Hindus - Pagan Stone Worshippers???? - Page 9

Originally posted by: Summer3

Well it is healthier than discussing homosexuality😆

And how or why is that 😕

Originally posted by: zorrro

And how or why is that 😕

One achieves God when remembering God at the time of departure, love or extreme hatred of God does not matter.

Originally posted by: zorrro

Trying to judge incidents out of context and in an isolated manner is limiting.

Ram ji must have surely known about Sita ji's innocence but he gave more priority to his duties as a king over his duty as a husband keeping in with the culture of those times. The notion of duty, responsibility especially that which is contrary to self interest is fast becoming alien to the present culture and I find Ram ji's actions being judged from that yardstick.

As for Yudhisir's action I dont remember reading about any justification for it in any of the books I read.

No one said anything about anything being correct simply because of it being part of a holy book ,. I would prefer to see these incidents from a historical context to a mythological or religious one.

Rama and Sita are actually the same God playing different roles.

Originally posted by: zorrro

Trying to judge incidents out of context and in an isolated manner is limiting.

Ram ji must have surely known about Sita ji's innocence but he gave more priority to his duties as a king over his duty as a husband keeping in with the culture of those times. The notion of duty, responsibility especially that which is contrary to self interest is fast becoming alien to the present culture and I find Ram ji's actions being judged from that yardstick.

As for Yudhisir's action I dont remember reading about any justification for it in any of the books I read.

No one said anything about anything being correct simply because of it being part of a holy book ,. I would prefer to see these incidents from a historical context to a mythological or religious one.

This argument that Ramaji exiled Sitaji to fulfil his duties as a King has been beaten to death in another similar thread😆...but even if Ram ji gave priority to his duties as a king over that of a husband...he failed in that also...the first duty of a King is to be fair and just towards all...Sri Ram KNEW that Sita ji was pavitra...there was no doubt in his mind...but still he did what was unfair to Sitaji...where did the kings duty of being fair to all disappear...not only was he unfair to Sita ji...but he cheated his praja as well ...he kept them under the illusion that Sitaji was wrong and hence banished...was it not his duty as a king to make his praja aware of the truth?...but he didn't...he failed his wife and he failed his praja...by not bringing out the truth in front of everyone...if he had an iota of doubt in his mind about Sitaji's innocence then...may be ...just may be his action would have been justified...

Originally posted by: zorrro

Trying to judge incidents out of context and in an isolated manner is limiting.

Ram ji must have surely known about Sita ji's innocence but he gave more priority to his duties as a king over his duty as a husband keeping in with the culture of those times. The notion of duty, responsibility especially that which is contrary to self interest is fast becoming alien to the present culture and I find Ram ji's actions being judged from that yardstick.

As for Yudhisir's action I dont remember reading about any justification for it in any of the books I read.

No one said anything about anything being correct simply because of it being part of a holy book ,. I would prefer to see these incidents from a historical context to a mythological or religious one.

You know why people don't bother justifying Yudhishtir's act of mortgaging his wife but get overtly defensive about Ram's banishment and subsequent humiliation of Sita? Simply because Ram is widely accepted as God-incarnate while Yudhistir is an ordinary man.

I ask you, what is the meaning of Dharma? As per my understanding Dharma means righteousness. Righteousness has got nothing to do with prevalent norms and customs. Which definition of Dharma requires you to banish an innocent lady and later ask her to prove her purity by jumping into fire just because few illiterate washer-men had questioned her character? Dharma would have been upheld if Ram had changed the prevalent norms, which clearly were unfair to womenfolk, instead of pandering such worthless customs to protect his ancestors' pride. What Ram did was not justice but pain appeasement.

If you keep aside theology and see Ramayan from a humanistic POV, you'll find its full of misogyny. Sita is portrayed as a feeble, spineless, submissive woman who has no existence without a man, who draws veil up to her eyes and walks two steps behind her husband, who is supposed to remain within Maryada-Rekha (i.e. lines drawn for women by men) but infringes it and gets kidnapped bringing great dishonour upon her family, then rescued (a great favour!) by her husband but immediately rejected and is required to prove her purity - in otherwords, prove that you didn't give in and sleep with your kidnapper - in order to be accepted back; how to do that? By jumping into fire. Now after being accepted by her husband (another great favour!) the couple return to their kingdom and get back their throne. Everything goes well unless a group of washermen passes disparaging comments on her character which Ram overhears and decides that he must abandon Sita and salvage the precious honour of his ancestors. The next day Ram has Lakshman stealthily escorted Sita out of the kingdom; though Sita, being the ever-obedient wife who never questions her husband's orders, is clueless of her plight unless she finds Lakshman sailing away leaving her on the banks of Yamuna. Years pass and she, now living in the house of a sage who picked her up while she lay unconscious in a forest, gives birth to twins and by accident of fate, they meet Ram and he decides to call them back at the behest of the sage. But once again the same question hangs before her. Ram, in front of the entire court and his own children, asks Sita to jump into fire once again in order to prove her purity and that the kids were Ram's legitimate offspring and not Ravan's. Sita's misery finally ends when she's swallowed up by mother earth (that's a better way of saying she committed suicide).

For this entire career of submission, subservience and her willingness to be victimized Sita is known as the model-wife and ideal woman! Did she ever show any strength of character? No. Did she ever speak for her self-respect? Never. And that is precisely why a patriarchal society would consider her to be ideal woman - because they can kick her, humiliate her, burn her but she won't even issue a feeble wail in her defense! Man has drawn up all such ideas like 'modesty', 'chastity', mandatory veiling etc not for women's security but for his own immense insecurities. A patriarchal society's obsession with women's 'purity' (as very much apparent in Ramayan) is the root cause of evils like honour killing and female genital mutilation.

Unfortunately since these stories and figures have got the tag of divinity they never receive the sort of criticism that they deserve. I don't mean that Ram is evil or outrightly bad character. He is genuinely good and loyal person, but with his own share of flaws and limitations.

Ram gave in to the will of people. He was democratic in his decision. He did not hold a different standard for his wife. People from California (or any other democratic part of the world) would understand. See Prop 8. How did it come in law? People's will. Of course there is a way to reverse that and hence the women are allowed to vote in today's age. What Ram did looks wrong from today's yardstick... does not mean he did wrong then.

Originally posted by: TheUltimate

Ram gave in to the will of people. He was democratic in his decision. He did not hold a different standard for his wife. People from California (or any other democratic part of the world) would understand. See Prop 8. How did it come in law? People's will. Of course there is a way to reverse that and hence the women are allowed to vote in today's age. What Ram did looks wrong from today's yardstick... does not mean he did wrong then.

Democracy, by no means portend to giving in to undue demands of the people. California, or any other democratic part of the world, commoner's whims and wishes do not frame or execute laws. Laws are made and maintained by experts who are adept in ideas of justice and fairplay. If Americans demand unjust treatment of an innocent will American judiciary 'give in to will of people' in the name of democracy? By that logic conservative societies - which have widely prevalent lopsided norms and customs - would never have any chance of carrying out justice.

In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place - Mahatma Gandhi.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Democracy, by no means portend to giving in to undue demands of the people. California, or any other democratic part of the world, commoner's whims and wishes do not frame or execute laws. Laws are made and maintained by experts who are adept in ideas of justice and fairplay. If Americans demand unjust treatment of an innocent will American judiciary 'give in to will of people' in the name of democracy? By that logic conservative societies - which have widely prevalent lopsided norms and customs - would never have any chance of carrying out justice.

In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place - Mahatma Gandhi.

Is there a point?

Did I, anywhere in my post say what is right or wrong?? I just stated a fact. A fact which is so true that it is even relevant in this age and time. Otherwise, prop 8 would not have happened. Prop 19 just barely got defeated because just few more than 50% hate weed.

Again, when talking about Ram, we need to keep in mind the age, the prevalent culture and the time. Imagine any other issue.. let's say.. taxes - if majority of people voted for lowering taxes and Ram did not budge, he would have been labeled a dictator.

Do we have enough data to label Ram as a bad leader? I sure don't. Those who jump to conclusions, do they know what kind of democracy Ram was leading? Was it representative? Were there women rights representatives in his assembly? How many legitimate requests were made to him to not punish Sita? How many times was he provided data that contradicted the will of people? What reason, exactly could he have used (other than intangibles like morale and emotions)?

Liberty comes with lot of efforts on the oppressed part. If not, Sati would have been happening, women would not have been able to vote or recently, prop 8 would not have been overturned. The "activists" worked their butt off to prove that in CA, gay marriages would not affect anything/anyone. Whether one agrees or not, the other party did not have enough data to counterattack. There were some who were just all emotional about the issue screaming it's not right. Logical activists prepared a valid case to bring down prop 8. Emotions and logic are mutually exclusive, it seems.

It is not a leader's fault if he is simply enforcing the constitution.