Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#10/DT Nt Pg#41 - Page 75

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

The main issue with assuming that there was no Sati of Madri is that there is no mention of how she died if not while committing Sati. While the death of Pandu is clear, it's only the dead body of Madri we encounter if we exclude the portions of Sati. I therefore can't completely ignore the Sati probability unless Madri herself was an interpolation.

Coming to your second point about reasons of interpolation, there is an instance of beef having been prepared in Rishi Shaunak ashram when Ugrashrawa visited them, this verse isn't the part of main CE and they feel it was an interpolation. Now you could yourself think what benefit would an beef preparation episode do? Yet it was interpolated. Again the details of Dravidian kings seems an interpolation same as the visit of the king of Tripura, so I wouldn't say that interpolation only happened because of some use.

Aside if it wasn't permissible for a woman to have more than 4 partners excluding her husband and Kunti actually bore all five of them(excluding Karna) then definitely she had at least 5 partners excluding her husband, and thereby becomes a bad character woman as per the standards of those days so to save her respect an interpolation of a second wife who gave birth to two of them of them does become important

Although I myself don't think that Madri could be an interpolation but that could be a way to look at it.

About the Sati part, while undoubtedly Jauhar was something that started with invasions, attributing Sati to invasion is nothing but a sense a false pride that we were great and stayed in utopia until some outsiders destroyed us

You wouldn't believe I actually came across a person who said there is nothing as preVedic because Vedic verses have been existent since eternity. When I asked if that was the case why is Manu, Mandhaata, Divodasa etc. Mentioned as humans of past the response was that a adharmi like me can never understand the Vedas

There was another claim that Sreemad Bhagwatam is millions years old

Prevalence of Sati definitely increased due to invasion. Widow remarriage was not allowed in Hindu culture. May be the lawmakers of Hindu society did not want to take the risk of widows eloping with/marrying Muslims.

Originally posted by: vyapti

Prevalence of Sati definitely increased due to invasion. Widow remarriage was not allowed in Hindu culture. May be the lawmakers of Hindu society did not want to take the risk of widows eloping with/marrying Muslims.

Widow remarriage was allowed in vedas.

Rape and sex slavery were the worry after invasions.

Also, inheritance. Ladies could inherit property in some parts of India and in someparts like Bengal, they couldn't. Then, inheritance laws were changed to include women, which meant widows could inherit. This obviously created heartburn among the other relatives, and sati rates went up.

Religion was not involved behind either reason. Just because it was practised by a society with majority Hindus doesn't mean it had anything to do with the religion. But of course, the people who pushed for sati used religion as an excuse.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Widow remarriage was allowed in vedas.

Rape and sex slavery were the worry after invasions.

Also, inheritance. Ladies could inherit property in some parts of India and in someparts like Bengal, they couldn't. Then, inheritance laws were changed to include women, which meant widows could inherit. This obviously created heartburn among the other relatives, and sati rates went up.

Religion was not involved behind either reason. Just because it was practised by a society with majority Hindus doesn't mean it had anything to do with the religion. But of course, the people who pushed for sati used religion as an excuse.

There is no doubt about that part.

I was talking of the prevalent social custom in 12th Century among the society that followed Hindu Religion. Widow remarriage was not allowed there. Now just like in the recent past some people converted to Islam to practice lawful polygamy it is possible that at those times some women converted to Islam in the hope of being legally married.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Widow remarriage was allowed in vedas.

Rape and sex slavery were the worry after invasions.

Also, inheritance. Ladies could inherit property in some parts of India and in someparts like Bengal, they couldn't. Then, inheritance laws were changed to include women, which meant widows could inherit. This obviously created heartburn among the other relatives, and sati rates went up.

Religion was not involved behind either reason. Just because it was practised by a society with majority Hindus doesn't mean it had anything to do with the religion. But of course, the people who pushed for sati used religion as an excuse.

I wouldn't excuse religion completely from this. The only reason they could propogate with this idea was because somehow the religion glorified the women who practiced this. Manusmriti and Parasara Smriti gave all the more hoards to such women. Howsoever we might try to excuse, the religion (post Vedic scripts) definitely spoke in favour of those who committed Sati differentiating them from the ones who committed Suicide

The Muslim or Christian women didn't commit Sati, it was always the Hindu/Sanatani females and the difference was only religion

Indian ancient society was deeply patriarchal and it still is.

A girl child was raised with the aspiration to be a Sati.

Sati was the name of first wife of Shiva who chose to burn herself alive instead of listening to her father abusing her husband in front of the whole world.

And from her name it became a title / epithet for those women who had similar devotion to their husband.

Women who defined themselves with the identity of their husband. And could never even think of any other man.

Widow remarriage was very common in ancient India. Parasara never occurs in Puranas after Vyasa grows up. He was most likely dead and Satyavati a widow who remarried Santanu.

Mahabharata itself has Bhishma explaining that as queen Satyavati recieves proposal of remarriage from Ugrayudha a PAnchal kingdom after Santanu's death. Ofcourse that was to gain access and control over Hastinapur.

Ulupi Arjuna's one night stand and eventually wife was a widow. Mandodari and Tara from Ramayana remarried their brother in laws.

Marriage to younger brother in law was after death of husband was a standard norm, if the woman was of child bearing age.

However like I said society was deeply patriarchal and woman served only one legal purpose: Child bearing.

If a woman was of childbearing age or had minor children she was encouraged to remarry most often to brother in law

But if the woman was past childbearing then she had two options

1. If she had adult son/sons she could continue to live with them as a partial Sanyasi. (living as a Sanyasi in sons house) or go away with other Sanyasi relatives. Kashi was favourite place as was naimisha forests

2.No adult son either then they were expected to commit suicide to show their devotion to the husband and not be a burden on relatives who would be obligated to look after them.

This suicide was not just burning in fire, some women would do Jalsamadhi (drown themselves) some would do annatyag (starvation)

Eg. In Mahabharata Vyasa in Ashramavasika Parva asks Kourava women to do Jalsamadhi to join their husbands. All these women were past child bearing age and apparently it was very auspicious for them to drown themselves rather that be a burden on Yudhishtir.

Krishna's 8 wives faced the same problem, Rukmini and two others chose the pyre while Satyabhama and remaining 4 went into Naimisha forests as Sanyasi.

Women were brainwashed continuously through stories of Renuka mother of Parshuram's who's beheaded for ogling at another man. Ahalya who is turned into a stone and Savitri and Anusuya who would rather die than look at another man.

Sati Savitri and Sati Anusuya were eulogised and we're used as examples to condition women

So Sati pratha existed as did widow remarriage parallel in the ancient times.

Both practices were however oppressive to women. Remarriage was to gain control of a woman's womb and her property and Sati was to get rid of her and control her property

Jahaur among Rajputs and Maratha was because of invasions. This Jauhar was inspired by Sati and was primarily done to prevent women from falling into the hands of Muslim invaders. Jauhar at that time was done by all women, married, unmarried, young old and even little girls. It however became restricted to married women only after British removed Mughals from power.

In Bengal it was called Sati and it indeed started with Muslim invaders just like Rajputs and Maratha but here too it evolved to murder widows for property.

However the widow remarriages became rare and rare and eventually stopped in upper castes and landholders,across India till Ramohan Roy brought it back

In lower castes it continued under a different name (Chaddar/Odhni Pratha). Where the younger brother in law will put a odhni/saree on a widows head and take her as his wife.

^^^ Actually that was exactly what HMR and I were saying, widow remarriage was definitely practiced in ancient literature but Sati was highly glorified too (although Chanakya's Arthashtra and Manusmriti both call the widows or females leaving their husbands due to latter's inefficiency who remarried as not respectable women. But then these texts are pretty later ones, around 3rd century BCE and the position of females would have further fallen by then)

I know many of you might disagree but the position of women in ancient society was much better than their position post Mauryan era, eventually falling to abysmally low position after invasions. The Vedic and post Vedic women were much more independent. They had the right to not marry and carry out academic research. There were female students and teachers of scriptures. Patanjali specifically mentions a term Dikshaharthi for male students who are not interested in studies but have enrolled for only getting female classmates.

Yes such females were marginally low, yet they weren't completely unknown, later however as you said got restricted to child bearing.

Sati definitely was a pre invasion practice and though it would have been low in number, they highlighted such women as someone divine. Maybe the reason would have been as you suggested to ensure that the distant relatives are not burdened with their pressure. About Mahabharat, in Stri Parva many Kaurav women wanted to perform Sati but Vyas stopped them only to suggest them for Jal Samadhi in Ashwamedh Parva. I don't qeven understand what exactly was it. Most probably kind of an indirect threaten to commit suicide.

Later the invasions brought a threat to females which they weren't acquainted to as of now, which was the fear of becoming a s*x slave and hence they preferred anything over that. I mean to think of it, even in current era we have seen what ISIS did to Yezidi girls, girls as young as 9 years was made to suffer in worst possible way. Women were made to eat the flesh of their own children and all these happened in this modern world, just think what could they do to women in mediaeval era. Howsoever I dislike Sati, I have nothing against the practice of Jauhar. That literally was the best possible action for them. And yes they burnt themselves because a death in any other way could mean their bodies being captured by the invaders and the dead bodies being r***ed

British howsoever bad, didn't subject them to such attrocities so the practice of Jauhar literally finished after British.

Anything that followed was Sati and the reason being exactly what you mentioned

What I wanted to say is that although religion directly didn't stop widow remarriage or prescribe Sati, but the scriptures definitely glorified the acts of Sati, that's the exact reason why the Hindu society could make it a practice for their use.

Otherwise the position of women was more or less similar across the globe, yet such practice never became mention worthy among Greeks, Pagan Arabs, Mesopotamians or present day Muslims or Christians

We can't completely give religion a clean chit in this matter

@Chilli

Krishna's wives didn't do sati. They were going to live in Hastinapuri with Arjuna when robbers attacked. Some went with robbers, some committed suicide, and some retired to the forest. Arjuna then went to Vyasa who made the famous "time cooks everything" comment.

That was suicide because they felt there were no options left. Although I have my doubts at the suicide/forest. I mean, wouldn't the normal reaction be to try to get to safety as soon as possible?

I seriously want to know what course did Urmilla take considering Lakshman took the Jal Samadhi before his siblings took the Jal Samadhi.

Did she accompany her husband or did she continue living. It would have been pretty embarrassing for her if it was latter, because with RamBharatShatrughan a big chunk of Ayodhya wasis also committed Jal Samadhi and I assume that chunk includes Mandavi and Shrutkirti

Now if Urmilla went with them, people would mock her for dying with others' husbands while having continued to stay alive after the death of her own husband. If she didn't, people would again mock her for being selfish to stay alive when the entire family parted.

Not that I want her to be affected by such words but going by those days' standards it would have been a loss loss situation for Urmilla if she didn't die with her husband

By the way people any mention about what happened to Kaikeyi, Kaushalya and Sumitra? How did they die

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Patanjali specifically mentions a term Dikshaharthi for male students who are not interested in studies but have enrolled for only getting female classmates.

😲🤣

So this has been going on since ancient times? I know a few like that.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I seriously want to know what course did Urmilla take considering Lakshman took the Jal Samadhi before his siblings took the Jal Samadhi.

Did she accompany her husband or did she continue living. It would have been pretty embarrassing for her if it was latter, because with RamBharatShatrughan a big chunk of Ayodhya wasis also committed Jal Samadhi and I assume that chunk includes Mandavi and Shrutkirti

Now if Urmilla went with them, people would mock her for dying with others' husbands while having continued to stay alive after the death of her own husband. If she didn't, people would again mock her for being selfish to stay alive when the entire family parted.

Not that I want her to be affected by such words but going by those days' standards it would have been a loss loss situation for Urmilla if she didn't die with her husband

By the way people any mention about what happened to Kaikeyi, Kaushalya and Sumitra? How did they die

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-ramayana-of-valmiki/d/doc424874.html

They died of old age. More than 10 yrs after Sita re-entering earth, it seems. I think in the language of Valmiki 10000=10.