Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#10/DT Nt Pg#41 - Page 76

Originally posted by: vyapti

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.

Thankyou. Yes that's what it seems

@Bold I am not sure if that calculation is true. Because that would mean Ram reigned only for 14 years after the return of Luv Kush. Like maybe 22-24 years after Vanwaas. Considering that he was around 32 by the time he returned from Vanwas, did he decide to take Jal Samadhi at only 56 years?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

😲🤣

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

That exactly was my reaction/thought when I read about this term.

I think it would have been more in ancient times considering there would be very few Gurukuls which allowed co-ed.

By the way have you all read/heard about Maitriya and Yagyavalkya debate? No idea if it's true or not haven't found the reference for it at all, but they showed in Upanishad Ganga that once Yagyavalkya ji defeated all the learned scholars of his time in the Shastrartha. He got proud at it. The other scholars then reached out to Maitriya ji and asked her to join the Shastrartha. Yagyavalkya ji was completely taken off seat seeing her, because he always thought that his wife was only a house wife with no other identity.

The Shastrartha started and soon Yagyavalkya ji realized that he is no match for Maitriya's knowledge. He couldn't answer her questions. Meanwhile the scholars there were about to announce Maitriya ji as the winner, when she said that she wants to ask one last question and if Yagyavalkya ji could answer that she would concede her defeat. Everyone Agreed. Then she put forward a very elementary question which Yagyavalkya ji easily answered and she said that she lost.

The other scholars objected at it saying that a learned scholar like Maitriya shouldn't have asked such simple question in the decisive segment of a Shastrartha of that level and that it was a deliberate loss. To which she replied that she is a knowledged and therefore knows that a woman can never win if her husband has lost and thereby to ensure her victory she made Yagyavalkya ji win.

It was only after this Shastrartha that Yagyavalkya ji's pride got shattered and he started respecting Maitriya ji's intellect, started including her in his philosophical thoughts and discussions. Taking her inputs before every decision. That was the reason why he felt Maitriya worthy enough to discuss the Atman with her in the famous Brihadankya Upanishad conversation

I don't know if it's actually cited somewhere (although Chandra Prakash Dwivedi usually researches before making an episode),or is just a folklore, but if it's actually a cited scripture then I find it to serve no greater purpose than to give a message to women that whatsoever your intellect be, whatever heights you reach, you might even compose the Vedic hyms(although I personally think that the Vedic composer Maitriya was some other female-most probably someone who never married, who lived centuries before and not Yagyavalkya ji's wife Maitriya) but you should always lose to your husband. 🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by: vyapti

Episode No?

Don't remember had watched it long back.

New promo

https://youtu.be/NsBQ_ID7ErE

Are they bringing Vrinda story? No idea if there was any need for Vrinda story in Radha Krishna but maybe they will make Krishna perform the cheating Vishnu did with Vrinda and then have Krishna turning into Shaligram thereby further distance between Radha Krishna. (Don't have any other clue)

Else what could it be

2 points only.

1. Women having rights is a modern occurrence. Infact bulk of credit goes to British women's suffrage movement

Ancient Indian women be it vedic or Pauranic had no rights. Depending upon how nice their fathers brothers and husbands were they were ALLOWED education, martial training, bachelorhood, post without powers in kings council and occassionally posts with powers in King's council.

We have one actual female King in Ramayana ( Tadaka sister of Ravana's made king by him) and two female Kings in Mahabharata (ILa daughter of Vivaswan who started chandravanshi lineage but still had to take the disguise of a man and call her self sudyumna and Alli one of the wives of Arjuna).

In pre independence India proper Female Kings were Rudhramadevi of Telengana and Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore. Even Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi was queen performing duties of state on behalf of her son and rights to take decisions remained with Nanasaheb Phadnavis

Queen is not a ruler. King is Queen was a title with responsibilities but no rights whatsoever. Any little power they had was on account of petticoat politics (bedroom influence on the husband or her family's influence on her husband the King) This also includes Draupadi Sita etc. Even Subhadra the matriarch like Satyavati had influence but no rights.

Even in matrilineal kingdoms of Bahlika Madra etc women were allowed a lot of freedom. Keyword is allowed, they were not entitled to freedom.

And these kingdoms were matrilineal not matriarchal. Which means sons born to daughters became Kings. Daughter never became King. Eg. Chitrangada Arjuna's wife was never King of Manipuri. After her father her son was the king

So if you all have any rosy picture of glory days of women in vedic period forget it.

Gargi Vachknavi was allowed education by her father. She did not have a right to be educated

Draupadi was allowed to be finance minister, she did not have right to be one.

Satyabhama' was allowed martial training and allowed to accompany Krishna on battles, she did not have a right to them.

This difference needs to be understood

2. Point

Sati means suicide for the husband. This suicide can be burning, can be drowning, can be starvation and also can be bleeding to death

Jal Samadhi is also Sati. It is type of Sati where a woman commits suicide for joining her husband by drowning herself.

Jauhar is exclusively Sati by burning

Please do not confuse that Jal Samadhi is not Sati. Methods of suicide differ the purpose is what defines it as Sati and that is to voluntarily die for the husband

Originally posted by: Chiillii

2 points only.

1. Women having rights is a modern occurrence. Infact bulk of credit goes to British women's suffrage movement

Ancient Indian women be it vedic or Pauranic had no rights. Depending upon how nice their fathers brothers and husbands were they were ALLOWED education, martial training, bachelorhood, post without powers in kings council and occassionally posts with powers in King's council.

We have one actual female King in Ramayana ( Tadaka sister of Ravana's made king by him) and two female Kings in Mahabharata (ILa daughter of Vivaswan who started chandravanshi lineage but still had to take the disguise of a man and call her self sudyumna and Alli one of the wives of Arjuna).

In pre independence India proper Female Kings were Rudhramadevi of Telengana and Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore. Even Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi was queen performing duties of state on behalf of her son and rights to take decisions remained with Nanasaheb Phadnavis

Queen is not a ruler. King is Queen was a title with responsibilities but no rights whatsoever. Any little power they had was on account of petticoat politics (bedroom influence on the husband or her family's influence on her husband the King) This also includes Draupadi Sita etc. Even Subhadra the matriarch like Satyavati had influence but no rights.

Even in matrilineal kingdoms of Bahlika Madra etc women were allowed a lot of freedom. Keyword is allowed, they were not entitled to freedom.

And these kingdoms were matrilineal not matriarchal. Which means sons born to daughters became Kings. Daughter never became King. Eg. Chitrangada Arjuna's wife was never King of Manipuri. After her father her son was the king

So if you all have any rosy picture of glory days of women in vedic period forget it.

Gargi Vachknavi was allowed education by her father. She did not have a right to be educated

Draupadi was allowed to be finance minister, she did not have right to be one.

Satyabhama' was allowed martial training and allowed to accompany Krishna on battles, she did not have a right to them.

This difference needs to be understood

2. Point

Sati means suicide for the husband. This suicide can be burning, can be drowning, can be starvation and also can be bleeding to death

Jal Samadhi is also Sati. It is type of Sati where a woman commits suicide for joining her husband by drowning herself.

Jauhar is exclusively Sati by burning

Please do not confuse that Jal Samadhi is not Sati. Methods of suicide differ the purpose is what defines it as Sati and that is to voluntarily die for the husband

How can Jauhar be Sati?

The purpose of Sati is to be with husband in the afterworld.

The purpose of Jauhar is to maintain "physical purity". So even unmarried women may commit Jauhar. Even women whose husbands are alive may commit Jauhar.

Both the rituals objectify women. But they are different.

Originally posted by: vyapti

How can Jauhar be Sati?

The purpose of Sati is to be with husband in the afterworld.

The purpose of Jauhar is to maintain "physical purity". So even unmarried women may commit Jauhar. Even women whose husbands are alive may commit Jauhar.

Both the rituals objectify women. But they are different.

Yes you are right. Even unmarried girls did commit Jauhar so probably we can't compare both

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Thankyou. Yes that's what it seems

@Bold I am not sure if that calculation is true. Because that would mean Ram reigned only for 14 years after the return of Luv Kush. Like maybe 22-24 years after Vanwaas. Considering that he was around 32 by the time he returned from Vanwas, did he decide to take Jal Samadhi at only 56 years?

Don't know about the rest, but he was around 39 when he returned from Vanwas. Before abducting Sita Ravana (disguised as Saint) asks her who she is. While introducing herself Sita informs him that Rama was 25 and she was 18 when they were sent for Vanwas.

"My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth. [3-47-10b, 11a]

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/aranya/sarga47/aranya_47_frame.htm

Jauhar was Sati in the sense that it would happen after men committed Saka. They tie the red turban with an oath to die fighting as it was no longer possible to win.

Remember the scene in Padmavat movie where Deepika ties the red turban on her husband's head. It was a suicide pact. You are going for dying in battle field and I will die with you here. Yes the reason was not to fall in invaders hands and yes it included unmarried little girls too.

And would extend to in case of Chittor to entire female population of the fort and urban centre.

Infact Jauhar was not done if the husbands and the army were going to win and eventually in Rajasthan after Mughals decimation by British Jauhar should have stopped automatically as British were not pillaging women but it continued by changing into Sati.

Originally posted by: vyapti

Don't know about the rest, but he was around 39 when he returned from Vanwas. Before abducting Sita Ravana (disguised as Saint) asks her who she is. While introducing herself Sita informs him that Rama was 25 and she was 18 when they were sent for Vanwas.

"My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth. [3-47-10b, 11a]

https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/aranya/sarga47/aranya_47_frame.htm

Ok I remembered it wrong that it was Ram who was 18. Thanks for correction