Alia Bhatt's New Bridal Wear Ad Sparks Controversy - Page 11

Originally posted by: SaayaOfKaaya

Kanyadaan isn't giving one's daughter in danaam. It's doing daanam for the daughter. So that she's free from the debts of her parents. If kanyadaan is such a big issue, why do most parents still pay fortunes to hold their daughter's wedding ceremony? Parents should simply tell their kids that they're not going to pay for their wedding, no?

This debasement of relationships that's being driven by neoliberal agents is a horrible thing. In Christianity, the father walks the bride down the isle and "hands her over" to the groom. Is that a patriarchal concept?

No. It signifies that she's now transforming from a daughter to a wife, while the groom transformes from a son to a man.

During kanyadaan, a woman goes from being a kanya to a stree. A kanya isn't a virgin as Western ideology dictates. There was a time when most men and women were virgins when they married. Times have changed today. That's another issue.

A kanya is an unmarried woman. Kumari is a virgin. This whole misconception arises from Western astrology where Virgo = the Virgin and in Hindi, Virgo is Kanya rashi.

It's ridiculous how certain people are reframing Hindu traditions. Rakshyabandhan is a sister/woman providing protection to her brother/man. In the Puranas, Indra's wife--Sachidevi--tied a thread of protection around Indra's wrist before he went on war with the asuras to protect him. Diwali is the worship of Laxmi, the sustainer. It's cherishing bonds between siblings (Bhai Dhoj). Dusserha is worshiping women in the form of Navadurga, Mother Nature.

It's all hip to shit on Hindu traditions these days without understanding it. Ask yourself, have you read any Hindu scripture apart from Bhagvata Geeta? Geeta is basically philosophy for dummies and most haven't even read that, including Hindus and Buddhists. Unlike Abrahamic traditions, there are thousands of texts in Hinduism--each owing to different philosophies, cosmology, rituals, sociology, anthropology, theism, agonostism, atheism, economics, politics, science, history, and mythology.

I don't expect uneducated people (in Indian traditions, philosophy, science, and literature) to grasp the complexities of its tradition. However, if you don't have knowledge about something, it's best to refrain from speaking about it.

Nobody talks about something they aren't aware of, or heard it on Fox News. It doesn't happen in professional life, in business, in science, in epistemology.

It's only in certain sections where people are quick to comment without having read anything or understood anything.

Western imperialism is a real thing today. If critical thinking isn't developed, you will be absorbing lots of materials glorifying it and undermining local, pagan cultures.

The misinformation in this post is extensive. So is the condescension, the assumption that people who oppose it haven't actually read about it.

Yeah, kanyadaan is patriarchal. As is giving away the bride. It is not giving for the bride. Or Gaudaan would be giving for the cow.

Kumari means teenager, not a virgin.

Kanya is virgin.

Parents paying for daughter's wedding and nearly going into bankruptcy is a good thing according to you? A symbol of their love?

Abrahamic faiths have many texts and one main go-to text. Actually, the Bible itself is a collection of texts. And various versions of the Bible have different contents. A lot of other religions in the world also have 1000s of texts. Just because you haven't heard, it doesn't mean they don't exist. I would recommend a free site called sacredtexts if you want to take a look.

Let me redirect your own suggestion: if you don't have knowledge about something, it's best to refrain from speaking about it.

Originally posted by: --Pro.vo.King--

This is a beautiful sentiment- one that I respect wholeheartedly.

However , this is exactly the kind of "majboori" that allows regressive traditions to continue unquestioned. If not for people like us who are relatively in a comfortable position , who will dare challenge societal norms ?

Kanyadaan , strictly speaking in a traditional sense was meant to inculcate a mentality of "precious daughters" and importance of a "female child" in a man's dharma and karma .. This is especially relevant in North India where female foeticide is rampant and daughters are treated as burdens .. Unfortunately, a sentiment which was thoroughly positive at its inception is no longer relevant and quite redundant in modern times .. these sentiments need to evolve with changing times .. they need to change for better .. and I think Hinduism is a religion which stands a chance to adapt to changing times .. we are relatively liberal- always have been , especially if you compare with some of the more rigid , regressive and "set in their ways" Abrahamic religions ..

Agreed.....but you can do that when you are the one who might get hurt in the process......not any one else....My mother was from old school...she cared a lot about what people would say...My father didn't care but he was worried because of my mother.....If I had refused Kanyadaan...my mother would have died everytime...someone would have taunted her.....and I couldn't let that happen.....but I have a daughter too...and Kanyadaan would not happen when she gets married....my daughter is not going to be given in daan...and I will do it because if anyone will get brickbats for that ..it will be me....not anyone else....I like a lot of our rituals...most of them make a lot of sense....but Kanyadaan doesn't....so I am just happy that its being called out...👍🏼

Originally posted by: SaayaOfKaaya

This debasement of relationships that's being driven by neoliberal agents is a horrible thing. In Christianity, the father walks the bride down the isle and "hands her over" to the groom. Is that a patriarchal concept?

No. It signifies that she's now transforming from a daughter to a wife, while the groom transformes from a son to a man.

YES. And it's been much discussed, dissected and criticized. It's been re imagined by many now to be the ceremony of letting go rather than giving away.

Marriage was patriarchal, so of course many of the aspects of the marriage ceremony are/were. There's a reason there's no father of the groom walking him down the aisle to give him away. Or even now "letting go".

Note you have the bride going from daughter to wife and the groom from son to man. Not an equal transformation. It's why the traditional vows pronounced them "Man and Wife". Of course it's unequal and patriarchal. It's why vows changed to "Husband and Wife" (and spouses) and obey (some times to serve and obey) has been removed which for centuries (Anglican/Reformed not Catholic) was only ever in the woman's vows.

Traditions change and evolve when people no longer believe in or abide by the original purpose or meaning. Some good traditions are lost but some traditions are terrible and deserve to get lost.

Originally posted by: Talis

YES. And it's been much discussed, dissected and criticized. It's been re imagined by many now to be the ceremony of letting go rather than giving away.

Marriage was patriarchal, so of course many of the aspects of the marriage ceremony are/were. There's a reason there's no father of the groom walking him down the aisle to give him away. Or even now "letting go".

Note you have the bride going from daughter to wife and the groom from son to man. Not an equal transformation. It's why the traditional vows pronounced them "Man and Wife". Of course it's unequal and patriarchal. It's why vows changed to "Husband and Wife" (and spouses) and obey (some times to serve and obey) has been removed which for centuries (Anglican/Reformed not Catholic) was only ever in the woman's vows.

Traditions change and evolve when people no longer believe in or abide by the original purpose or meaning. Some good traditions are lost but some traditions are terrible and deserve to get lost.

or get transformed into something terrible....In old times when girls did not have a share in their parent's property....the parents used to give them their share as a gift during their marriage.....guess what that changed to...dowry....now when girls have an equal share in their parent's property ....some douchebag in-laws still expect their DIL to bring a lot of gifts and even demand dowry....this is how some of our beautiful customs became terrible....anything becomes terrible when people are forced to do it.

Originally posted by: Softness

I don't think Islam and Christianity treat women as property. Never heard of it.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So - righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. - Quran 4:34

Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers. - Quran 2:224

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. - Quran 4:24

Originally posted by: Chiillii

And what does Gotra transfer mean exactly.

That the girl is no longer part of her parents family. She has been donated to a man who has now taken her into his family.

She is now Parayadhan or parayi Lakshmi.

Isn't this wrong.

also. manusmriti is so hyped up, no one actually bothered with it, it was just one of the texts to refer to.

Hinduism has hundreds of scriptures. There is no single book to be referred like Quran or Bible or Torah or Guru Granth sahib.

It was Brahmanas (A set of scriptures elaborating rules for celebratory rituals) dharmasastras (set of scriptures for law and jurisprudence) Grihyasutras (set of scriptures for rights and duties of citizens) and agama sastra Sanhitas (set of scriptures for rules regarding worship and prayers) which were and still are reference texts for rules of conduct. There are several variations of them by the way. And no manusmriti is not part of these.

I can’t even fathom that u uttered the word ‘donated’ here.

You use the word Lakshmi for daughters and in the very next sentence say ppl donate Lakshmi to each other. Do you even make sense to yourselves.

You conveniently ignore the fact that under Vedic principles even boys were given up for education, religion or political system.

Marriage is very sacrosanct in Hinduism and has been practiced for ages unknown. A man and woman energy as per Hinduism is known to balance each other, bhava and bhavini. Didn’t know someone who claims to be good on Indic knowledge perceives one of the most sacred relationship as a mere donation.

You remind me of people who mocked shiv linga to be the male organ of Shiva and not really a symbol of Shiva.

Yes many Sanskrit terms are misunderstood/mistranslated and Kanyadaan is one of it.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

What you're saying is like saying Indian women were 100% equal since Indira Gandhi became prime Minister. We know that's not true.

There were a few women who were educated. Ie. exceptions. But the norm for men was education. There is a difference.

Concept of swayamvar was there. So was concept of abduction marriage.

Also, Chillii didn't say kanyadaan was done for uneducated girls. She said it was the crowning touch in a bachelor's life. No such concept existed for women because mostly, they didn't undergo education.

I think you totally missed on the point that there was a degradation in woman position in the society as the society adopted Manusmriti.

Won’t say Hinduism was social ills free, it wasn’t and it evolved by doing away with lots of it customs. But misunderstanding a concept does not make it an ill practice.

There were no few women who were educated and they were not educated at homes. That happened when Manusmriti became a social order.

Prior to that Girls were educated and were learned as well but they were still getting married instead of being doctors or engineers.

Originally posted by: cutejodikangal

Notice how for a girl the word is Kanya (meaning Virgin) but for the boy there is no such equivalent.

There is a proper word called Putri for girl so then why isn’t it called as ‘putridaan’ and why is it ‘kanyadaan’? Which means essentially the father is gifting the virginity of his girl to the boy. Sounds so contrived isn’t it? But it is what it is guys, no matter how much you kick and scream about it!

These seem like small things but only to those who miss the big picture.

We say half knowledge is very dangerous. There are 60+ definitions of Kanya and you choose to believe something that suited your own contrived mindset.

Better still

Kanyā (कन्या).—f.

(-nyā) 1. A girl nine years old, a virgin. 2. A name of Durga. 3. The sign of the zodiac, Virgo. 4. The socotrine aloe (Aloes perfoliata.) 6. Large cardamoms. 7. A species of metre of four lines, with four syllables in each. 3. A parasite plant. E. kan to shine, Unadi affix yak, fem. ṭāp.

This bollydawood , drugs , me too , anti India elements , weapons , tree sympathisers , objectify woman , they must stop spreading negativity n clean their industry , no guts to voice but making noise pollution . Stop noise pollution clean garbage in their industry .

Originally posted by: monu_tan

I think you totally missed on the point that there was a degradation in woman position in the society as the society adopted Manusmriti.

Won’t say Hinduism was social ills free, it wasn’t and it evolved by doing away with lots of it customs. But misunderstanding a concept does not make it an ill practice.

There were no few women who were educated and they were not educated at homes. That happened when Manusmriti became a social order.

Prior to that Girls were educated and were learned as well but they were still getting married instead of being doctors or engineers.

OK. Your claim is that women were treated equally prior to Manusmriti and ere educated.

Citations that it was happening prior to Manusmriti?