Separating Religion and Custom
I met a very intelligent and sensible person the other day - the first of all the scores of people I have ever met in my life in fact, who acknowledged how much custom, tradition, norms, (i know they are sociologically different terminologies, if anyone cares to elaborate) have been incorporated into, and in many cases, often overpowered the fundament of that particular religion.
For instance, how do phases of the moon get linked to women in a way that doesnt have to do with their period? Who said that Chaudas is good for married women and you shoudl fast on poonam? (I know I know, the Puranas do, but still, for arguments sake). When a particular prophet/God/saint, dies, attains nirvana whatever, and leaves nothing in writing, what are we, centuries later to follow? The essence or the instructions written down by followers, and followers of followers, who may have had personal biases of their own, which gradually twisted the religion into a mere generalisation? Is not religion, in essence, faith in a set of beliefs and values, with a twist of some size (dependent on personal factors), in terms of personal interpretation?
I personally see fasts as self-discipline, a way of demolishing ego and controlling desires. I dont see them as benefitting my husband or anyone else in anyway. Yes, there are women who fast as personal repentance when they fight with their husbands and so on, but that reiterates the point i made in the previous sentence. How does my not eating ensure my husband's longevity. (On further thought, probably in olden days when food was scarce, a woman not eating once a week ensured that much more food for her labouring husband, and therefore better chances of survival, LITERALLY. But dude, its not like the woman was doing any less work). How is that relevant in today's world, when men and women both are being struck by diabetes and other lifestyle-related diseases directly a result of an abundance of food?
What is this crap about wearing red as a married woman and white as a widow?
How is it, that in religions like Jainism and Mahayana Buddhism, that the gorgeous, revolutionary thought processes regressed into situations as regressive as Hinduism can sometimes be? Religions that emphasize the individual as a vehicle to salvation - how did they take on the burden of teh husband and family in their karmic cycle? idol worship, however pure they call it, bhajans that call on Buddha and the Tirthankars as God when each specifically did not acknowledge the existence of one? Its the basic weakness of the human psyche, the unwillingness to give up on millenia of established practice. Why are antiquated traditions still practiced when these religions were so progressive in their own times? Why do we practice rituals that are meaningless when they are no longer relavant, especially in terms of food and male-female relations?
Of course, I explicitly acknowledge the importance of mariage, and the stability of the family, for its progeny and the community as a whole to prosper. There is absolutely no contesting that. Some values, whether we agree or not, are universal, and not really in question here for the moment. What I am questioning is not the actual dynamics of marriage, (though conventionally the woman has always sacrificed more, whether or not the man is capable of equal sacrifice, it has simply not been expected to the same degree because of the establised patriarchal system of family), but the customs and religious practices associated with its sancity and upholding. Why is it that men have not fasted for their wives since antiquity? I was told once that in Hinduism, a man fasts for himself, and the woman fasts for the man, and that the punya (merit) from each goes onto the man. In jainism, men and women each fast for themselves and attain their own punya. The Jain view is of course more egalitarian, but why is it not practiced? Why is fasting a competition between families about how devout their members are? Why is temple going, displays of devotions a point to prove, when the hearts of half the members are not in it?
Why is religion seen as an economic institution, a competition between races and peoples and creeds for funding and temple building and propaganda-spreading, and not what it was originally designed for - self-fulfillment through altruism and just simple love? Why have we made such a fundamental need and means of spiritual survival so complex that it is beyond the grasp of humanity?
posted by Princess Joya | 3:24 pm
7 Comments:
After making the post-marriage comeback on blogosphere, you appear jaded in these recent writings. It draws a stark contrast in comparison to your likes and dislikes earlier. I hope you attain a sense of self which accepts that a marriage is a marriage but an individual is an individual. One pledges for divine commitment and the other draws a more fundamental basis. And we realize this well in time. It is nothing western or eastern.
Men are basically useless. The only way they can accomplish anything is to make women to the legwork and then take the credit.
Religion is about power. It is about men appropriating divine power -- often, to compensate for their near irrelevancy to the propagation of the human race. Religious leaders are the least likely to be believers.
Horses won't pull carts on their own. They must be captured and broken in narrow paddocks before they will take the bridle. Only a man would think to take such a wild, beautiful and powerful creature and break it to serve his needs.
There is a reason horses used to appear as metaphors for women. Just as there is a reason horses will throw the men astride their backs.
delicious and spicy food for thought for fasting individuals
both men and women,
but what actually you wanted to say in the long run?
tch tch prosperina. but how does 'useless' man manage to bridle wild, beautiful and powerful creature called woman.
if thou art believer blame the god, oops goddess, for does not the male in the animal kingdom (usually) lead the pack and set the rules of power. (go on, google it but don't stop when you get 2.5 examples of female dominant species and then extrapolate it to suit your prejudice)
poor man, he is only doing what he is programmed to do by your god, no goddess, on third thoughts, god.
btw he is really not programmed to be useless. so far as history and anthropology goes, he does the painful legwork and the woman gets to eat the foodgrain from the neighbourhood paddy field. or he goes to war, gets his head blown out. and when crops fail, the MAN commits suicide. Refer to daily newspapers.
btw btw even your name is a MAN's creation. Claudianus, the roman, in fact. But you might say his wife wrote the myth and then he signed his name
"anonymous" -- It is in the nature of a creature that senses its inherent uselessness to brutalize other creatures into acknowledging its contrived relevance. Uselessness is not, unfortunately, synonymous with weakness. Witness the number of women who are raped every day -- by strangers, by husbands, by fathers, and by so-called friends. Witness, in the animal kingdom, the single lion's exertion of force over the lionesses and cubs of the pride. He contributes little more than reproductive material, and some minimal effort to ensure his offspring survive.
Historically, women did the work in the paddies, or other fields, and men have tended to do the hunting. Ask yourself which was the more steady and reliable source of food -- a harvest cultivated from the field, or the off chance that crudely fashioned weapons would bring down an animal. If women stayed at home, it was because insecure men were so terrified of losing their reproductive vessel that they walled it up away from the competition.
As for war, women don't start those either, yet women get killed and raped and suffer all sorts of abuse at the hands of the men who start them. If men get destroyed by their own disputes -- well, only a useless creature would blame women for that.
And nobody knows who invented the old stories. Don't pretend you do. You barely have the grammar or syntax to Google Proserpina's story. If you did, you'd know that goddess and her story predate the Roman empire. I just chose the Latin permutation of her name.
Useless does not mean ineffectual. It should, but it doesn't.
proserpina,
there's a reason men themselves prefer mares and not horses! i just learnt that the bridegroom sits on a mare, not a horse, when he proceeds towards the mandap. practicing, evidently.
Most religions I know about call a woman 'impure' when she has her period. The 'punishment' varies from religion to religion. Not allowed to touch holy scriptures, not allowed to enter the kitchen, not allowed to touch a man - it's endless.
I wonder if it is indeed just to call her impure based on something she has no control over. I am not a what-do-you-call-it somebody who studies cultures and histories student. But to me, culture and religion are not too far apart. Culture seems to be just an aftermath or contemporary of religion. They are like incestuous siblings (but don't quote me on that)
Then when women were stopped being pushed (or did some jump in happily?) into pyres with their dead husbands, they were made to shave their heads, abstain from eating anything sweet, wear white clothes, not wear jewelry and do anything possible to look unattractive and be sad. And then this was just in one culture. But oh, the man can remarry, and has no visible signs on him that said he was married to start off with. No Mangal Sutra Sinduur etc.
Then there would be hundreds of other cultures which would find their own twisted ways to mistreat women.
In Islam, two women's testimonies equal one man's. The women wear veils but there is no such requirement for a man. Luckily they are allowed to get an education and work as long as they follow all the rules. And oh look at how Judaism treats a menstruating woman like a leper.
Ofcourse * all * of this would be justified with some twisted serpentine reasoning which religious people would talk about in a know-it-all tone.
The fact remains that a religion does not treat a male and a female equally.
You would know about all this. And could probably even put it down better. I just get too angsty and don't even know the right words anymore.
And who is this judgmental anonymous.
Post a Comment
<< Home