,friend, siblings in their hubby/wife)
So after the age of 25 as you said, Parents directs us to a spouse/lover/partner & saying he/she is everything for you..
So automatically our mind and heart also start to accept that .. Where ppls live a life after their mom/dad/siblings/friends died too! But it's going difficult when your partner dies only.. So it's not the problem of our mentality.. It's of society..
In earlier days, wife dies on the spot where Husband dies jumping into the fire called Sati-Husband's funeral pyre..
Whose mistake is this?
That is movie romanticism not real life. In real life by death or separation of lover or spouse ppl do not stop living. Few may stop living but not all majority will move on in life. Life is running water not stagnant
I would prefer Rudra or Maya whoever survives lives and does good work for his/her family and society
I again agree on your point.. Having memories of loved one & live a whole life just by thinking of their memories will be painful which have been narrated in the story of Ramayana..
Sita-Ram faced the same kind of life.. which has so many difficulties..
Sita lived for her kids & Ram lived for his peoples.. but their love was there & Unique!
I am talking here of obsessive lovers here in my above statements not normal humans
obsessive lovers who end life if lover dies
or obsessive lovers who cannot take rejection of love and throw acid or end life
I think parents must give freedom to kids to choose spouse or even to choose if they really want to marry and when etc
But you see in indian society usually marraiges take place at very young age and usually parents decide spouse for them based on parents criteria
Now i come to the fact why indian children quietly accept parents marriage decision because many are not financially independent, many are not well educated cannot get jobs are dependent on parents for living, some do not have braveness to rebel at all, few are over obedient, few like rudra said have younger sibling and family responsibilities etc many reasons for accepting parents choice of spouse even if they dislike. We are not an individual culture like US where after 16 years of age kids work and fund own education and than do job and live life independent of family and parents. Till 25 years parents fund education, food, even marraige funds. So that is why kids remain obedient not out of any real respect in first place they have no choice in life. Second our society hate kids who rebel against parents on any view be it marraige or education etc and do not let them live in peace
But for an educated man like rudra no such restriction is there
Rudra could always leave house if mj had not agreed for maya being his wife but he never told parents at all here
With rudra you cannot say he was forced in marraige, he only proposed marraige first not MJ in order to avoid his feeling for maya
We cannot blame Mj and antara for fixing rudras marraige to ananya not maya
I will say this now rudra is wrong in choice of partner, if mj knows mayas real intention does he not have right to stop rudra. He tried stopping rishi and he died.
But if parents advice correctly too will kids be ready to listen in life, noo. So i would say let them learn hard way let them fall and learn. But many indian parents get obsessed they do not allow kids to fall and learn always hand holding goes on thats way society is but
Lets leave sati apart it was done more for social reason than religious. In olden days women were not financially independent at all. Once husband dies she became dependent on in laws and in laws do not want that burden so they insisted on sati. Sometimes womens parents and brothers also forced her to do sati as they do not want to look after her all life financially. Society alone cannot be blamed. Many ppl lived after husband died in 16th century too.
I would like to give example of some princess of mewar in 15th and 16th century.
Mewars king rao maldeo had many daughters. One daughter married sher shah suri emperor and when he died she went and stayed with her younger brother. Another daughter married bahadur shah king of Gujarat when he died she went and stayed in her sisters house(sisters sasural husband house). Another daughter married Haji khan she stayed with her brother udai singh after husband death, youngest daughter rukmavathi married akbar, she stayed with prince salim after akbars death, another daughter married maharana pratap she lived with maharana amar singh(son of maharana) after ranas death etc Many of these princess were hardly 25 years or 30 years when their husbands died so they lived with their step sons or sisters or brothers house of their choice i guess whom ever they wanted to stay with. So it was not like sati was compulsory after husband death. If they had someone who would take care of them financially etc they lived with those relatives. Although in 15th century sati was very prevelant that too in rajasthan all these rajputh rajasthani princess lived. So its not like sati was society mandated only. I have taken only ne family i can give many other queen name who did not die after husbands death and lived with siblings or sons etc. Many did not have own siblings they were step siblings or many did not have own kids all step kids yet they lived with them. Because those step siblings and step kids were ready to take care of these women and not force them to do sati at such young ages. So they lived. Some even stayed in their sisters sasurals, how good humans their sisters husbands must be to take care of sisters siblings all life.
In 21st century can a sister go and stay in another sisters sasural all life? I doubt. But in 16th century ppl were so good and family oriented they gave shelter to wife's widowed sister. In 21st century will step sons be ready to take care of step moms all life? Very rare today own sons not ready to take care of mother forget a step son. But in 16th century a step mom was also respected like an own mother and stayed with step sons. Its not like if they have no kids they are abondoned by step kids. In 21st century all this scenario is unthinkable. So some practice like sati may be bad in olden times. But other systems were good and better than todays times.
Edited by myviewprem - 5 years ago