In the past, I was somewhat snarky when it came out that Aishwarya Rai, before her marriage to Abhishek Bachchan, agreed to marry a Peepul tree because of her “Manglik” status. 
The New York Times had a story recently (thanks, Jamie), which described how Aishwarya Bachchan recently dropped out of a Hollywood project with Will Smith in order to be home in Mumbai to celebrate Karva Chauth.
For those who don’t know, Karva Chauth is a traditional Hindu festival where wives fast for a whole day without food or water as a symbol of their devotion to their husbands. I have many women friends who object to the festival as regressive, though I also know one or two people who do observe it out of a sense of loyalty to tradition. (Perhaps not too surprisingly, the women I know who observe it are NRIs, not ABDs. Are there any ABDs out there who observe Karva Chauth?)
Here is the quote the NYT gives regarding Aish’s decision to return to Mumbai for Karva Chauth:
Ultimately Ms. Bachchan chose to return to Mumbai and starve with a smile. National television channels covered her first Karva Chauth as headline news. Two months later she shrugged off her loss in an interview. “You do what you have to do,†she said. “Feeling torn and thereby unhappy, confused or guilty is not something I want to feel. So you make your choices and go with it. You get some and some you don’t.†(link)
What to say. From what I can tell, everything Aish does outside of her acting seems to reflect a pretty sincere traditionalism. One has to presume she’s observing Karva Chauth because she really wants to, not because anyone put pressure on her to do so. So, if we accept that the festival of Karva Chauth isn’t inherently sexist (and the case can be made that it is), here I’m inclined to give props to Aish for putting tradition over her career. It certainly beats America’s celebrity culture — which has lately just been depressingly bad, what with Britney losing her mind, and Amy Winehouse smoking crack…
On the other hand, the Indian media loves this kind of thing, so it may be that sacrificing a romantic comedy with Will Smith might actually help her Bollywood career — and she can have both. Jodhaa Akbar, anyone?
Wow. Some of you are being really rude to Divya. It’s become a common trend among some commenters to just mock other commenters for their comments instead of actually addressing them (if the comments are ridiculous, then go ahead an mock, but I don’t think Divya’s were). I’ve read SM on and off for a long time, I think I need to stop for the sake of my sanity (and GPA). I don’t even agree with Divya, but the holier-than-thou mentality that I can feel radiating through my laptop screen, combined with the mutual pats on the back, is repelling me. It’s a shame because I think y’all are intelligent and funny. But the way that dissenting commenters (pleases don’t pretend that there isn’t a ‘mainstream’ POV on this site) get treated is a big turn-off.
Rahul your sarcastic comment is uncalled for! and she is not even arguing with you! You have always made fun of dissenting commenters, ridiculed them…..I think you are uncapable of having a meaningful conversation. Just stick to your oneliners….and let others “discuss” things
Thanks for the helpful suggestion, I will take it under advisement.
Only the ones who feel the need to insult on multiple threads, and make sweeping statements not based in fact. There are many others on this thread who have made comments that I haven’t said a peep about, because they were perfectly justifiable.
All that said, I realize I am only perpetuating the same behavior if I respond in kind, so I will make an inadequate apology for transferring my real-life stress into a sharp sepia commenting tone, and will refrain.
I didn’t just mean Rahul… I also don’t see what was so ‘Orwellian’ about that statement that Divya made. Some of her statements (‘ugly American’) were extreme, but that one I think is a point worth considering.
As a DBD i’ve only done Karva Chauth once – the year I got married. I hated every single second of it. I hate being hungry and do not believe in starving myself for anything or anyone. So I stopped.
Speaking of fasting, us gujjus (by us, I mean generally and not every single gujju out there) frequently consult some astrologer or someone to get our futures read – and many a times the wives are asked for fast for husbands well being and whatnot. Anyone else know about this? What do you think about it?
\
I’m glad you think so. Sometimes there is no polite way to counter the “we are american and so much more enlightened” element. Specially if part of the enlightenment is supposed to entail an honest attempt at trying to figure out why people do seemingly weird things. Also, I’m acutely aware that I’m rude. But at least I try an make a point or two while I’m at it and don’t just howl about sweeping statments. That’s the pathetic refuge of people who really have nothing to say so all they can do is try and score points about uncrossed t’s and undotted i’s.
For a women like Aishwarya, I am ready to perform the longest ‘regressive’ ritual for men – marriage !
A paternal relative in Pune is one of a few women who perform poojas & wedding ceremonies as pandits. She makes it a point to explain the steps & why they are being performed, its very interesting listening to her (atleast it brings aetheists like me to the havan agni !) instead of the regular boring chants.
It could be that other cultures have a different idea of liberation. It could be that some cultures thought that none of this is liberating and that true freedom comes only through discipline. Of course there is misery and abuse in all traditions. But this misery is no different from the misery that comes out of the liberty to do drugs or have sex.
Let see.
-Other cultures have a different idea of ‘liberation’ -True ‘freedom’ comes through ‘discipline’.
Sure sounds Orwellian to me.
Anyway, the comment was tongue in cheek. I dont have a problem with Divya and I like her views which are usually contrarian. She has some interesting views on caste system, eastern religions etc. which I dont agree with but they are interesting nevertheless.
If there is any ABD/DBD women working/studying in any field related to science and still observes Karva Chauth I would like to talk to her.
It’s spirituality 101. It’s Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus and the Stoics all rolled into one. It’s the foundation of all Eastern thought. Ultimately, I suppose one has to figure it out from one’s own experience. Believe me I’ve learned all my lessons the hard way. There is no end to desire and if freedom simply means the freedom to do what you want then you will pay the ulitmate price for it – Boredom. That’s even worse than falling sick from overindulgence, imo.
I too find these stories interesting, but you can only hear them a couple of times. After that it just boils down the practice – but if you are an atheist then of course that’s not going to work.
How soon we forget this WaPo article! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/16/AR2007101601513.html
Welcome to my world on SM!!
M. Nam
I don’t see what’s Orwellian about it. I didn’t see anything in Divya’s statement saying that true freedom only comes through discipline; she was just bringing up a different philosophical/religious/cultural idea of ‘freedom’ and how it is achieved – through control and discipline, rather than through impulse and excess. Nothing in her comment came across to me as preaching that it is the only way to achieve freedom/whatever. Ok, your comment is tongue in cheeck, but ff thiss very idea itself is Orwellian to you – well, I really hope you can take off those skewed goggles. It’s what a lot of people genuinely believe, and a similar ethos runs through the underpinnings of American society.
150 · Divya said
ok, divya, ordinary average people in india will give your rationalizations of puja and many other aspects of religion (death, the importance of the various stages of life, daan, punya, the importance of pilgrimage, how to behave at work and why). in fact, in north india, at least, the most common religious texts are not your ‘elitist’ upanisads, but the ramcaritmanas and compositions/commentaries on texts by local gurus (19 th c. bihar, up, and parts of bengal) have well-known local traditions of ordinary people and learned saints alike coming together to perform not only rituals but also discussing oral commentary (kathas; many extant vernacular texts are proof of this). your characterization of religious as mass kool-aid is deeply insulting and patronizing to many indian people who care deeply about their daily religious practice. the fact that they don’t publish journal articles in american anthropologist does not make them any less capable of intellectually realizing what they are up to. it’s not like once you examine what a ritual signifies to you or does for your community, it automatically starts to be less comforting [that’s kinda like alexander pope saying newton took away the magic of rainbow by explaining optics :)]
for you, divya. stop generalizing on behalf of all india. some people care about performing the ritual, some care about meaning, some care about both. even during karva chauth, every year there is a katha, and many people talk about why they are performing the ritual and its significance. rakhi, baisakhi, and the sraadhas are obvious examples of rituals where performance and meaning are entirely intertwined.
since when is reason the sole preserve of “western” philosophy? were indians incapable of instrumental reasoning before contact with “westerners?” besides the upanisads, don’t we find huge repositories of scriptures (both “high” and “low”) that provide rationale and justification for a variety of religious practices including ceremonies?
thank god indians in the past have not adhered to blind adherence to ritual just to bolster their coping abilities. thank god, many people have stopped segregating menstruating women from their household, stopped bathing after touching a sudra, or stopped insisting on eating food cooked only on brahmins. religious practice and ritual will continue to evolve. in this aspect, the role of hindu progressives in the 19 th century was amazing. they continue to be faithful hindus while campaigning for the abolition of discriminatory caste practices, education of girls and widow remarriage, and other socially constructive activities. the arya samajis, for instance, created new rituals of havan and community prayer which signified a hindu renaissance for them. at least some hindu progressives (i don’t mean the hindu mahasabha here) used rituals and their interpretations as ways to forward the cause of the indian freedom movement. unlike you, they fully believed that the average indian could be brought on board for discussion, education, practice, and reform.
just to be clear, i was depressed by your characterization of the indian conception of ritual and religion as “pass the soma, yaar.” give desi-folk some credit, thanks.
Truer words have rarely been spoken…
M. Nam
bess @ 149, thanks! i appreciate your wide-ranging knowledge of diverse fields too. as well as your wicked sense of humor. yeah, in this discussion of ritual, i was thinking a lot about the zen and the buddhist aspect of ritual – mindfulness and concentration that brings you to gradually realize bigger ideas (constant chatter in the brain, one’s multiplying wants, the anxiety produced from desire, and so forth). many older indians who chant mantras or use beads for jaap have told me the same thing – performing the ritual frees their mind to concentrate on god and leads them away from distraction. and each time they find themselves to thinking of worldly matters, their focus on the ritual falters and they know to come right back to prayer.
Append to the above: Sometimes there is not polite way to counter the “we speak for all of india, when we mean ourselves” element. Stop your McCartheyesque characterization of those who disagree with you as “American.” I am tired of these holier-and-browner-than-thou tactics.
I’m glad for Rahul’s thoughtful humorous and pithy comments which hit the nail right on the head, besides exposing the holes in another person’s line of argumentation. I’m glad you defend Divya’s right to comment freely, but on the other hand, adopting this patronizing attitude toward Rahul and asking him to refrain from commenting on serious issues is entirely uncalled for. If somebody chooses tendentious positions, she should be prepared to accept sarcasm in return. I think Divya can more than hold her own in this regard, given the generous supply of condescension* her extreme austerities and learnedness G*d has given her.
Wow portmanteau, how quickly you’ve changed your stance! I’m sorry I don’t know how to do those nifty links so I’ll just cut and paste. Your first post @ 9 says:
How have you suddenly become a champion of the poor folk back in the Desh after initially finding them regressive and sexist?
Your posts 40 and 62 are brimming with sarcasm and in 62 you take it for granted that celebrities can only be doing these things out of ulterior motives. Each time someone challenges you on what you say, you soften or otherwise revise your stance.
In 88 you further elaborate upon why exactly you think these customs are regressive. In 92 your intellectual stance is totally over the top, which is where I jumped in and challenged your conception of a liberated mind. There was absolutely nothing in your comments to suggest that you conceived of liberation in any way other than that dished out by the western liberal tradition. Why am I not well within my rights to call it a western outlook?
Then you gradually begin to acknowledge that there may be something to this after all but still insist that without the right understanding it is still regressive. All of my responses have been an effort to debunk your notion that right understanding of ritual is essential. Now you turn around and say that I’m ignoring the intellectual tradition of the ancient hindus when in fact I totally acknowledged it in 132. This intellectual tradition does not hold the same concept of liberation as the western one so what exactly is your point in saying hindus had an intellectual tradition?
After all that you coolly turn around and say that I’m the one who’s being patronizing! You seem to see the significance and meaning of rakhi but failed to see the meaning and significance of karva chauth? How did you not take all of these villagers from UP that you speak of into consideration when you first talked about regressive and sexist practices? None of this would have even come about if you first stated any of this instead of simply showering them with contempt just because they don’t share your outlook. Nor would I have insisted that knowing the meaning is not essential if you hadn’t kept insisting that it is. Of course I know that people all over India listen to all kinds of lectures and talks and are eager to develop an understanding of things. But there are many who don’t. You don’t seem to make allowances for them at all.
Most of the books I’ve read have been shorter this discussion.
I think people use riturals and other practices to just make sense of the world and their life and reality. It does suck some practices have been used to discriminate again minorities (females and people in the lower castes) but as many of you have pointed out, that is changing and of course it’ll continue to change over time.
Thinking that a person is dumb because they choose practice rituals is just as bad as using religion on discriminate against minorities. If it helps them celebrate life, relationships and their existance, and makes them happy and no one else is hurt by it, it really is their personal business.
Note the main post: From the things I have read about Ash Rai (also interview with Oprah), she seems to really think she is really special and better because she is so old school. She never fails to mentions how much she loves her temple and how often she visits. I don’t really like that because she is just like those people that think they are better just because they are vegetarian (yes, i relate everything to food). Eating meat or practing rituals (or doing both at the same time) is a personal choice. No one is better or worse because of their choice.
To further clarify that meaning is not what ritual is really about. Take Thanksgiving for example. It’s true that there’s a whole story that goes with it. But most people do not celebrate thanksgiving because of that particular meaning or significance. Of course it’s good to give thanks and that gets thrown into the mix as well but generally speaking it’s the “meaningless” tradition that is celebrated. That’s all I mean to say. Now if this sounds like I’m being speaking on behalf of the entire nation, there’s nothing I can do about it.
yes aishwarya rai is poor folk. and her peepul-tree-marrying is very progressive. you can keep asserting that the wretched masses of india have no option but to conform to ritual because they ‘don’t have the luxury of choice.’ how is that not patronizing, when any person can see many mature and sophisticated discussions of religion and ritual innumerable times in the course of daily life in india? a person can be progressive in certain aspects and regressive in some. why create this false dichotomy? and why make a blanket claim that ultimately it is the pure practice of the claim that is important, when there are very obvious and frequent examples to the contrary? there are instances of both, but you can’t seem to stop yourself from making silly generalizations about all religious practice in india. religious is more than a coping mechanism, and it is much more than kool-aid or emergen-c, please. there are rituals of gratitude and those that mark life-events or the passing of seasons, but you completely sideline those in your analysis; instead go on your rut about coping and adversity. thankfully, religious practice is much more exuberant IRL, even when accompanied by ascetic rites or fasts.
you forgot ctrl c+v THIS, at 88:
obviously, i dont think all of UP is enlightened – all i am saying that there is a possibility that a significant percentage of people find meaning in ritual and actively think about it.
the basic objection i made to you was here, the comment that started it all:
paraphrase exactly the same to rob:
and to that divya does a volte-face (@128):
note that i said right understanding of ritual is DESIRABLE which does not equal essential:
in your previous comment you say:
other than AR and you, I expressed no contempt for anyone. By no means am I romanticizing the ordinary Indian – just pointing out that many are capable of mature thought wrt religion, and one will, of course, find many who are not. And there are regressive and sexist religious rituals in India; some like KC, fall in a complicated category. In this case, the regressiveness of the practice may be rooted in the intention behind the act, and whether a section of the population is being coerced into performing that ritual. So if one does it by choice, out of a feeling of love, without feeling servile, then no KC is not regressive.
your defensiveness and bile are totally over the top, and i’m glad the sarcasm penetrated your veil of superiority. none of this would have come about if you didnt refer to those who disagreed with you as “Americans” or bizarrely reduced my views on autonomy to “the freedom to wear the pants in the house for example, or drink and date at will.” (!!?)
good night and good luck. feel free to have the last word on this.
some people call it taking one’s foot out of one’s mouth.
could. not. resist. poor impulse control. too ‘american.’ blame westernization. and lack of physical austerity in life.
Port:
Hey, hey, hey, what’s with all the haterade towards peepul trees? They are peepul too! Some peepul marry other peepul, and some peepul marry trees. This is why you see some tree-peepul hugging peepul trees.
i’m all for the chipko movement. for life, though. in fact, since i’ve already been accusing of flip-flopping, i may as well say this.
why wasn’t AR more faithful to her first husband? why not fast for him? this evil american concept of starter marriages is an import that must not enter the hallowed borders of india
trees are not for practice. that’s what god made shiksas for.
I think she wanted to branch out too.
174 · pingpong said
I hope you aren’t referring to this:
http://blogs.webmd.com/eye-on-vision/2008/02/half-man-half-tree-all-curiosity.html
… something which all intelligent young men in India would like to go fig-her!
She discovered that he was just a spineless sap.
Rahul and Vikram, thanks for getting to the ROOT of the matter. I hope to LEAVE the 7th grade humor soon.
Okay the horse is now dead so I won’t bother beating it. Just the American bit, though. I went on to specify what precisely I meant by that comment so it wasn’t just some random shot but directed at a particular way of thinking. It’s ridiculous to pretend there’s no such thing as cultural difference and that it doesn’t manifest itself in comments on this blog.
Love a good fight – (Divya / Portmanteau). too bad it finished early – the fights that involve HMF tend to last longer.
I don’t want this to be offensive or controversial, but some rituals and practices throughout the world (maybe KC falls into this category) were developed and observed for practical, economic and safety issues. Now, this is just pure speculation, but I feel that Jewish and Muslims avoid pork for reasons of health and someone decided to make this a religious rule. Perhaps eating pork thousands of years back was a risky thing since it can have parasites, bacteria etc especially in undercooked meats. My Jewish friends tell me Kosher food rules don’t allow meat and dairy to be mixed. That is very sensible to me since it seems like it would be an overdose of protein. Maybe there is a more esoteric/spiritual meaning, but originally, it might have stemmed from a more practical reason. In Hinduism, killing a cow was (and still is) forbidden since it gave milk. Of course killing it means less milk to drink and the meat won’t last too long without refrigeration. (And I don’t think beef jerky and meat preservation was discovered for a long time nor was it easy in a hot climate.)
Don’t want to sound disgusting, but in ancient south India, when the lady of the house has her time of the month, she was to isolate herself and relax all day, not enter the kitchen, etc. One of my friends said that was to give the woman a rest and maybe not entirely due to uncleanliness, etc. I have even read in a few yoga books, some asanas are to be avoided during that time. After a woman gives birth (again, in some regions of ancient south India), mother & child were supposed to be isolated and given as much tlc and rest as possible for about a month or so. That makes some sense since giving birth can be grueling and dealing with a newborn that won’t sleep at night can be strenuous mentally and physically. (I speak from experience.) It is sort of like maternity leave.
What was the original reason for KC? Who knows. Was it to ration food during famines? Or for health reasons or another way to discriminate? Some traditions (like the caste system) are pure fertilizer but that is another topic. I am sure every region in India has some rules and beliefs that modern people may find useless, and questionable and not relevant to present times.
Uh, ok there—this is the “refrigeration” theory of Hinduism? Thanks, but no thanks. I mean, a ten-year old might find this compelling. . . .
To be more precise, the historical lack of refrigeration applies to all meat, so you can’t ground any kind of beef-specific views in the lack of refrigeration.
american hipster desi raises valid points
Beef and cow slaughter was meant to be just an example. Listing all the animals that aren’t supposed to be killed and meat products that are forbidden would take too long. Ahimsa (or non violence to all beings) is supposed to be observed by Hindus and Buddhists. Whether people practice it is another thing. (Actually, many of the 10 year olds I have seen are more brilliant and reasonable than some adults.)
While rituals provide both personal and social value, I will definitely maintain that a culture where the dominant attitude is to preserve the form of ritual without any understanding of its function or implication is problematic for multiple reasons:
The attention to form to the exclusion of everything else leads to a focus for increasingly grandiose props. I made the point earlier about gold jewelry in another context, but the (to me, disgusting) displays of precious metals and stones around the stone idol in Tirupati, including the touting of its status as the richest (??) temple in India, as well as the ostentation in assorted pujas merely as an exercise in one-upmanship is an example where the form of ritual has completely hijacked any deep meaning of the actual ritual.
The patronizing attitude that the common man need only care about the form, but not the meaning of ritual, has been used in the past to maintain an exclusive hold of the religion by an elite class. In fact, the excessive focus on ever grander churches (of course, only to honor Christ better) as well as Latin masses with strict form, which were incomprehensible to the masses, was a huge catalyst for democratization and the entire Protestant movement. Analogously, Buddhism caught fire because Buddha insisted on his teachings being in Pali, the language of the people, which was a huge contrast to Hinduism at that time, where knowledge resided with a priestly class who studied in Sanskrit, and masses merely blindly participated in rituals with no understanding.
There are many ritual practices, for example, ostracism of widows from “auspicious” ceremonies, the asymmetric onus on married women, the meticulous segregation of lower castes, which are still practiced purely because of an adherence to form. These atavistic practices certainly deserve to be questioned, and need to be thrown out the window if they cannot be adequately justified. (KC, as has been said multiple times, could be acceptable if done by people in certain contexts, but it is historically set in a sexist context).
Now, I don’t think that blind ritualism is indeed the dominant mode of practice in India (thankfully!), there is a balance between celebration of the meaningless ritual as has been done above, and a focus purely on spiritual aspects without any external display (which would lose the social aspects). However, I will maintain that anybody who does insist on practicing ritual purely for its form should be educated otherwise, because this is a pernicious meme. If we are willing to imbibe austerity from the stoics as part of spirituality 101, why not live the Socratic maxim of the unexamined life not being worth living as part of Philosophy 101?
If this is all it takes to make me an “intellectual” or “progressive” or “dhoti-rejecting” or “American” (although I think the preferred term of the Mayberry Machiavellis is “French”), why, thank you!
That last link (for Mayberry Machiavellis) was incorrect. The sentence should read:
If this is all it takes to make me an “intellectual” or “progressive” or “dhoti-rejecting” or “American” (although I think the preferred term of the Mayberry Machiavellis is “French”), why, thank you!
gm – I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. Back on Anna’s January 8 post which turned into a discussion on hindu fundamentalism, I had this to say:
I am painfully aware of the supersition that indian society is mired in. Rampant superstition is the price you pay for not having organized religion. Take your pick. But it is not at all productive to simply ridicule tradition. I really appreciate that Amardeep saw the value of this in his post. Otherwise what tends to happen is that someone else would say that wearing a turban is regressive and then of course we’d go on to say how muslims are crazy, and the jews – lets not even talk about them, etc. etc. The only acceptable consensus then becomes that the whole world is regressive, evil, racist, sexist, producers of terrorists, whatever – except, of course, for us enlightened ones having this discussion.
In the western philosophic/academic tradition it is required that one make a good faith attempt to understand and charitably interpret someone’s position. Only after that can you pile on the criticism. In this particular context I don’t believe it would make for an interesting discussion because there is no doubt about the fact that supersitition is no good. The more rewarding way to look at it is to try and see what the merits of tradition can be or how it can be salvaged so that the culture thrives and flourishes instead of continually declining.
Is that so? I can’t say I agree, especially given that I’m not sure I understand the difference between the two.
Rahul, appreciate your thoughtful comments. By way of quick response I’ll reproduce what I said earlier on this post:
One of the greatest strengths of the hindu traditions is the fact that not everybody needs to display knowledge and understanding in order to have peace of mind or happiness. As for the Greeks, I totally love them and enjoy reading them more than anyone else, but their philosophy, by their own admission, was only for the aristocrats. They make a distinction between the “few” and the “many” and simply give up on the masses. Hindus for all their shortcomings offered many diverse avenues according to personality type or whatever. Gotta go.
Organized religion requires you to hold certain beliefs – that there is a God, that there is a holy book which contains the word of this God, that there is a Prophet, etc. Unorganized religion gives you more leeway and belief is not central.
Within both organized and unorganized religion there are those who simply follow tradition. Say their prayers, sing hyms, listen to talks, contemplate the value of kindness or love, fast and feast, etc. To me this is all worthwhile while the belief system is despicable rubbish and mostly leads to trouble of all kinds. (IMO, IMO, IMO)
183 · gm said
rabbinical logic (according to my jewish friends) was this – no animal should be cooked in its mother’s milk. while i do appreciate that many religious injunctions/taboos arose from economic and safety concerns, many developed from mistaken belief. i think it is admirable that many people reject these such injunctions, and follow other tenets of their religion that appeal to them. what i find problematic though, is some people’s insistence (and i definitely don’t mean you gm, i am talking about others i have met) that all their own cultural traditions evolved in response to some ancient wisdom and were grounded in unassailable logic. this kind of perverted defense of one’s own cultural traditions is what i find disturbing. some old mores (or even contemporary practices) can be still be labeled flawed, while we might still respect and follow the larger corpus of the tradition or culture from which these emerge. this is by no means a novel claim; it is tired and haggard in these multi-culti days, but cultural chauvinism is still so hard to eradicate in practice.
more on kashrut here:
144 · Divya said
Divya — Be my Valentine!
There are even some cultural/religious traditions and practices that based on fun and pleasure like the annual tomato fights in Spain (http://www.spanishpropertyworld.com/la_tomatina_valencia_tomato_festival_spain.htm), Mardi Gras, Halloween, and so forth. Of course, some religious stories and symbolism might have something to do with those holidays and traditions, but it is a good excuse to have some leisure time. I guess some people even consider running with bulls fun too (although I personally think it doesn’t sound too pleasant.) Check http://www.spain-info.com/Culture/bullrunning.htm
193 · Divya said
My strictly personal opinion on organized/unorganized religions:
Organized religion is nothing but a group of people maintaining their power by perpetuating (read forcing) certain beliefs in common folk. Once the powerful controlling group is removed (for whatever reason), all religions become unorganized and begin to develop off-shoots.
In most organized religions, it is the powerful groups with vested (read worldly) interests which declare the off-shoots as heretics and systematically kill them off (not literally in all cases). If the off-shoots manage to get power behind them, they either become independent religions or manage to synthesize with existing one.
Unorganized religions may be better since an increase in the rational thought and self-realization in the people lead to doing away with superstition. This may not be possible in organized religion unless the powerful group changes its mind (or not!).
In the latter case, an issue suddenly transforms from “cultural” and “social change” to “religion” and “belief”. I think cultural issues are dynamic and evolving in nature with the economic and environmental pressures on a society while the religious issues become rigid (I wonder why :)).
In any case, I think in next 50-100 years someone might make a good academic career in anthropology(?/history?) for themselves writing about meaning of Karva Chauth and its practice. Hope this page remains on some archive for their research :). Certainly, living practitioners aren’t going to be around given the cultural transformation happening in India at current rate.
Don’t worry, go to any other Indian website and there are plenty of people who know about the mental games played by the organized religions (including secularism) against native hindu traditions. After all, there is a 2000 year history of this kind of concerted warfare. Hindus may not be as eloquent as Divya but they are certainly not in the dark about this matter.
I must say Divya’s comments were highly enlightening. I found myself nodding whenever I was reading her. All in all it seems there is a lot of negativity towards religion in general and Hinduism in particular. And that cant be good. I have found Hinduism staggering in it’s reach and intellect and to see a couple of wannabes dissing this by having read some tomes is just – well- depressing.
But kudos to Divya for standing strong and delivering a thoughtful explanation for her stance.
Cheers
So what’s the conclusion (if we have one).
To simplify things, I created this list of arguments. Feel free to change it if they don’t fit.
I have a vague feeling that they are on the same side. It sounds the same to me.