Challenge to Feminists, atheists and others: Discuss about all Goddesses, Angles or women.
13/07/2008 02:41:51  

By VEDAPRAKASH

Why attack "Sita" alone?


: The Jaina and Buddhist hypocrisy[1] is picked up by the selective scholars, researchers, bloggers etc., under the guise of feminism, women lib etc., throwing venom on "Sita". Really, it is not known why she has been targeted for more than 2500 years, or 3500 years according to different estimates. That such importance given to her, however shows her established status of chastity, ideal womanhood and model wife. It is unfortunate that only "Sita" is targeted - Why? If women are really worried about the welfare of women in India or elsewhere, they have to consider all women without any bias, prejudice or ideological disposition. Nowadays, certain women are coming out as "feminists", but exhibiting perplexing characteristics, dispositions and expressions. If a critical study is undertaken, an Indian woman or global woman has to view every woman-character, whether it is historical, pre-historical, semi-historical, mythical, legendary or whatsoever nature. But, it is not done.

The pattern


: A careful study of such literature shows a pattern, design or modus operandi as the Jaina and Buddhist versions are simply copied, modified and custom-made according to whims and fancies. Recently, Paula Richman[2] (editor)'s "Many Ramayanas" has been discussed in some forums, just to tarnish the image of Ramayana. Whenever Ramayana becomes popular, anti-Ramaya campaign would be triggered to counter it. It has to be pointed out that a woman-historian of stature – Romila Thapar[3] has not been exception to this syndrome. This time, it was Karunamnidhi[4], who initiated such activation through his famous questions of "Who is Rama? In which Engineering college he studied? And so on! Romila came out this time also, but only support Karunanidhi ideologically burying all her historical knowledge and expertise[5]. The DK has tried its best, but it failed, because, their own leaders have only "exhibited the character" of "Ravana". They have / had more than one wife one many wives with or without concubines. So not only Sita, Surpanaka, Mandodhari and other Ramayana or other women had / have to be afraid of them.  And ironically, none of the wives or women of Black Parivar want their husbands or would-be's  to be "Ravanas".

Ramayaya, Kimayana, Hemayana etc


: I just reproduce what TOI has given as the new version:

"Hema Ramakrishna[6], 60, has thrown fresh light on the quintessential Indian drama. Giving a new dimension to the Rama-Sita relationship, a Bangalore-based author has written a poetic English play, Sanctuary, that inverts several accepted standards in the Ramayana. In her foreword to the play, she says her work is part of the intellectual and emotional churning in the country, post-Babri Masjid demolition in 1992.

Her story de-glorifies both Rama and Ravana. Hers is a strongly feminist view






[7]






: Rama's treatment of two women-Sita and Surpanaka-comes under the scanner. Hema says, "Rama is that perfect being that can do no wrong. No doubt whatsoever is cast on his person, never mind how fraught his actions are with expediency, especially when it comes to the shabby treatment of his wife. And the unsavoury details of Surpanaka's mutilation.'' The play has been published by a Lankan bookhouse. But the Lanka in the play is not the same. It is Ranka, located in the 'Mahasamund' Bay of Bengal, next to Orissa's Chilka lakes. The other changes are practical- Ravana is not ten-headed. He has ten men beheaded to ward off his predicted "untimely death''






[8]






. Hanuman and gang don't build a bridge across the sea






[9]






, but Vibhishana, Hanuman, Rama and Lakshmana swim with Vanaras to Ravana's island and sneak in through a secret way into the palace-castle. There is no war.

The street-smart Rama knows Vanaras cannot match Ravana's crack army. He marches into Ravana's bedroom in the night and kills him






[10]






. Surpanaka is the story-trigger, Ravana kidnaps Sita because his sister is mutilated by Rama and Lakshmana. The demon king tells the audience: "What ruffians to attack a woman like this!'' Sita comes in just one scene, but Hema endows her with doom. The invasion of Ranka is because of her, "a mere woman'', much to the Vanaras' disgruntlement. Hema's reworked storyline is all in reported speech: Sita fights Ravana, but cannot match his force. Her tongue is cut for cursing him[11].

She loses speech, beauty, vitality and cowers in fear in Asokavana. Rama, repelled by the changes, rejects her. The Agni Pariksha conveys new thought. Hema makes it an angry rejection of male-dominance






[12]






: Sita jumps into Ravana's burning funeral pyre and dies, leaving Rama guilt-ridden. The end is Trikala Narada's epilogue: "Long before the first poets sang of him, Rama's name and fame were well known. But somewhere along the way, on the long and dusty road taking us back to Ayodhya, many changes crept into being. For it is we who invent our myths, we who create them, shape them and sing them out..



''

This golden rule has to be followed for all women, but not followed! However, they go on discuss about the Rama's ill-treatment of Sita.

The psyche, syndrome and pathology


: Psychologically, their inferiority complex works opposite with superiority complex. They have only one agenda - attack, abuse or even blaspheme Ramayana, you get attention of all easily. But, they may or may not realize its seriousness. It is just like calling one's own mother a prostitute (Though I am very sorry to use such expression, as otherwise, people understand only such language in some cases). As they characterise the suffering of Sita in a negative or so-called de-glorified way, they should depict the other popular or this type of de-glorification, street-smart heroines, women and goddesses. But they do not do. Why their minds have been diseased with such mindset? Why their thinking has been carcinogenic stopping all thought processes? Perhaps, we have to follow the prescription of Tiruvalluvar!

"Demythologization and de-glorification: When the critical edition of Ramayana was prepared, many scholars have involved in it. Thus, the de-glorifiers, manipulators and blasphemers must know about the "critical edition". But, they are not worried about it, but they want only Apocryphal





[13]





Ramayanas and not critical edition of Ramayana. They also go on produce more such trash – "Apocryaphal Ramayanas" against Valmiki Ramayana. Thus, if the blind can ride, they can use winds as chariots or even aeroplanes. Thus, "Kimayanas" or "reverse-Ramayanas" cannot be fit into any historical or critical studies, but it is some sort of "secular Romances" in India with "romantic atheism".

"Demythologization" has been the removal of "myth" in ancient texts in historical perspective. As many historians and archaeologist have done it, H. D. Sankalia in his books have pointed out that the following could be historical facts, as such facts were known to Indians since at least 1000 BCE. As he had been an archaeologist, he has demythologized Ramayana and brought it to human understanding. However, in spite of his scholarship and professorship, he never discussed low about Ramayana.

But, other historians do – Romila does, as pointed out – a de-glorification process? How atheist Karu-like personality and the woman-Romila could be thinking in the same way when the question of rama comes? When the issue of historicity of Rama comes? What is that coincidence or psycho-pathological matching?

Separation of male-female, husband-wife etc


: In modern context, man and woman, if they want, they can live together, have sex, raise or abort children and divorce or go away. Again the divorced or separated man and woman can repeat the process on the principles of "independence" or "right of living and separation", "right to have sex" and so on. None can question. When man-man and woman-woman relationships are also accepted, or opposed, such relationships are glorified, publicized as hall-mark of progressiveness and freedom of expression of sex[14]. However, in  everty society, irrespective of divisions, differences and variance, all people and animals follow the pattern of one man-one woman relationship.

Again note, recently a Supreme court Judge has opined that the Hindu Marriage act has been responsible for maximum divorces





[15]





. It has to be noted that Indian tradition does not sanction divorce, though, historical evidences have been there. However, of lte, there have been few cases reported every year, because of modernism, westernism and women could not cope up with such modernization processes at one side and other traditional and conservative system followed.

"Clooneyism" exhibited in theological attack on Hindu Goddesses


: How professional bias could affect this subject could be noted from the book / study of one Harvard University Professor Francis X. Clooney[16], S. J., in his comparison of Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary. As the paper of K. V. Ramakrishna Rao criticising his study is available in the internet, the appropriate portions are reproduced here for convenience[17] (three paragraphs with tables – all italicized): For Clooney's reaction, in turn to his paper, see the referred to websites[18].

"Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary"




: This is the subtitle of the recent book of Clooney mentioned above, which has been dissented, refuted and disapproved by the involved Vaishnavites. They have been totally dejected and dismayed, the way in which he collected the inner information from them and now using, rather misusing in different way. Under the guise of "Comparative Theology", he has tried to compare certain Hindu Goddesses with the Mary taking the following six works:

Title of the work	Author / Composer	Period / date	Language
Sri Guru Ratna Kosa (Auspicious Treasury of the Jewels That Are Sri's Quality)	Parasara Pattar	12th century CE	Sanskrit
Saundarya Lahiri (Wave of Beauty)	Attributed to Sankara	10th cent. or before.	Sanskrit
Apirami Antati (Linked verses for Apirami – the Beautiful One)	Apirami Bhattar	18th cent.	Tamil
Akathistos (Sing while Notseated)	Not mentioned	6th cent.	Greek
Stabat Mater	Do	13th cent.	Latin
Mataracamman Antati [Antati verses in Honour of the Queen among women – the Goddess (of Mylapore)]	Do	19th cent.	Tamil

Here, the important differences are tabulated as follows:

Hindu tradition	Christian tradition
1.    Godhead has been accepted both as Male and Female.	1.    Godhead is always considered as Male.
2.    "Mother / Female Goddess" concept is perceived, conceived and applied in all aspects.	2.    "Mother / Female Goddess" concept is anathema to the "Father / Male God". Even, Mary is considered as only "Mother of God".
3.    It is very common that God can be imagined with female and male characteristics – individually, separately and in combine also.	3.    In Christian or Semitic theology, God cannot be imagined with female and as well as male characteristics.
4.    Brahma-Saraswati, Vishnu-Lakshmi, Siva-Parvati etc., have Male-Female representation with Father-Mother Status.	4.    In attempted comparison, Male Jesus is placed with Female Mary, who are repeatedly mentioned as Son (the only Son) and Mother (the Virgin Mary).
5.    The above Male-Female combinations have been very common since time immemorial in all forms and representations.	5.    Holy Spirit-Mary, Joseph-Mary, etc., are unthinkable and forbidden making the researchers in dilemma. Of course, the pundits and experts of "Comparative Theology" tactfully avoid and explain away.
6.    The Vedic scriptures have been dated to c. 5500 to 2500 BCE.	6.    The Biblical scriptures are dated to first centuries of the Current / Common Era (CE).

Clooney's Claim of Understanding of Hindu Goddesses through Mother Mary




: The following description has been faithfully taken from his recent work without changing crucial words.

ð
 




Hindus Goddesses have fascinated Clooney for many years since 1973.He has approached his counterpart-theology as a Christian, as a Roman Catholic and a Jesuit priest encountering the faith and cult of goddess tradition.

ð
 




He claims that he has himself translated and read the Hindu works of hymns quoted closely in light of their traditional commentaries.

ð
 




However, he admits that it is no small matter to recommend that Christian theologians take Hindu Goddesses seriously and study the goddess hymns with theological care, as Christian theology is rooted in biblical tradition deeply dedicated to the one true God and also, seems, to dismissal of the idea of goddess.

ð
 




He also confesses that although Christian tradition does include instances of reflection of God as mother, their implications are minimally developed.

ð
 




With all the prohibitions of Christian dogma, he notes that several books have helped him understand that the rich and unsettling possibilities of the cult of Mary, and to see how Mary, the one who helps Christians to understand Sri, Devi and Apirami.

ð
 




Here, he reveals his real intention to elevate Mary and degrade Hindu Goddesses.

ð
 




Realizing his theological attack now on their Goddesses, Vaishnavites condemn his prejudiced convictions, professional bias and unethical professional handling of "Comparative Theology" coupled with religious superiority, theological arrogance, holy imperialism,  all definitely leading to fundamentalism and terrorism.

The traditional and modern Vaishnavite scholars have also surprised to note and doubt as to whether a mischievous religious fundamentalist and communalist had hidden under the veil of professorship, that too, coming from big Universities to make such comparison and representation. The inter-religious dialogue should be frank and mutual, giving equal rspect to the respective beliefs dealt with. The "believers" with whom Clooney had such "dialogues" should have been informed about his motive, norms and standards. But, he did not so. He approached them as a researcher, posing as devout person to understand Hindu Goddesses, made close friendship with temple priests, entered temples and mutts, observed rituals and rites (liturgy), learned the nuances of Vaishnavite theology and finally tried to denigrate and disparage with his sophisticated language, professional bias and scholarly colonialism. He cannot have any standards to measure the divinity of Mother Goddesses, when he cannot accept to have any "Mother" equal to his "Mother Mary". He cannot coolly claim that Mary helped to understand Hindu Goddesses, when he has cheated genuine and honest believers, in fact, who have helped him. Thus, it is really, theological fraud, religious deceit and (un)faithful sham inflicted on Hindus under the guise of Inter-religious dialogue and inculturation, which will have serious consequences in Indian society.

Historical Mother Goddess, Hindu Goddesses and Christian Mary




: The Mother Goddess concept, worship and their archaeological evidences have been abundant in ancient civilizations, thousands of years before the advent of Christianity and elevation of Mary, though not as an independent Goddess, but as "Mother of God", as Jesus was the "Only Son of God". Scholars[19] have also pointed out the development of Virgin goddess myth from the Zodiac, the Black Virgin / Goddess, Ishtar, Isis, Mayadevi, Devaki and others. For example, the Black Virgin depicted in four scenes on the inner walls of the Temple of Luxor inscribed by King Amenhotep III is dated to 1538-1501 BCE. The cult of Virgin Mary, thus developed out of such images and in later times, was overlaid the cult of Jesus and its adoption led to the issue of Mother and Woman. However, Christian clergy have never wanted to place Mary above Jesus Christ. Of course, surprisingly, for Joseph, there is no place here. There is no such problem of Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth etc., in Indian context. Perhaps, that is why Pius IX decreed in 1854 that Mary was free from original sin "in the first instant of her conception". As pointed out Hindu Goddesses can exist independently or with their counterparts. Son-god is always placed below Mother-god in the divine pedestal, whereas, in Christianity, there has been a lot of theological controversy and dogmatic debate about such exigency. The name "Mary" is considered to have been derived from different myths[20] –

ð
 





Mirium



, a name already existing among the Jews and Gentiles;

ð
 





Myrrha



, mother of Adonis in Syrian cult;

ð
 





Maira



, mother of Hermes in Greek mythology;

ð
 





Maia



, daughter of atlas;

ð
 





Maya



, mother of Buddha.

ð
 





Merris



, the Egyptian princess who found the babe Moses.

ð
 





Meri



, one of the daughters of Ramses II.

But, Sri, Devi or Apirami has no such confused mythical development. Their origin is traced back to Vedic and pre-Christian periods. Thus, they have clear independent concept, worship and religious incorporation. In fact, the male-female rivalry noticed in Puranas have been settled through Artha-narishwara concept (Male-Female Combined Godhead or to show that God is neither Male nor Female at higher / divine level and stressing gender equality a lower / human level). Why Clooney has not touched upon such concept is not known. Moreover, as he has taken three Hindu hymns depicting three different Hindu Goddesses, he could have taken three Christian Goddesses for comparison or better understanding.

Thus, if he could understand Hindu Goddesses through Mary, being "a scholar, professor and member of the academic community", ignoring other aspects, it is not known as to how his study could have been objective, reasonable and comparative so that he could "welcome his fellow scholars for their reactions", as he has offered in his Preface (Nearer the Goddess). As a scholar, he must have recorded the historical background of Mary also for understanding of Christian and Hindu Goddesses in his Comparative theology

."

Thus, this has been a classical case of Christian attack on Hindu Goddesses at the cost of morbid elevation of Mary with sheer religious arrogance. While the atheists and feminists attack differently, this type of refined theologians posing as scholars and professors attack Hindu religion. As Paula Richman has also done in the same way, Clooney does it in a different way, but the target has been the same. And our atheists, feminists and other progressive and secular categories have been so happy to use such materials against Hindu religion. Of course, the print and electronic media gives maximum publicity with clout of Harvard University, Oxford University, Duke University and so on. What is this psyche?

Why Mary, Kathija etc, are not studied by the feminists


: According to Christian belief Mary was married to Joseph, but she begot Jesus Christ through "Holy Spirit" known as "Immaculate conception". None discusses such process in the feminist or atheist aspect. Jesus Christ, her son once asked, "Who are you" and so on? Again, they do not see anything unusual or accuse him of neglecting mother or motherhood or womanhood. There have been many incidences narrated where the Apostles, Popes, Saints and priests had / have ill-treated, exploited and molested women, but, they never conducted or do not conduct any study. Lakhs or millions of women – ladies and girls were killed or burned at stake declaring them as "possessed" or "witches". The witch-hunting was in practice even during 19^th century in Europe and UK-University conducts course on "Witch-craft"! How the British cheated Indians in misinterpreting "witch-burning" and "widow-burning" has been pointed by recently[21], which exposes the hallowness of Indian historiography and the woman's response to the issue.

Coming to Islam, the position of women has been highly controversial, though the orthodox claim that Koran has given the maximum liberty and rights to women. The marrying of Kathija, an elderly lady by Mohammed and later marrying his own daughter-in-law, and other women etc., are not discussed in the feminist circles or studies. How the men exploit women by having up to four wives at a time, clitorectomy, women-slaves, harems etc., are not discussed. The sklave-trade carried on by the Mohammedans, particularly by the pirates has been the blackest chapter of woman-history in the world. They do not discuss. They just think it would be some sort of "Salman Rusdhism" inviting thr wrath of Islamic jihadis with fatwas.

These are given only for illustrative purpose and not exhaustive.

Misinterpretation of mylogization or de-glorification


: Atheists approach mythology as "totally myth", untruth and hence easy for their criticism. Thus, they are or need not bother about demythologization to find out the truth in it. Glorification, veneration, exaltation and deification come only for the appreciating class, whereas for the people who decide to criticize, only disparagement, denigration, defamation, deprecation, disrespect, blasphemy and all play into the role of the critic.

Feminists too one way or the other tread on such path without any real analysis or criticism. In a secular society during the age of globalization, they must have come out of such mindset and interpret. After all mythologization has been making history, past events or human imprints in an exaggerated way suitable to the public for entertainment also. In movies, a lot of things are depicted and people know they are not only myth, but also untruth, but still people enjoy and the film-makers provide more-more exaggeration, myth and untruth.

The atheists and feminist do not question as to –

Ê





how a woman comes in less dress or no dress;

Ê





how a single woman mating with many men and vice versa;

Ê





how a woman is gang-raped;

Ê





how women are acting in such scenes just for money;

Ê





and so many other vulgar, violent, unimaginable depictions that a man cannot imagine or depict in such a way under normal conditions;

Ê





Meta-cinematographic computer graphic depictions (which need not be explained).

Appreciating the myth of non-Hindu religions, but deprecation of myth of only Hindu religion in the context of atheists, feminists or both joining together, the important question arises – why such partiality, bias, prejudice and selection? How the myth, mythology, superstition, blind-belief, religious and dogmatic fallacies, miracles etc., of non-Hindu religions become acceptable to their intellect or their wonderful brains become inactive to think and express their liberal criticism accordingly? If a psychological critic fails in her / his psychological study psychologically, then anybody can question her / him.

In Christianity, Islam and other religions myth, mythology, superstition, blind-belief, religious and dogmatic fallacies, miracles etc., have been historicized or censored completely so that they are not discussed, debated or analyzed. In fact, they have more such factors in their literature. Moreover, only edited or authorized versions are made to circulate suppressing the original literature from the common people and public.

In western countries, "Female Christs", "Female Prophets" and such concepts and facts have been discussed, debated and recorded. But, here not only the western or eastern scholarship, even the Indian scholarship has been silent about it. However, if "Sita" has to be criticized, all scholarships join  together. This rarest if rare phenomenon only provokes me many times.

Bangalore, Sita and Feminism


: In the context, the repeat of 2005 by Hema or "Sowmiya Aji Mehu" or mentioned as "Sowmya Ali" by the atheist now in Bangalore is significant. Earlier, Rajasekhara Shetty used to conduct such gimmicks from Bangalore. Of late, with the rise of MNCs, Bangalore becoming hub of IT, it has become haven for Islamic terrorists also. So, naturally others too follow the suit to choose Bangalore for their activities. But, there has been a book written by V. Suryanarayan and published in Bangalore itself in 1992, wherein he has dealt with the issue critically. Coming to "Hemayana", the following points are noted:

·        

Is it actually feminist scanning or feminist sadism psychologically?

·        

When she has decided to fly in imaginary world, she should thought about Ravana cutting Sita's tongue and other torturous acts committed on her.

·        

The play features a deglamourized Sita, who loses her beauty and vitality with the rape. Wonderful, indeed the scanning!

·        

In fact, I need not discuss such things, as only imagination roosts without anything.

·        

"An enraged and despairing Sita jumps into Ravana's funeral pyre", yes, she is not Sita and also Sita of Valmiki Ramayana, but Hema's "ayana" – "Hemayana".

·        

If her imagination has not been conditioned, tainted or imbibed, the, she should start scanning, all women like Sita. Can she take the cases of Mary and Kathija?

·        

Nandi, can you recommend her?

·        

Like Kimayana, why there has not been any "Gibal", "Kiran" etc. or Hemable, Hemakuran?

·        

Being a woman, that too so popular, how she could have forgotten those two Goddesses, ladies or angles or simply women?

Here comes the hypocrisy, scanning duplicity, feminist selectivity, women supporting womanizers and so on.

Conclusion


: After attending many meetings, seminars and conferences, particularly and carefully listening to feminists and later having discussion with them at the hall / auditorium and as well as in person, it is noted that in most of the cases, the women-speakers, female-activists, writers, and all types feminists have had the following experiences:

Ê





Love-failure, at school, college or neighborhood levels.

Ê





Pre-marital experiences from touching to sex levels affecting them psychologically after marriage or during intercourse with the present husband.

Ê





Divorce, Second marriage with children with indifference of the second husband.

Ê





Divorce, second marriage without children but husband living.

Ê





Inter-caste marriage, clash of thinking, culture etc.

Ê





Once being very orthodox, but now not-so due to above factors and as well as not willing to follow on economic grounds.

Ê





Ideological differences among the educated, elite, and well-earning categories.

As they have crossed all levels, they are not bothered about anything and therefore, they have decided to talk and write anything, as long as they are allowed to do so with compensation. Particularly, the retired-women have been notorious in this aspect, as they play double-game – portraying as "saviors of women" outside but "torturing their aged husbands" at home! Many self-respect husbands do not tell openly or suppress the fact by not inviting friends to their houses, as they could not honour the friends even with water.

The same psyche is noted among the atheists. Early childhood influence, cinema-attraction, hero-worship, etc., make them to take shelter under the acts of "substitution" or "compensation" by admiring such "unsuccessful acts" getting fulfilled through their heroes. Even after the death of the personalities or ideologies, they are required for the cure of psychic disorders and diseases. But, when they come to public, they affect and spoil others going "abnormal" or to "extreme ends". Thus, the cases of political schizophrenia, ideological schizophrenia, atheist schizophrenia, feminist schizophrenia, secular schizophrenia etc., have been on increase day by day. Recent trend has been senile schizophrenia!

VEDAPRAKASH

13-07-2008.