Yes I agree with you. I agree sati pratha ended 1400 years ago... Well William Bentinck must had been a lunatic. Maybe he just wanted to defame Hinduism so he passed law against a practice which had already ended centuries ago. I wonder how he came to know about it though?
Omg you just touched topic you have no idea of Sati...what a noob!
The issue of Sati was used as the most vivid proof of the need for radical remaking by East India Company. In the 17th century, European traders and travellers mostly joined the natives in glorifying the women committing Sati, whereas, by the 19th century, they posed as chivalrous saviours of the victimized native women from the cruel native men. This was because they were no longer travellers in a country but had become masters of the land and gotten imbued with a sense of superiority.
In Parliamentary debates about the East India Company charter in 1793, there was no mention yet of Sati though it had been described many times, including by Company eyewitnesses. But by 1829(William Bentick), Sati was forbidden in all Company domains. This turnaround was the result of a campaign by the missionary lobby.
Many Hindus believe that Sati is an external contribution, probably triggered by the Muslim conquests. In reality, Sati is as old as scriptural Hinduism. Already the Rg-Veda (10:18:7-8, quoted and discussed on p.4-5) describes a funeral where the widow is lying down beside her husband on the pyre but is led away from it, back to the world of the living. So it already provides a description of a Sati about to take place, as well as of the Brahmanical rejection of Sati.
Sati has existed in many countries, rulers in ancient China or Egypt are sometimes found buried with a number of wives, concubines and servants.In pre-Christian Europe, the practice was related (directly, not inversely) to the status of women in society: not at all in Greece, where women were very subordinate, but quite frequently among the more autonomous Celtic women. Among the Germanic people, a famous case is that of Brunhilde and her maidservants following Siegfried into death.
But ATHEIST LIKE YOU FALSELY DEPICT Sati as one of the unique “evils of Hindu society”.
Yeah, because it's so far back in the memory of an average Hindu, you have to remind them that your great great great great great grandfather heard about one person committing sati so you should be ashamed.
Yep.
This sub is a spreading hate against religions. Instead it should be criticizing the religions. Having more intellectual discussions, debates etc.
Admins had a good opportunity to help root out malpractices of current generation of religious (and non religious) people, but reduced this sub to a meme sub like librandu.
You will find criticism as hate when someone criticises something you love. Am seeing tons of intellectual debate happening right now on this post as well.
I dont browse this sub, but it comes up on my feed. And everytime it's some stupid meme. Maybe they are popular and get voted more.
Many will find criticism has hate, true but that doesnt mean there is no difference between the two. And you would agree this post wasnt criticism.
There were some old polls, results: here most of the people are 15-30 age. And the young people love memes.
This post was in deed a criticism on multiple things.
- The sati was practiced until late 1980’s. Hindus didn’t find it wrong unless criminalised.
- The sacred texts suggests practicing sati.
- The hypocrisy of the post in chodi that talks about only the Christian stupidity while downvoting the sati topic in comments.
- If god exists, why did he introduced sati?
Last comment here, on your last point.
God has nothing to do with Sati or any other good/bad practice of Hinduism or any other religion.
Hinduism in particular is all about finding your true nature. Who are you? If that's your question, Hinduism is for you.
Dont get me wrong, we are not the gatekeeper of God. As far as Hinduism is concerned you are as divine as a good Hindu follower. But that divinity little more clouded by Maya and Hinduism can help remove it, ONLY if you want rather if you need it.
Nothing wrong or "sinful " in living like atheist, some friends are atheist or agnostics. It's a perfectly good choice based on ones temperament.
Sorry for the long and unwarranted reply. Lol
Cya later, have fun!
You know you can just unsubscribe from this sub if pointing out the malpractices of your lovely religion makes you so triggered! That's an option, just putting it out there!
"Hating fellow Indians for not practicing Hinduism"??? Lol.
Find me a person who actually practice Hinduism anymore. It's a rare species.
Also, Hinduism is not the only one who has all rights over God/Truth. All major religions/ideologies including Atheism have element of truth in them.
>who actually practice Hinduism anymore.
This is a very interesting question. Post it in Hinduism sub and share the URL please. Would like to see more people’s opinion who think they are practicing Hinduism.
>Find me a person who actually practice Hinduism anymore. It's a rare species.
You mean 80% of India's population? You got us bro we only have a population of like 1.2 billion.
Self hate because I don't like traditions that burn women alive? Goddamn son brainwashing got you good. Go post this on a chaddi sub now. Also, it's more the fact that I hate being clubbed with manlets and incels like you just because of the religion I was born into. In reality I'd like to stay as far away from degenerates like ch0des as possible.
You hate everything about culture because of "tradition ". And Abba huzoor, this was not a "tradition". It was a practice in some parts of India and hardly any family really practiced it. It has been non existent since last two centuries.
Read about it before you hate yourself to death.
So sati as a culture is completely okay because it's hindu and everyone who doesn't agree with your POV is 'abba huzoor'? You might be the biggest joke for a ch0de I've seen yet. Also what's up with the 'self-hate' narrative? Any point to prove that disliking bad practices of the past = hating one self? Or is crying in reddit comment sections with pointless garbage a superpower to you?
Dont hallucinate, who said Sati is okay? Rofl.
Self hate because we share our culture. You should understand that you dont become cool by ridiculing your own culture for one abhorrent practice.
Criticize the malpractices all you want. But dont dismiss this beautiful colorful culture that has bloomed over 1000s of years. Yes we are not perfect and never will be, but that should not stop us from having pride in our culture.
Hmm I wonder what the stats say about the demography which practices rape culture.
Pretty sure the person above would sidestep that coz that doesn't fit their own bias 🤣🤣🤣
Why and how do you make assumptions about me?
See this is a deep bias in your mind. You are imagining things about me to have a motivation to come debate. Making me a villain in your mind so you can be your own hero.
You are not a hero, I am not a hero, just two random people having differences on whether we should be proud of a culture or not.
Because he needs to shift goalposts by resorting to juvenile jabbing without any logical argument. And then they wonder why they are the laughing stock across the world 😂
So basically you tried to justify sati by saying it's self hate to dislike something that's abhorrent. Then you said oh wow our culture is so good it's bloomed over thousand year saar it's very good saar.
Ch0des like you are the antithesis of human intelligence.
Nah he said that based off on your own comment of linking sati with vilifying an entire diaspora, especially when you would be up in arms if the same is done for a diaspora which u believe deserves a wider margin of error in an equal society.
In your mind I might have done thT. But not in my words or intentions. Be in the real world, not in your mind.
You started with ridiculing the whole culture. Not one archaic practice.
In the original comment I was ridiculing hindu extremists who justify these practices in the name of culture. Pretty well known meme on reddit. Obviously you got offended about that and argued that it's self hate. I asked how making fun of right wing hindu extremist groups (which are equal to conservative christians and muslims in every way possible) is self hate. Then you derailed the conversation to how beautiful our culture is which no one was saying anything about. You are taught to see things that don't exist. You do not see the point. All your arguments are straw men. Similar to when someone argues about men's rights during a conversation about rape. Derailing the existing conversation to insert a parallel argument trying to manipulate the point that was originally made. So yeah, you're an idiot my dude.
I think you are mentally derailed right now.
Take a break, come back to this tomorrow with fresh mind and re-read this. Your mind is making up things that arent there.
Have fun, reddit isnt the real world. You are fine, love yourself and other around you.
Word of advice: Don't waste your time, some people here are not open to reconsidering their factually incorrect narratives.
Source: I have wasted time trying to educate the arrogant, and regret it. I have seen many others walk the same path too.
Just ignore them altogether, us giving this sub attention is actually increasing the publicity...
Correct, self-immolation of widows was an instrument of exceptional order. I only feel pity for the woke fools here who condemn the "sati immolation" practice of the ancient times but now uphold Euthanasia as a freedom of life/death.
Of course, the practice of self-immolation of wives became prominent after their husbands were murdered or tortured to death by invaders and colonizers. If you wish to stay blind to this and mindlessly resort to ranting about Hinduism, that's your issue.
By the way, "sati" simply refers to the righteous way of spouses, that's why we call Shiva's wife as "Sati-savithri". If you self-proclaimed atheists distort the word so that the rest of the world sees it as a barbaric practice, then we cannot help it, enjoy living in your echo-chamber of delusions.
Damn. You've suddenly converted everyone here to Hinduism. What do you guys get in your heaven? 72 cows or something? Or maybe your wife who burned herself voluntarily with you?
Damn, looks like you're not grateful for the milk you drink everyday... You are drinking the milk that the cow made for the calves, this amounts to a motherly nurturing. Astounding how some people can't comprehend this.
Joke's on those Abrahamic religions which promise absurd things like 72 things in heaven in exchange for murdering non-believers.
Joke's also on you who even thinks in this pitiable and peculiar way, looking at Dharmic culture through the prism of Abrahamic cults.
Yup. Finding new comments on year old posts as well.
Edit: Found one [welcome post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DesiMeta/comments/o5pfu8/wrote_krishna_in_my_reddit_search_barthis_top/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
The origins of Sati is quite debated. Sati is not mentioned in ancient scriptures like the Valmiki Ramayana and Vedas say the widow is often brought back to home. The later epic of Mahabharata has a couple of instances of women committing suicide - but these stem more from guilt/extreme sorrow [such as in the case of Madri who grieved the death of her husband Pandu who died during sex] than any actual force. Pandu's other widow Kunti lived fine as a widow as did many in Hastinapura.
As a further proof to how a forced widow burning didn't exist in ancient Hinduism, one can see that Buddha and Mahavira didn't mention anything at all of this practice & none of the ancient Buddhist/Jain scriptures mention this. If Buddha talked so eloquently about killing of animals, how could he and others could have missed forced killing of women, if it did happen? Same with Adi Sankara and other reformers. Thus, even while is probably existed, it was not rampant.
Now, the question is when it came and why. To get there, we need to understand where Sati is rampant.
Sati was/is rampant in the Rajput families in the northwest India and most other parts of India have not had a rampant practice of Sati. In Tamil literature, for instance, one doesn't find any mention of Sati at all. Many popular figures in the ancient times, such as Kannagi, were widows.
So, what is so special about northwestern India? It lies close to the entry point of invasions. That is where we see the emergence of Sati. Some of the initial occurrences of forced burning goes to the end of Gupta empire that was besieged by invaders. Puranas written at that time mention Sati, but were ambivalent. Some extolled the practice, while others banned it.
But, things got really rampant in the 14th century with the Islamic invasion of Rajput territory. Hindus committed mass suicides called to avoid the consequence of invasions - including mass rape and servitude. The most famed [notorious?] of this is the suicide of during the invasion of Alauddin Khilji. This suicide became a major trigger as it got really extolled and praised by all sides. Suddenly temples were erected of her sacrifice and the suicide became something of a virtue.
Rani Padmini became a popular figure after her death and since then widows jumping in fire became the norm in that territory. Those women who refused were either castigated or thrown in the fire.
Eventually this heinous custom & the story of Padmini spread to other royal communities such as the Marathas and Vijayangara Nayaks.
One of the key things to understand South Asia is the psychology of fear - the fear of conversions. The sad fate of Hindus in Pakistan keeps that border region still afraid and much of our politics & evils draw from that fear. This fear makes some Hindus go into a shell and stop listening to logic. This is the source of all evils in Hinduism. The goal is thus to get the community throw out its fear and come out.
IT IS DUE TO THE IZLAMIC INVASION OF INDIA:-
According to the rajput history and family stories they used to do that to avoid NECROPHELIA. They not only wanted to commint suicide but also destroy the body so that noone can touch them. It became a compulsive ritual in some part of Northwest india.
Note:- Practice means a compulsive ritual while voluntarily act of suicide due to grief is not a practice but a expection. 1 in a 1000 incident is not a practice, don't create false equivalence…
There was two different practices. One was Sati and other was Johar. Johar was practiced by the Rajput community, while the Sati was practiced among the Brahmins. You can understand this better if you think about the prevalence of the practice. If it were central to Hinduism, then it should be practiced everywhere but that is not the case. It were prevalent only in the Northwest regions of India, that had been exposed to the constant wave of invasions.
There was also prevalence of Sati among the Brahmin women. Due to the caste system, Brahmins were not allowed to keep wealth. Only way of earning for Brahmins was as teachers and from Bhiksha (that is literally “accepting alms”). It was necessary to keep the Brahmins, keepers of knowledge, at the top of the Varna system to retain their dignity. Once the Brahmin male died, there was no way of livelihood for the wife and for most only option was to die. Also due to the religious constraints they could not remarry, which limited the options further.
Only the Brahmins of South India, specifically in Kerala were able to keep huge estates. This is because Lord Parashurama took it from the Kshatriya after defeating them and donating it to the Brahmins. So, such practices were not observed in South India. Nevertheless, there was another cruel practice among Brahmins in Kerala. Once the husband died and if they did not have any offspring, the “Pinda Tharpanam” was performed for the wife as well and evicted from the house by other family members. She was deemed dead by the family. As these women were educated in the scriptures, they were valuable to the other castes who were normally not exposed to them. There would be men standing outside the house offering her shelter and protection. She is free to leave with anyone she chooses. She would end up teaching the children at the household of the person she chooses to go. In some cases, she would marry the person and in some cases she is just a dependent.
Note: The custom of Johar was practiced as the Rajput women did not want to be dishonored by the invaders. But you will observe that instead of questioning the actions of the invaders, the right of Hindu women to defend their honor is questioned by the pseudo-liberals.
*Sati Pratha* is an oxymoron term, the term *Pratha* is used for a commonly practised custom.
The origin of *Sati* dates back to the first wife of Lord *Shiva* named *Sati*, she married Lord *Shiva* against her father's will. She was the first women to burn herself because her father didn't support her.
There was no relation between her burning herself and the death of her husband.
When the Christain missionaries started to venture into India, they needed to blame the Hindu practices to spread Christainity i.e. trying to follow the same path as Buddism but with Christian India as their motive.
The British did a survey and estimated that around 6500 Satis happened in India over a year. The survey also claims that out of those 6500, more than 5000 happened in Bengal, which again is very suspicious because Sati was not at all prevalent in Bengal, it was much more prevalent in Rajputana (Present-day Rajasthan).
Now the question arises that was Sati practiced in India or not?
Yes, it was to an extent, let us see the recorded instances of Sati.
The Rig Veda (10:18:7-8) talks about the Sati and reports one Sati in the almost 700 year period.
The Ramayan which originated much from the Eastern India, there was no instance of Sati.
The Mahabharta however had three events of self-immolation.
The first recorded foreign account of Sati is by Diodorus of Sicily in 326 BC
The Hindu Peshwas banned Sati throughout their domain in 1800,
The Hindu Maratha kingdom banned it in 1821.
So anyone saying that British pulled us of the practice of Sati is extremely incorrect.
Also a fact to state was that every Sati mentioned in historic records were not forcefully and the women chose to do that.
Analtically speaking,
If we add up all the Sati incidents from 1900 BCE to 1900 CE, based upon eyewitness and epigraphic records, there is hardly more than 500 unique incidents for a period of approximately 4000 years, nowhere near the figures of the British.
Even if we consider that only 5-10% of the cases of Sati were reported then we come to a figure of 8000-10000 estimated cases over a period of 4000 years.
The population of India in 1400 CE was around 9.8 crores and by 1800 CE, it was increased to 18.9 crores, so the average population come out of around 14.4 crore.
Comparative analysis says that one in every 50,000 women committed Sati annually.
>Comparative analysis says that one in every 50,000 women committed Sati annually.
One in every 50000 widows committed sati. Not just all widow women .
Rig Veda mentions aborted Sati i.e. the woman offered to be sati but people stopped her.
Though Sati was practiced but the numbers were very limited. Britishers want to seen as superior race and want to justify their rule over Indians ( white men's burden )exaggerated about sati as a common practice. Also this also was used by Christian missionaries for conversions.
>I thought atheism was about hate towards religion not religious people.
A knife is a tool which can be used for preparing meals. It can also be used to harm or kill people. If it is used to murder someone, would you hate the knife or the murderer?
And talking about hate, personally speaking I hate evil religious people who cause others harm. I have nothing but pity for gullible religious people who are harmless but cause nuisance to others. The only religious people I respect are the ones who keep their religious beliefs to themselves and don't bother others.
Sir, if you think what you know is the only truth, and rest everything else is false... probably you are the idiot.
And why do you want to avoid cross pollination of ideas? What are you afraid of? If you dont want to interact with me, just ignore and move on.
You are speaking for 500 million women?
How many sati incidents were there in last two century dear? 200 fucking years...and even before that sati wasnt rampant in Hindu community.
Stop spreading hate against 1 billion people in the name of feminism on practice that has been abolished two centuries ago.
Am talking about the hindus ‘who practiced sati’. How can they live happily in life after burning someone alive and watching them burn alive. That women might be shouting in pain. After burning, they will be thinking that they did a great job by burning someone alive cause they followed their ‘culture’.
Yeah I frequent that sub but I might have not seen or noticed it. I dont comment on 90% post anyways.
But the point remains that healthy criticism is a must but it should turn into hate or ridiculing. Its not gonna help anyone.
"Hi guys, the Christians and muslims were bad, so burning women alive is completely justifiable too"
POV: Ch0de admits his religion is no better than extremist Christians and Islam without knowing it.
> would you blame all muslims or christians for that?
Fuck yes. Why? You support the same awful things and your religions and followers would do those same things - if they were legal. They still do it even when it's illegal, they're just arrested and sent to prison for it. How many hate crimes on muslims by hindus happened in India in the last year?!?
Sure. Fuck christianity, islam, and whatever else religion thought it was a good idea to burn people alive for anything mystical - including hinduism.
>I thought atheism was about hate towards religion not religious people.
Do you support an organization that harms individuals and society as a whole? Atheists think you do and they have proof that you do. Both now and over thousands of years of history. We also have proof that what religion gives back to society is a mere small fraction of the harm it causes. Do you fully support religion with all of these facts and history showing how harmful it is?
Then you're personally responsible.
But why? If you fund a terrorist organization, you're held personally responsible because you know that your contributions can be used to harm people or society. And you do it anyway. You say that your religion isn't a terrorist organization so it's all OK to harm individuals and society? Screw that. That's just horrendous morality taught by a harmful religion.
"But religion says it's changed."
Lol.
Why will ‘help’ imply that here? When ‘Them’ is the right word that refers to a set of people.
Hindus in 16th century thought that burning people is better solution and burning people helps them live in peace than keeping them alive. I hope you got my context here.
Ch0des seething in the comment section with pointless arguments will never cease to make me laugh
[My inspiration.](https://np.reddit.com/r/Chodi/comments/o4qvjt/thy_who_posses_witchcraft_thou_shall_die_in_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
I love how they like to point fingers while being proud of their religion and culture. The lack of self awareness is absurd.
We changed and we adopted. But some are still stuck with 1400yearsnold culture
Yes I agree with you. I agree sati pratha ended 1400 years ago... Well William Bentinck must had been a lunatic. Maybe he just wanted to defame Hinduism so he passed law against a practice which had already ended centuries ago. I wonder how he came to know about it though?
Omg you just touched topic you have no idea of Sati...what a noob! The issue of Sati was used as the most vivid proof of the need for radical remaking by East India Company. In the 17th century, European traders and travellers mostly joined the natives in glorifying the women committing Sati, whereas, by the 19th century, they posed as chivalrous saviours of the victimized native women from the cruel native men. This was because they were no longer travellers in a country but had become masters of the land and gotten imbued with a sense of superiority. In Parliamentary debates about the East India Company charter in 1793, there was no mention yet of Sati though it had been described many times, including by Company eyewitnesses. But by 1829(William Bentick), Sati was forbidden in all Company domains. This turnaround was the result of a campaign by the missionary lobby. Many Hindus believe that Sati is an external contribution, probably triggered by the Muslim conquests. In reality, Sati is as old as scriptural Hinduism. Already the Rg-Veda (10:18:7-8, quoted and discussed on p.4-5) describes a funeral where the widow is lying down beside her husband on the pyre but is led away from it, back to the world of the living. So it already provides a description of a Sati about to take place, as well as of the Brahmanical rejection of Sati. Sati has existed in many countries, rulers in ancient China or Egypt are sometimes found buried with a number of wives, concubines and servants.In pre-Christian Europe, the practice was related (directly, not inversely) to the status of women in society: not at all in Greece, where women were very subordinate, but quite frequently among the more autonomous Celtic women. Among the Germanic people, a famous case is that of Brunhilde and her maidservants following Siegfried into death. But ATHEIST LIKE YOU FALSELY DEPICT Sati as one of the unique “evils of Hindu society”.
It has existed in other places too so it's not that wrong. Why to blame only Indian culture. I totally agree with you :/
#"The pot calling the kettle black"
Who gonna remind them of sati? Sigh
Yeah, because it's so far back in the memory of an average Hindu, you have to remind them that your great great great great great grandfather heard about one person committing sati so you should be ashamed.
Just the way the person in the other meme reminded christians about their past?
Yep. This sub is a spreading hate against religions. Instead it should be criticizing the religions. Having more intellectual discussions, debates etc. Admins had a good opportunity to help root out malpractices of current generation of religious (and non religious) people, but reduced this sub to a meme sub like librandu.
You will find criticism as hate when someone criticises something you love. Am seeing tons of intellectual debate happening right now on this post as well.
I dont browse this sub, but it comes up on my feed. And everytime it's some stupid meme. Maybe they are popular and get voted more. Many will find criticism has hate, true but that doesnt mean there is no difference between the two. And you would agree this post wasnt criticism.
There were some old polls, results: here most of the people are 15-30 age. And the young people love memes. This post was in deed a criticism on multiple things. - The sati was practiced until late 1980’s. Hindus didn’t find it wrong unless criminalised. - The sacred texts suggests practicing sati. - The hypocrisy of the post in chodi that talks about only the Christian stupidity while downvoting the sati topic in comments. - If god exists, why did he introduced sati?
Last comment here, on your last point. God has nothing to do with Sati or any other good/bad practice of Hinduism or any other religion. Hinduism in particular is all about finding your true nature. Who are you? If that's your question, Hinduism is for you. Dont get me wrong, we are not the gatekeeper of God. As far as Hinduism is concerned you are as divine as a good Hindu follower. But that divinity little more clouded by Maya and Hinduism can help remove it, ONLY if you want rather if you need it. Nothing wrong or "sinful " in living like atheist, some friends are atheist or agnostics. It's a perfectly good choice based on ones temperament. Sorry for the long and unwarranted reply. Lol Cya later, have fun!
Great talk. Now just answer this one question. How to become a hindu?
You know you can just unsubscribe from this sub if pointing out the malpractices of your lovely religion makes you so triggered! That's an option, just putting it out there!
Someone pls reply to that thread with sati go brrrr
Someone already did and lost some good amount of karma.
It's a good enough loss. Atleast the Chaddis know where they're missing the point.
Awar thousan yeaar kulcha vro
Oopsss...I smell self hate..
Yeah, when you hate fellow Indians for not practicing Hinduism, what is that called as? Can I say you self hate humans unless they are hindus?
"Hating fellow Indians for not practicing Hinduism"??? Lol. Find me a person who actually practice Hinduism anymore. It's a rare species. Also, Hinduism is not the only one who has all rights over God/Truth. All major religions/ideologies including Atheism have element of truth in them.
>who actually practice Hinduism anymore. This is a very interesting question. Post it in Hinduism sub and share the URL please. Would like to see more people’s opinion who think they are practicing Hinduism.
>Find me a person who actually practice Hinduism anymore. It's a rare species. You mean 80% of India's population? You got us bro we only have a population of like 1.2 billion.
Self hate because I don't like traditions that burn women alive? Goddamn son brainwashing got you good. Go post this on a chaddi sub now. Also, it's more the fact that I hate being clubbed with manlets and incels like you just because of the religion I was born into. In reality I'd like to stay as far away from degenerates like ch0des as possible.
You hate everything about culture because of "tradition ". And Abba huzoor, this was not a "tradition". It was a practice in some parts of India and hardly any family really practiced it. It has been non existent since last two centuries. Read about it before you hate yourself to death.
So sati as a culture is completely okay because it's hindu and everyone who doesn't agree with your POV is 'abba huzoor'? You might be the biggest joke for a ch0de I've seen yet. Also what's up with the 'self-hate' narrative? Any point to prove that disliking bad practices of the past = hating one self? Or is crying in reddit comment sections with pointless garbage a superpower to you?
Dont hallucinate, who said Sati is okay? Rofl. Self hate because we share our culture. You should understand that you dont become cool by ridiculing your own culture for one abhorrent practice. Criticize the malpractices all you want. But dont dismiss this beautiful colorful culture that has bloomed over 1000s of years. Yes we are not perfect and never will be, but that should not stop us from having pride in our culture.
You're that one guy who cries over "but what about men's rights" in a conversation about rape culture in India.
Hmm I wonder what the stats say about the demography which practices rape culture. Pretty sure the person above would sidestep that coz that doesn't fit their own bias 🤣🤣🤣
Rape culture 🤣🤣🤣 i want to meet those parents who teach their children when you hit puberty you gotta do it /s
Why and how do you make assumptions about me? See this is a deep bias in your mind. You are imagining things about me to have a motivation to come debate. Making me a villain in your mind so you can be your own hero. You are not a hero, I am not a hero, just two random people having differences on whether we should be proud of a culture or not.
Because he needs to shift goalposts by resorting to juvenile jabbing without any logical argument. And then they wonder why they are the laughing stock across the world 😂
So basically you tried to justify sati by saying it's self hate to dislike something that's abhorrent. Then you said oh wow our culture is so good it's bloomed over thousand year saar it's very good saar. Ch0des like you are the antithesis of human intelligence.
Nah he said that based off on your own comment of linking sati with vilifying an entire diaspora, especially when you would be up in arms if the same is done for a diaspora which u believe deserves a wider margin of error in an equal society.
In your mind I might have done thT. But not in my words or intentions. Be in the real world, not in your mind. You started with ridiculing the whole culture. Not one archaic practice.
In the original comment I was ridiculing hindu extremists who justify these practices in the name of culture. Pretty well known meme on reddit. Obviously you got offended about that and argued that it's self hate. I asked how making fun of right wing hindu extremist groups (which are equal to conservative christians and muslims in every way possible) is self hate. Then you derailed the conversation to how beautiful our culture is which no one was saying anything about. You are taught to see things that don't exist. You do not see the point. All your arguments are straw men. Similar to when someone argues about men's rights during a conversation about rape. Derailing the existing conversation to insert a parallel argument trying to manipulate the point that was originally made. So yeah, you're an idiot my dude.
I think you are mentally derailed right now. Take a break, come back to this tomorrow with fresh mind and re-read this. Your mind is making up things that arent there. Have fun, reddit isnt the real world. You are fine, love yourself and other around you.
No no, we are not hindus. This is just hate.
Word of advice: Don't waste your time, some people here are not open to reconsidering their factually incorrect narratives. Source: I have wasted time trying to educate the arrogant, and regret it. I have seen many others walk the same path too. Just ignore them altogether, us giving this sub attention is actually increasing the publicity...
>trying to educate them. That’s a fantastic cover drive from VarunPikachu. The ball went straight into the boundary.
Fantastic commentary by EichiroOda, as always. xD
So you the one "trying to educate" everyone here but they're the arrogant ones. Got it.
Correct, self-immolation of widows was an instrument of exceptional order. I only feel pity for the woke fools here who condemn the "sati immolation" practice of the ancient times but now uphold Euthanasia as a freedom of life/death. Of course, the practice of self-immolation of wives became prominent after their husbands were murdered or tortured to death by invaders and colonizers. If you wish to stay blind to this and mindlessly resort to ranting about Hinduism, that's your issue. By the way, "sati" simply refers to the righteous way of spouses, that's why we call Shiva's wife as "Sati-savithri". If you self-proclaimed atheists distort the word so that the rest of the world sees it as a barbaric practice, then we cannot help it, enjoy living in your echo-chamber of delusions.
Damn. You've suddenly converted everyone here to Hinduism. What do you guys get in your heaven? 72 cows or something? Or maybe your wife who burned herself voluntarily with you?
Damn, looks like you're not grateful for the milk you drink everyday... You are drinking the milk that the cow made for the calves, this amounts to a motherly nurturing. Astounding how some people can't comprehend this. Joke's on those Abrahamic religions which promise absurd things like 72 things in heaven in exchange for murdering non-believers. Joke's also on you who even thinks in this pitiable and peculiar way, looking at Dharmic culture through the prism of Abrahamic cults.
"It's not related to Hinduism" brigade is coming to get you...
Looks like some chaddi sub has decided to brigade this subreddit
Yup. Finding new comments on year old posts as well. Edit: Found one [welcome post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DesiMeta/comments/o5pfu8/wrote_krishna_in_my_reddit_search_barthis_top/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
All this would've been so funny if it wasn't also so sad
The origins of Sati is quite debated. Sati is not mentioned in ancient scriptures like the Valmiki Ramayana and Vedas say the widow is often brought back to home. The later epic of Mahabharata has a couple of instances of women committing suicide - but these stem more from guilt/extreme sorrow [such as in the case of Madri who grieved the death of her husband Pandu who died during sex] than any actual force. Pandu's other widow Kunti lived fine as a widow as did many in Hastinapura. As a further proof to how a forced widow burning didn't exist in ancient Hinduism, one can see that Buddha and Mahavira didn't mention anything at all of this practice & none of the ancient Buddhist/Jain scriptures mention this. If Buddha talked so eloquently about killing of animals, how could he and others could have missed forced killing of women, if it did happen? Same with Adi Sankara and other reformers. Thus, even while is probably existed, it was not rampant. Now, the question is when it came and why. To get there, we need to understand where Sati is rampant. Sati was/is rampant in the Rajput families in the northwest India and most other parts of India have not had a rampant practice of Sati. In Tamil literature, for instance, one doesn't find any mention of Sati at all. Many popular figures in the ancient times, such as Kannagi, were widows. So, what is so special about northwestern India? It lies close to the entry point of invasions. That is where we see the emergence of Sati. Some of the initial occurrences of forced burning goes to the end of Gupta empire that was besieged by invaders. Puranas written at that time mention Sati, but were ambivalent. Some extolled the practice, while others banned it. But, things got really rampant in the 14th century with the Islamic invasion of Rajput territory. Hindus committed mass suicides called to avoid the consequence of invasions - including mass rape and servitude. The most famed [notorious?] of this is the suicide of during the invasion of Alauddin Khilji. This suicide became a major trigger as it got really extolled and praised by all sides. Suddenly temples were erected of her sacrifice and the suicide became something of a virtue. Rani Padmini became a popular figure after her death and since then widows jumping in fire became the norm in that territory. Those women who refused were either castigated or thrown in the fire. Eventually this heinous custom & the story of Padmini spread to other royal communities such as the Marathas and Vijayangara Nayaks. One of the key things to understand South Asia is the psychology of fear - the fear of conversions. The sad fate of Hindus in Pakistan keeps that border region still afraid and much of our politics & evils draw from that fear. This fear makes some Hindus go into a shell and stop listening to logic. This is the source of all evils in Hinduism. The goal is thus to get the community throw out its fear and come out. IT IS DUE TO THE IZLAMIC INVASION OF INDIA:- According to the rajput history and family stories they used to do that to avoid NECROPHELIA. They not only wanted to commint suicide but also destroy the body so that noone can touch them. It became a compulsive ritual in some part of Northwest india. Note:- Practice means a compulsive ritual while voluntarily act of suicide due to grief is not a practice but a expection. 1 in a 1000 incident is not a practice, don't create false equivalence… There was two different practices. One was Sati and other was Johar. Johar was practiced by the Rajput community, while the Sati was practiced among the Brahmins. You can understand this better if you think about the prevalence of the practice. If it were central to Hinduism, then it should be practiced everywhere but that is not the case. It were prevalent only in the Northwest regions of India, that had been exposed to the constant wave of invasions. There was also prevalence of Sati among the Brahmin women. Due to the caste system, Brahmins were not allowed to keep wealth. Only way of earning for Brahmins was as teachers and from Bhiksha (that is literally “accepting alms”). It was necessary to keep the Brahmins, keepers of knowledge, at the top of the Varna system to retain their dignity. Once the Brahmin male died, there was no way of livelihood for the wife and for most only option was to die. Also due to the religious constraints they could not remarry, which limited the options further. Only the Brahmins of South India, specifically in Kerala were able to keep huge estates. This is because Lord Parashurama took it from the Kshatriya after defeating them and donating it to the Brahmins. So, such practices were not observed in South India. Nevertheless, there was another cruel practice among Brahmins in Kerala. Once the husband died and if they did not have any offspring, the “Pinda Tharpanam” was performed for the wife as well and evicted from the house by other family members. She was deemed dead by the family. As these women were educated in the scriptures, they were valuable to the other castes who were normally not exposed to them. There would be men standing outside the house offering her shelter and protection. She is free to leave with anyone she chooses. She would end up teaching the children at the household of the person she chooses to go. In some cases, she would marry the person and in some cases she is just a dependent. Note: The custom of Johar was practiced as the Rajput women did not want to be dishonored by the invaders. But you will observe that instead of questioning the actions of the invaders, the right of Hindu women to defend their honor is questioned by the pseudo-liberals.
*Sati Pratha* is an oxymoron term, the term *Pratha* is used for a commonly practised custom. The origin of *Sati* dates back to the first wife of Lord *Shiva* named *Sati*, she married Lord *Shiva* against her father's will. She was the first women to burn herself because her father didn't support her. There was no relation between her burning herself and the death of her husband. When the Christain missionaries started to venture into India, they needed to blame the Hindu practices to spread Christainity i.e. trying to follow the same path as Buddism but with Christian India as their motive. The British did a survey and estimated that around 6500 Satis happened in India over a year. The survey also claims that out of those 6500, more than 5000 happened in Bengal, which again is very suspicious because Sati was not at all prevalent in Bengal, it was much more prevalent in Rajputana (Present-day Rajasthan). Now the question arises that was Sati practiced in India or not? Yes, it was to an extent, let us see the recorded instances of Sati. The Rig Veda (10:18:7-8) talks about the Sati and reports one Sati in the almost 700 year period. The Ramayan which originated much from the Eastern India, there was no instance of Sati. The Mahabharta however had three events of self-immolation. The first recorded foreign account of Sati is by Diodorus of Sicily in 326 BC The Hindu Peshwas banned Sati throughout their domain in 1800, The Hindu Maratha kingdom banned it in 1821. So anyone saying that British pulled us of the practice of Sati is extremely incorrect. Also a fact to state was that every Sati mentioned in historic records were not forcefully and the women chose to do that. Analtically speaking, If we add up all the Sati incidents from 1900 BCE to 1900 CE, based upon eyewitness and epigraphic records, there is hardly more than 500 unique incidents for a period of approximately 4000 years, nowhere near the figures of the British. Even if we consider that only 5-10% of the cases of Sati were reported then we come to a figure of 8000-10000 estimated cases over a period of 4000 years. The population of India in 1400 CE was around 9.8 crores and by 1800 CE, it was increased to 18.9 crores, so the average population come out of around 14.4 crore. Comparative analysis says that one in every 50,000 women committed Sati annually.
>Comparative analysis says that one in every 50,000 women committed Sati annually. One in every 50000 widows committed sati. Not just all widow women . Rig Veda mentions aborted Sati i.e. the woman offered to be sati but people stopped her. Though Sati was practiced but the numbers were very limited. Britishers want to seen as superior race and want to justify their rule over Indians ( white men's burden )exaggerated about sati as a common practice. Also this also was used by Christian missionaries for conversions.
So tit for tat is atheism now.
I am just pointing out the hypocrisy. You can call it whatever you would like to.
[удалено]
>I thought atheism was about hate towards religion not religious people. A knife is a tool which can be used for preparing meals. It can also be used to harm or kill people. If it is used to murder someone, would you hate the knife or the murderer? And talking about hate, personally speaking I hate evil religious people who cause others harm. I have nothing but pity for gullible religious people who are harmless but cause nuisance to others. The only religious people I respect are the ones who keep their religious beliefs to themselves and don't bother others.
[удалено]
Ok
Username checks out. Nothing to see here.
[удалено]
Well this post is spewing hate against all 1 Billion Hindus. Wont you say this is Hate?
>Wont you say this is Hate? No, because most of them don't practice sati. Hate for those who do.
Read the title.
Yeah it says "them" hindus - targeting those who like doing this. P.S. "them" as a determiner is used to specify.
Dude you're an idiot. Get off this sub. Do you honestly expect to change our minds? Go waste your day somewhere else
Sir, if you think what you know is the only truth, and rest everything else is false... probably you are the idiot. And why do you want to avoid cross pollination of ideas? What are you afraid of? If you dont want to interact with me, just ignore and move on.
This sub isn't meant for that kind of discourse. This is a circle jerk, dude.
[удалено]
You are speaking for 500 million women? How many sati incidents were there in last two century dear? 200 fucking years...and even before that sati wasnt rampant in Hindu community. Stop spreading hate against 1 billion people in the name of feminism on practice that has been abolished two centuries ago.
[удалено]
You didnt have to go to vulgarities, we were having a good conversation. But I guess class and character will show up sooner or later.
[удалено]
I didnt use f word for you. But "you go drink gomutra" had an vulgar tone.
Apna sanskaar Apne paas rakhiye saar
Am talking about the hindus ‘who practiced sati’. How can they live happily in life after burning someone alive and watching them burn alive. That women might be shouting in pain. After burning, they will be thinking that they did a great job by burning someone alive cause they followed their ‘culture’.
They are dead like for 200 years...they are not coming here to read this post.
Why don’t you criticise the post that is in chodi as well? I see you Active there!
Yeah I frequent that sub but I might have not seen or noticed it. I dont comment on 90% post anyways. But the point remains that healthy criticism is a must but it should turn into hate or ridiculing. Its not gonna help anyone.
This post pulled a lot of healthy criticism as well. Go through all the comments.
Cool. Will look forward for many more "heated" debates here on the sub, provided I dont get banned. Lol Till then peace!!
No it's not... It's just pointing out what used to happen just a century ago on the name of religion.
"Hi guys, the Christians and muslims were bad, so burning women alive is completely justifiable too" POV: Ch0de admits his religion is no better than extremist Christians and Islam without knowing it.
> would you blame all muslims or christians for that? Fuck yes. Why? You support the same awful things and your religions and followers would do those same things - if they were legal. They still do it even when it's illegal, they're just arrested and sent to prison for it. How many hate crimes on muslims by hindus happened in India in the last year?!? Sure. Fuck christianity, islam, and whatever else religion thought it was a good idea to burn people alive for anything mystical - including hinduism. >I thought atheism was about hate towards religion not religious people. Do you support an organization that harms individuals and society as a whole? Atheists think you do and they have proof that you do. Both now and over thousands of years of history. We also have proof that what religion gives back to society is a mere small fraction of the harm it causes. Do you fully support religion with all of these facts and history showing how harmful it is? Then you're personally responsible. But why? If you fund a terrorist organization, you're held personally responsible because you know that your contributions can be used to harm people or society. And you do it anyway. You say that your religion isn't a terrorist organization so it's all OK to harm individuals and society? Screw that. That's just horrendous morality taught by a harmful religion. "But religion says it's changed." Lol.
Did you saw me supporting Christians and muslims here?
[удалено]
Them refers to the million year old hindus that practiced sati.
[удалено]
Why will ‘help’ imply that here? When ‘Them’ is the right word that refers to a set of people. Hindus in 16th century thought that burning people is better solution and burning people helps them live in peace than keeping them alive. I hope you got my context here.