[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;36913]Are child brides still condemned by Hindu law to be outcasts because they are widows? That’s not very yogic.[/QUOTE]
No, nothing like this is happening anymore in India. If possible, give a visit to this great nation and realize how things have been changed here…
Nothing of the sort ever did happen in Hinduism.
Which Hindu authorative scripture says that child brides are condemned to be outcastes if they are widows?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36924]Nothing of the sort ever did happen in Hinduism.
[/QUOTE]
I know , in any of the Hindu scripture it has never said to follow such type of tradition but, unfortunately till 18th century it was happening in India…I think you can throw some more light over it. Though it would deviate the main discussion …
There are two classes of scriptures dealing with ‘Hindu law’ they are known as Arthashastras and Dharma shastras. The most well known of these are Kautaliyas Arthashastra and Manu Smriti. These are both considered Smriti, meaning they are authored by humans in a particular time and place, and they are not set in stone. This is why there have been several arthashastras and dharmashastras. The earliest extant arthshastra is more representative of what it was like to live in Hindu India under the Maurayan empire.
Here is what it says on the issue of divorce, remarriage, widows and marriage:
The property of the wife:
Means of subsistence (vritti) or jewellery (?badhya) constitutes what is called the property of a woman. Means of subsistence valued at above two thousand shall be endowed (on her name). There is no limit to jewellery. It is no guilt for the wife to make use of this property in maintaining her son, her daughter-in-law or herself whenever her absent husband has made no provision for her maintenance. In calamities, disease and famine, in warding off dangers and in charitable acts, the husband, too, may make use of this property. Neither shall there be any complaint against the enjoyment of this property by mutual consent by a couple who have brought forth a twin. Nor shall there be any complaint if this property has been enjoyed for three years by those who are wedded in accordance with the customs of the first four kinds of marriage.
On the rights of a widow:
On the death of her husband a woman, desirous to lead a pious life, shall at once receive not only her endowment and jewellery (sth?py?bharanam), but also the balance of s?lka due to her. If both of these two things are not actually in her possession, though nominally given to her, she shall at once receive both of them together with interest (on their value.) If she is desirous of a second marriage (kutumbak?ma), she shall be given on the occasion of her remarriage (nivesak?le) whatever either her father-in-law or her husband or both had given to her.
If a widow marries any man other than of her father-in-law’s selection (svasurapr?tilo- myenanivisht?), she shall forfeit whatever had been given to her by her father-in-law and her husband.
Wife’s rights to maintenance
woman who has a right to claim maintenance for an unlimited period of time shall be given as much food and clothing (gr?sacch?dana) as is necessary for her or more than is necessary in proportion to the income of the maintainer (yatha-purushapariv?pam v?). If the period (for which such things are to be given to her) is limited, then a certain amount of money fixed in proportion to the income of the maintainer shall be given to her; so also if she has not been given her sulka, property, and compensation (due to her for allowing her husband to remarry). If after parting with her husband, she places herself under the protection of any one belonging to her father-in-law’s family (svasrakula), or if she begins to live independently, then her husband shall not be sued for (for her maintenance). Thus the determination of maintenance is dealt with.
Divorce:
A woman, who hates her husband, who has passed the period of seven turns of her menses, and who loves another shall immediately return to her husband both the endowment and jewellery she has received from him, and allow him to lie down with another woman. A man, hating his wife, shall allow her to take shelter in the house of a mendicant woman, or of her lawful guardians or of her kinsmen. If a man falsely accuses his wife of adultery with one of her or his kinsmen or with a spy–an accusation which can only be proved by eyewitnesses (drishtilinge)–or falsely accuses her of her intention to deprive him of her company, he shall pay a fine of 12 panas. A woman, hating her husband, can not dissolve her marriage with him against his will. Nor can a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her will. But from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained (parasparam dvesh?nmokshah). If a man, apprehending danger from his wife desires divorce (mokshamichhet), he shall return to her whatever she was given (on the occasion of her marriage). If a woman, under the apprehension of danger from her husband, desires divorce, she shall forfeit her claim to her property;
If a woman either brings forth no (live) children, or has no male issue, or is barren, her husband shall wait for eight years, (before marrying another). If she bears only a dead child, he has to wait for ten years. If she brings forth only females, he has to wait for twelve years. Then if he is desirous to have sons, he may marry another. In case of violating this rule, he shall be made to pay her not only sulka, her property (str?dhana) and an adequate monetary compensation (?dhivedanikamartham), but also a fine of 24 panas to the Government.
If a husband either is of bad character or is long gone abroad or has become a traitor to his king or is likely to endanger the life of his wife or has fallen from his caste or has lost virility, he may be abandoned by his wife.
Legal age of marriage:
WOMEN, when twelve years old, attain their majority (pr?ptavyavah?ra) and men when sixteen years old. If after attaining their majority, they prove disobedient to lawful authority (asusr?sh?y?m), women shall be fined 15 panas and men, twice the amount.
Source: http://www.bharatadesam.com/literature/kautilya_arthashastra/arthashastra.php
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36931]There are two classes of scriptures dealing with ‘Hindu law’ they are known as Arthashastras and Dharma shastras. The most well known of these are Kautaliyas Arthashastra and Manu Smriti. These are both considered Smriti, meaning they are authored by humans in a particular time and place, and they are not set in stone. This is why there have been several arthashastras and dharmashastras. The earliest extant arthshastra is more representative of what it was like to live in Hindu India under the Maurayan empire.
Here is what it says on the issue of divorce, remarriage, widows and marriage:
The property of the wife:
Means of subsistence (vritti) or jewellery (?badhya) constitutes what is called the property of a woman. Means of subsistence valued at above two thousand shall be endowed (on her name). There is no limit to jewellery. It is no guilt for the wife to make use of this property in maintaining her son, her daughter-in-law or herself whenever her absent husband has made no provision for her maintenance. In calamities, disease and famine, in warding off dangers and in charitable acts, the husband, too, may make use of this property. Neither shall there be any complaint against the enjoyment of this property by mutual consent by a couple who have brought forth a twin. Nor shall there be any complaint if this property has been enjoyed for three years by those who are wedded in accordance with the customs of the first four kinds of marriage.
On the rights of a widow:
On the death of her husband a woman, desirous to lead a pious life, shall at once receive not only her endowment and jewellery (sth?py?bharanam), but also the balance of s?lka due to her. If both of these two things are not actually in her possession, though nominally given to her, she shall at once receive both of them together with interest (on their value.) If she is desirous of a second marriage (kutumbak?ma), she shall be given on the occasion of her remarriage (nivesak?le) whatever either her father-in-law or her husband or both had given to her.
If a widow marries any man other than of her father-in-law’s selection (svasurapr?tilo- myenanivisht?), she shall forfeit whatever had been given to her by her father-in-law and her husband.
Wife’s rights to maintenance
woman who has a right to claim maintenance for an unlimited period of time shall be given as much food and clothing (gr?sacch?dana) as is necessary for her or more than is necessary in proportion to the income of the maintainer (yatha-purushapariv?pam v?). If the period (for which such things are to be given to her) is limited, then a certain amount of money fixed in proportion to the income of the maintainer shall be given to her; so also if she has not been given her sulka, property, and compensation (due to her for allowing her husband to remarry). If after parting with her husband, she places herself under the protection of any one belonging to her father-in-law?s family (svasrakula), or if she begins to live independently, then her husband shall not be sued for (for her maintenance). Thus the determination of maintenance is dealt with.
Divorce:
A woman, who hates her husband, who has passed the period of seven turns of her menses, and who loves another shall immediately return to her husband both the endowment and jewellery she has received from him, and allow him to lie down with another woman. A man, hating his wife, shall allow her to take shelter in the house of a mendicant woman, or of her lawful guardians or of her kinsmen. If a man falsely accuses his wife of adultery with one of her or his kinsmen or with a spy–an accusation which can only be proved by eyewitnesses (drishtilinge)–or falsely accuses her of her intention to deprive him of her company, he shall pay a fine of 12 panas. A woman, hating her husband, can not dissolve her marriage with him against his will. Nor can a man dissolve his marriage with his wife against her will. But from mutual enmity, divorce may be obtained (parasparam dvesh?nmokshah). If a man, apprehending danger from his wife desires divorce (mokshamichhet), he shall return to her whatever she was given (on the occasion of her marriage). If a woman, under the apprehension of danger from her husband, desires divorce, she shall forfeit her claim to her property;
If a woman either brings forth no (live) children, or has no male issue, or is barren, her husband shall wait for eight years, (before marrying another). If she bears only a dead child, he has to wait for ten years. If she brings forth only females, he has to wait for twelve years. Then if he is desirous to have sons, he may marry another. In case of violating this rule, he shall be made to pay her not only sulka, her property (str?dhana) and an adequate monetary compensation (?dhivedanikamartham), but also a fine of 24 panas to the Government.
If a husband either is of bad character or is long gone abroad or has become a traitor to his king or is likely to endanger the life of his wife or has fallen from his caste or has lost virility, he may be abandoned by his wife.
Legal age of marriage:
WOMEN, when twelve years old, attain their majority (pr?ptavyavah?ra) and men when sixteen years old. If after attaining their majority, they prove disobedient to lawful authority (asusr?sh?y?m), women shall be fined 15 panas and men, twice the amount.
Source: http://www.bharatadesam.com/literature/kautilya_arthashastra/arthashastra.php[/QUOTE]
I thought you said Hinduism was ‘science’, and not faith based. Nothing written here is even close to science… it’s all faith based religion… but then, I knew that to begin with.
This is “Hindu law”. Not science. Hinduism in addition to being a science, philosophy is also a particular way of life. It is rich to a rich tapestry of art, symbols, stories and rituals. This is why Hinduism is a religion. It, is, however, the worlds only scientific religion. Even the above laws are based on principles of maintaining civil and human rights. If you had any appreciation of history, such concepts as civil and human rights did not exist anywhere else in the world in this time period. I will show you a comparison in the next post.
Start quote: '...blah, blah, blah, froth, froth, spit, blah, Nothing of the sort ever did happen in Hinduism, blah, froth, spit, google, cut, paste,..." End quote.
I could spend hours on this, but I won't. Someone should tell these mean western propagandists that they are wrong:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/10062001.htm
Really doesn't sound very yogic at all. If indeed Yoga was Hinduism, then boy am I glad it's changed!!
[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;36945]Start quote: '…blah, blah, blah, froth, froth, spit, blah, Nothing of the sort ever did happen in Hinduism, blah, froth, spit, google, cut, paste,…" End quote.
I could spend hours on this, but I won’t. Someone should tell these mean western propagandists that they are wrong.
Really doesn’t sound very yogic at all. If indeed Yoga was Hinduism, then boy am I glad it’s changed!![/QUOTE]
whoa! Just checked out the links. This Hinduism shit is deep! What a false propaganda. Tall ideals and shallow reality.
I am new to this forum and i just read the whole thread. I am an Indian dalit(so called low caste). I want to ask this this Surya guy. Has he ever heard of ‘Manu Smriti’? and what comments does he have to say on what Sage Manu has written on women and dalits?
For centuries Dalits were oppressed by the high class brahmins and kshatriyas. We were called ‘untouchables’! Still this guy has the nerve to call Buddhism as a low religion? and that Hinduism is scientific? Were the brahmins scientific in human oppression? calling them outcasts? not letting them hear the mantras of vedas?
And Lord Rama, when he came to know that a shudra(low caste) had listened to the Veda mantras, he ordered that molten mercury be poured into his ears!
Is such a thing good?
[QUOTE=FlexPenguin;36945]Start quote: '...blah, blah, blah, froth, froth, spit, blah, Nothing of the sort ever did happen in Hinduism, blah, froth, spit, google, cut, paste,..." End quote.
I could spend hours on this, but I won't. Someone should tell these mean western propagandists that they are wrong:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/10062001.htm
Really doesn't sound very yogic at all. If indeed Yoga was Hinduism, then boy am I glad it's changed!![/QUOTE]
LOL... this post was a funny and entertaining as an episode of Penn and Tellers Bullshit.... brilliant!
By making light of it I hope to shed light on the thousands of souls crying out because of the denial. There is still a great distance between what an “ISM” strives for and what it actually is. Thanks whatisname for bringing up ‘Manu Smriti’.
[QUOTE=whatsinaname;36972]I am new to this forum and i just read the whole thread. I am an Indian dalit(so called low caste). I want to ask this this Surya guy. Has he ever heard of ‘Manu Smriti’? and what comments does he have to say on what Sage Manu has written on women and dalits?
For centuries Dalits were oppressed by the high class brahmins and kshatriyas. We were called ‘untouchables’! Still this guy has the nerve to call Buddhism as a low religion? and that Hinduism is scientific? Were the brahmins scientific in human oppression? calling them outcasts? not letting them hear the mantras of vedas?
And Lord Rama, when he came to know that a shudra(low caste) had listened to the Veda mantras, he ordered that molten mercury be poured into his ears!
Is such a thing good?[/QUOTE]
Thank You for this post
[B]whatsinaname[/B] welcome to the forum. Looking forward to future posts.
It is CityMonk! Sound familiar!?
Thanks for sharing.
[QUOTE=CityMonk;37082]Quite interesting article
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_future.asp[/QUOTE]
Wow, its like a review of last months activity on the forum! 
[QUOTE=whatsinaname;36972]I am new to this forum and i just read the whole thread. I am an Indian dalit(so called low caste). I want to ask this this Surya guy. Has he ever heard of ‘Manu Smriti’? and what comments does he have to say on what Sage Manu has written on women and dalits?
For centuries Dalits were oppressed by the high class brahmins and kshatriyas. We were called ‘untouchables’! Still this guy has the nerve to call Buddhism as a low religion? and that Hinduism is scientific? Were the brahmins scientific in human oppression? calling them outcasts? not letting them hear the mantras of vedas?
And Lord Rama, when he came to know that a shudra(low caste) had listened to the Veda mantras, he ordered that molten mercury be poured into his ears!
Is such a thing good?[/QUOTE]
Namaste,
I have already mentioned the Manu smriti myself dear one. This text comes under the category of “Smriti” which means to be remembered or reconstructed. They are not considered authoritative in Hinduism, because they are authored by humans, and even the Manu smritii tself says that whatever laws it dictates are only to be observed at the period of the writing and they can change. As I described in an earlier post there are two categories of Hindu law texts: dharmashastra and arthashastra. There are hundreds of dharmashastras(Manusmriti is one of the most popular) and there were also several arthashastras. The only arthshastra that is extant today is Kautaliyas arthashastra. This gives us a more representative picture of what it was like to live in Hindu India because it is the law of the state. On the other hand, dharmashastras are just the opinion of men.
It is important to point out that scholars of the Manusmriti say that the text has many interpolations. This means that the original text has been changed several times.
I invite you to read the Arthashastra you will be pleasently surprised by the extent of civil, human and women rights that were given to Hindu citizens. Such as women having the rights to divorce, remarry, own property and also Vedic education. It would be interesting for you to know Hinduism is the only religion in the world where sacred scripture also has women authorship. About 30 of the Risis of the Vedas are women.
In contrast in Islam a woman is considered intellectually inferior. Her credibility is worth half of a man. It is stated that a man is superior to a woman and a man is entitled to discipline his wife, and if she does not reform, he is also entitled to beat her. Islamic history is indeed full of accounts of men beating women. The Islamic heaven is a man’s heaven where he finds 72,000 virigins to serve his needs. In Christianity a woman is considered a “temptress” and to be born of a mans rib. Most churches do not allow women to have high positions of authority in the Church(eg. a priest) and divorce was not traditionally allowed.
More on women in Islam:
There are verses in the Quran itself giving women a subordinate position to men. Such as:
Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband’s absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great! (Sura 4:34)
Another translation of the same verse reads:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.
Women are regarded to be intellectually inferior by Islam. The above verse regards one man to be the equivalent of two women in credibility:
And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Sura: 2:282)
It is permissable for men to hit women in Islam:
If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Sura 4:34)
If you read the Islamic Hadiths they are full of stories where men are hitting women. Even Prophet Mohammed hits his wife Aisha(He married her when she was a child)
More on Women in Hinduism can be found here:
More on women in Christianity. Here is what major Christian saints have to say on women:
St. Tertullian (about 155 to 225 CE):
“Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”
St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
“What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman…I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” 10
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE):
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):
“If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.” 9
The maltreatment of women in this world has nothing to do with religion, it is a social conditioning. Having been to India, I was shocked to my foundation the first time to see how badly men there treat their women, no different than from the rest of the world.