HINDUS MARRYNG THEIR COUSINS
Tulsi Das
Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
:
: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
: cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
: family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
IS THIS TRUE???????????
Badmoon
Absolutely,I was told this by my ex roommate, a south Indian Hindu.
rsh...@globalserve.net
On 1 Mar 1997 18:01:30 GMT, 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Tulsi Das) wrote:
>Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
>: cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
>: family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
>
>IS THIS TRUE???????????
"Reality is an illusion produced by alcohol deficiency. "
"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."
RS
Y. Malaiya
rsh...@globalserve.net wrote:
>
> On 1 Mar 1997 18:01:30 GMT, 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Tulsi Das) wrote:
>
> >Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
> >:
> >: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
> >: cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
> >: family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
> >
> >IS THIS TRUE???????????
>
Yes, it is true, but between cross-cousins only.
In North as well as in South, a Hindu boy can never marry within
his own family. However in South, a boy can marry his maternal
uncles's daughter.
It has been said that in some Jewish families, cousins with the
same family have married, sometimes to keep the property in the
same family. It is not possible in a Hindu family.
In North India, in most Hindu communities, one can not marry anyone
from his own family or from his maternal uncles's family. In fact
generally one can not marry within his own and his maternal uncles's
gotra, sometimes even more groups are excluded.
Exclusion of everyone from the father's clan is common in many
other countries including China and many tribes in Africa. Such
exclusion is not required among Jews and Muslims.
Yashwant
Subir De
Badmoon wrote:
>
> Tulsi Das wrote:
> >
> > Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
> > :
> > : Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
> > : cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
> > : family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
> >
> > IS THIS TRUE???????????
>
By the bushy beards of Sant Tulsi Das and Qazi Bad-Mun, what a curious
group of knowledge seekers of Hindu customs.
As for marrying our Hindu cousins, it is certainly true. And those of us
who do not marrying our cousins, we, Hindus, marry our sisters. This is
REALLY TRUE....... why ? Don't you find that believable ?
Subir De.
Sankara Narayanan
> >
> > >Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
> > >:
> > >: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
> > >: cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
> > >: family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
> > >
> > >IS THIS TRUE???????????
> >
>
>
> In North as well as in South, a Hindu boy can never marry within
> his own family. However in South, a boy can marry his maternal
> uncles's daughter.
>
> It has been said that in some Jewish families, cousins with the
> same family have married, sometimes to keep the property in the
> same family. It is not possible in a Hindu family.
>
> In North India, in most Hindu communities, one can not marry anyone
> from his own family or from his maternal uncles's family. In fact
> generally one can not marry within his own and his maternal uncles's
> gotra, sometimes even more groups are excluded.
>
> Exclusion of everyone from the father's clan is common in many
> other countries including China and many tribes in Africa. Such
> exclusion is not required among Jews and Muslims.
>
> Yashwant
>
> http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/marriage.html
I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for marriage.
(marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is common, at least
in villages)
This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
But nowadays, with the spread of awareness, even this practice has
been reducing. Some of the renowned Swamis and Hindu religious leaders
are advising people not to marry within their relations.
-Sankara Narayanan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karma-Yoga has specially to deal with these three factors. By teaching
what they are and how to employ them, it helps us to do our work better.
Human society is a graded organisation. We all know about morality and we
all know about duty, but at the same time we find that at different
countries the significance of morality varies greatly. What is regarded
as moral in one country may in another be considered perfectly immoral.
For instance, in one country cousins may marry; in another, it is thought
to be very immoral; in one, men may marry only once; in another, many
times; and so forth. Similarly, in all other departments of morality, we
find the standard varies greatly; yet we have the idea that there must be
a universal standard of morality.
- Swami Vivekananda
--------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer : My opinions do not involve my employer ;->
--------------------------------------------------------------
Balakrishnan
The scriptures do lay down a law as to whom you may marry. A man
may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is also
true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at the
University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which I am
not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
interested.
>As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
>maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
>son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for marriage.
>(marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is common, at least
>in villages)
>
Another reason for this is to keep the brother and sister connected
through the marriage of their children. This way the brother sends an
indirect message:Before you mistreat my sister, think of your daughter
who is in my house.
>This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
>a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
>thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
>
It was not accepted to be moral, only that this was given as an
excuse. This is what happens when people read the rules partially and
put them into use.
[SNIP]
>
>-Sankara Narayanan
>
[SNIP]
Balakrishnan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALAKRISHNAN VISWANATHAN
vis...@omc.lan.mcgill.ca
bs...@musicb.mcgill.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarve janaah sukhino bhavantu
Tulsi Das
Thanks for responding in a rational and straightforward manner.
Y. Malaiya (mal...@cs.colostate.edu) wrote:
:
: Yes, it is true, but between cross-cousins only.
Vivek R. Prabhu
Hi All,
An interesting side to this issue, is that in Afghanistan, it is
permissible for a girl, to marry her paternal cousin, even if the
cousin is the son of her father's own brother.
Likewise, a girl/boy can marry her/his maternal cousin too, and
there is no restriction on this either.
It is an interesting facet of different cultures, that their rules
for marriage are all different, and have evolved due to different
circumstances.
Now, a tricky situation comes when a couple that has been married
this way, comes to the US, and say become citizens. US law does NOT
recognize such a marriage, between cousins, and it would be a question
as to what view the law would take, should it discover such a thing.
Regards,
Vivek.
Balakrishnan wrote:
>
> In article <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com> Sankara Narayanan
> <san...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> >Y. Malaiya wrote:
> >>
> >> rsh...@globalserve.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 1 Mar 1997 18:01:30 GMT, 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Tulsi Das)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
> >> > >:
> >> > >: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among
> >> > >: their first cousins. The reasons for this are even more
> >> > >: disgusting; to keep the family property from being diluted.
> >> > >: Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
> >> > >
> >> > >IS THIS TRUE???????????
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it is true, but between cross-cousins only.
> >>
> >> In North as well as in South, a Hindu boy can never marry within
> >> his own family. However in South, a boy can marry his maternal
> >> uncles's daughter.
> >>
> >> It has been said that in some Jewish families, cousins with the
> >> same family have married, sometimes to keep the property in the
> >> same family. It is not possible in a Hindu family.
> >>
> >> In North India, in most Hindu communities, one can not marry anyone
> >> from his own family or from his maternal uncles's family. In fact
> >> generally one can not marry within his own and his maternal
> >> uncles's gotra, sometimes even more groups are excluded.
> >>
> >> Exclusion of everyone from the father's clan is common in many
> >> other countries including China and many tribes in Africa. Such
> >> exclusion is not required among Jews and Muslims.
> >>
> >> Yashwant
> >>
> >> http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/marriage.html
> >
> >
> >I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
> >cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
> >and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard.
> >Variuos groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
> >
>
> The scriptures do lay down a law as to whom you may marry. A man
> may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
> 5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is
> also true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
> The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at
> the University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which
> I am not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
> interested.
>
> >As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
> >maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
> >son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for
> >marriage.(marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is
> >common, at least in villages)
> >
> Another reason for this is to keep the brother and sister connected
> through the marriage of their children. This way the brother sends an
> indirect message:Before you mistreat my sister, think of your daughter
> who is in my house.
>
> >This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
> >a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
> >thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
> >
> It was not accepted to be moral, only that this was given as an
> excuse. This is what happens when people read the rules partially and
> put them into use.
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> >-Sankara Narayanan
> >
> [SNIP]
>
> Balakrishnan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BALAKRISHNAN VISWANATHAN
> vis...@omc.lan.mcgill.ca
> bs...@musicb.mcgill.ca
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sarve janaah sukhino bhavantu
--
vpr...@cisco.com (Vivek R. Prabhu),
Software Engineer - Interoperability Group,
CISCO Systems, Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134.
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~vivek
Kanwar Dhaliwal
Then why the contradicting beliefs among Hindus on this issue. Are there
some subcommunities or groups which follow different traditions from the
mainstream.
> The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at the
> University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which I am
> not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
> interested.
>
> >As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
> >maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
> >son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for marriage.
> >(marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is common, at least
> >in villages)
> >
> Another reason for this is to keep the brother and sister connected
> through the marriage of their children. This way the brother sends an
> indirect message:Before you mistreat my sister, think of your daughter
> who is in my house.
Isn't this a pretty backward concept; pretty much colonial for that
matter.
>
> >This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
> >a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
> >thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
What is a gotra??
rafay
Tulsi Das wrote:
>
> Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
> :
> : Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
> : cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
> : family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
>
> IS THIS TRUE???????????
I thought hindues insist on atleast seven generations apart....
rafay
Parthasarati Dileepan
Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
<331C62...@vnet.ibm.com>...
>
> I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
> cousins.
This may be true, but ...
>Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life and choices,
Are you sure? There are some Hindu texts (may not be scripture
by definition) that say a lot about personal life. (Aside: religion
by definition tell us how to conduct our personal lives, is it not?
Bhagavath Geetha, a Hindu scripture by anyone's definition,
is full of such advice.)
> it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
> groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
>
> As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
> maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
> son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for marriage.
I am not aware of any woman marrying the son of her sister. A male
marrying his niece is quite common, even these days I think.
> (marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is common, at least
> in villages)
This is called "muRaip peN", i.e. bride by right. Denying this right
is sometimes taken as an affront to family honor.
>
> This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
> a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
> thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
I am not sure about this. Only cross cousins marry. Parallel
maternal cousins, i.e. child of mother's sister, even though of different
gothra, do not marry. Besides, most Tamils are unfamiliar with
the concept of gothra.
-- Dileepan
K. Srinivasan
Vivek R. Prabhu wrote:
> Now, a tricky situation comes when a couple that has been married
> this way, comes to the US, and say become citizens. US law does NOT
> recognize such a marriage, between cousins, and it would be a question
> as to what view the law would take, should it discover such a thing.
There has been some effort to remove such a ban. It was in the
news papers last year. The reason is that a reputed medical
journal has reported that, from their study of first cousin marriages
prevalent in Japan, Vietnam and may other countries, there was
no negative findings except for higher incidence of still births
and lower birth rate. Both good and bad are re-inforced. If at all,
re-enforced bad traits have more chance getting eliminated
by the survival process. Thus it is good for the society.
They concluded that the ban on cousin marriages
was basically religious in origin, with the main goal of maintaining
highest birth rate. (Incidentally, Kerala and TN have highest
cousin marriage rates in India as well as lowest birth rates
in India. Far lower than half of Indian average population growth rate.
There is no specific disease concentration in that region either.)
Somebody else wrote:
>: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among
>: their first cousins. The reasons for this are even more
>: disgusting; to keep the family property from being diluted.
>: Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
To my knowledge, the cousin marriages are most common in poorer
as well underprevilaged people, who can not afford dowries etc.
It is highly common among south Indian brahmins, more than in
the vaishya (business) community. It is also common among the
dalith (harijan) community. It is more prevalent in villages
than in cities. I do not know of a single case which supports
the family wealth theory! Incidentally, the previous Chief
minister of Karnataka (who came from a poor low caste family
from Mangalore area) was married to his first cousin.
Another person wrote:
> The scriptures do lay down a law as to whom you may marry. A man
> may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
> 5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is
> also true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
> The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at
> the University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which
> I am not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
> interested.
Quite true. The south indians (even the brahmins) do not follow
many aspects of the Hindu scriptures. In fact, finding a tracable
relation between the marrying families in the south, influences the
decision positively, even today!.
K. Srinivasan of Quebec.
http://www.geocities.com/Athen/7444
sr...@ireq.ca
Tulsi Das
Sankara Narayanan (san...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
:
: I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
: cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
: and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
: groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
then you say:
: But nowadays, with the spread of awareness, even this practice has
: been reducing. Some of the renowned Swamis and Hindu religious leaders
: are advising people not to marry within their relations.
:
So why the need to discourage the practice? It seems like marrying
one's cousin is a tradition among southern hindus, and if there is
nothing in your scriptures condemning it, why are the swamis and
hindu leaders doing so?
Badmoon
Subir De wrote:
>
> Badmoon wrote:
> >
> > Tulsi Das wrote:
> > >
> > > :
> > > : Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
> > > : cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
> > > : family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely,I was told this by my ex roommate, a south Indian Hindu.
>
> By the bushy beards of Sant Tulsi Das and Qazi Bad-Mun, what a curious
> group of knowledge seekers of Hindu customs.
>
> As for marrying our Hindu cousins, it is certainly true. And those of us
> who do not marrying our cousins, we, Hindus, marry our sisters.
Holy cow man? now that's what I call Bhenchod, what say?
This is
> REALLY TRUE....... why ? Don't you find that believable ?
I certainly find that believable because marrying someone within the
blood relation can cause serious birth defects; medical research has
proven that. Are you one of those retards?? Wonder whether your sisters
and cousins must be saying Subir Le instead of Subir De.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....................
>
> Subir De.
Tharmarajah Kugarajah
In article <331CCF...@cisco.com>, "Vivek R. Prabhu" <vpr...@cisco.com> writes:
|> Hi All,
|>
|> An interesting side to this issue, is that in Afghanistan, it is
|> permissible for a girl, to marry her paternal cousin, even if the
|> cousin is the son of her father's own brother.
|>
|> Likewise, a girl/boy can marry her/his maternal cousin too, and
|> there is no restriction on this either.
|>
|> It is an interesting facet of different cultures, that their rules
|> for marriage are all different, and have evolved due to different
|> circumstances.
|>
|> Now, a tricky situation comes when a couple that has been married
|> this way, comes to the US, and say become citizens. US law does NOT
|> recognize such a marriage, between cousins, and it would be a question
|> as to what view the law would take, should it discover such a thing.
|>----------------------------------------------------------------
|> vpr...@cisco.com (Vivek R. Prabhu),
|> Software Engineer - Interoperability Group,
|> CISCO Systems, Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134.
|> http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~vivek
I believe that in Europe, Canada, and roughly half of all states in the US,
the Law allows cross cousin marriages. In case people aren't aware, Einstein's
first marriage was to his cross cousin.. There is a recent book that explores myths
and the real dangers in light of historical data (I haven't read it).
----------------------------------------------------U OF Maryland System-------
AUTHOR(s): Ottenheimer, Martin.
TITLE(s): Forbidden relatives : the American myth of cousin marriage
/ Martin Ottenheimer.
Urbana : University of Illinois Press, c1996.
179 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. [155]-168) and
index.
Contents: U.S. laws prohibiting the marriage of relatives
-- The reasons for U.S. laws against first cousin marriage
-- European laws prohibiting the marriage of relatives --
European views of cousin marriage -- The evolutionary
factor -- Biogenetics and first cousin marriage -- Culture
and cousin marriage.
OTHER ENTRIES: Cross-cousin marriage--United States.
Cross-cousin marriage--Europe.
Author: Ottenheimer Martin
Title: Forbidden relatives : the American myth of cous>
United States--Social life and customs.
Europe--Social life and customs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--Kuga
Y. Malaiya
K. Srinivasan wrote:
> Quite true. The south indians (even the brahmins) do not follow
> many aspects of the Hindu scriptures.
The dharma-shastras are not really "law" but views and
recommendations of specific ancient scholars.
Yashwant
Balakrishnan
In article <331CE7...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu> Kanwar Dhaliwal <kdha...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>Balakrishnan wrote:
>>
>> In article <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com> Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> >Y. Malaiya wrote:
>> >>
>> >> rsh...@globalserve.net wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
>> >> > >:
>> >> > >: Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
>> >> > >: cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
>> >> > >: family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >IS THIS TRUE???????????
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In North as well as in South, a Hindu boy can never marry within
>> >> his own family. However in South, a boy can marry his maternal
>> >> uncles's daughter.
>> >>
>> >> It has been said that in some Jewish families, cousins with the
>> >> same family have married, sometimes to keep the property in the
>> >> same family. It is not possible in a Hindu family.
>> >>
>> >> In North India, in most Hindu communities, one can not marry anyone
>> >> from his own family or from his maternal uncles's family. In fact
>> >> generally one can not marry within his own and his maternal uncles's
>> >> gotra, sometimes even more groups are excluded.
>> >>
>> >> Exclusion of everyone from the father's clan is common in many
>> >> other countries including China and many tribes in Africa. Such
>> >> exclusion is not required among Jews and Muslims.
>> >>
>> >> Yashwant
>> >>
>> >> http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/marriage.html
>> >
>> >
>> >cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
>> >and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
>> >groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
>> >
>>
>> may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
>> 5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is also
>> true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
>
>some subcommunities or groups which follow different traditions from the
>mainstream.
>
the rules and alas they are the mainstream. Tell me, from your experienc
when somebody was looking for a bride, did he or his family try tracing
the family line of the bride and see if it intersected within the
prescribed radius? If you answered yes, then you are in the minority.
>> The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at the
>> University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which I am
>> not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
>> interested.
>>
>> >As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
>> >maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
>> >son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for marriage.
>> >(marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is common, at least
>> >in villages)
>> >
>> Another reason for this is to keep the brother and sister connected
>> through the marriage of their children. This way the brother sends an
>> indirect message:Before you mistreat my sister, think of your daughter
>> who is in my house.
>
>Isn't this a pretty backward concept; pretty much colonial for that
>matter.
>
It is a backward concept, but that is the justification given in
rural areas.
>>
>> >This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
>> >a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
>> >thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
>
>
>What is a gotra??
>
A gotra is a paternal line. You, your father, his father(and brothers)
belong to the same gotra, whereas your mother's family is (ideally) a
different gotra. When a girl marries she becomes part of her husband's
gotra and leaves her parents' gotra. Hence the male offspring retain
and maintain the gotra while daughters lose their earlier gotra and
acquire a new one at the time of marriage.
Balakrishnan
In article <5fko55$6...@knot.queensu.ca> 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Tulsi Das) writes:
>Sankara Narayanan (san...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>:
>: I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
>: cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
>: and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
>: groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
> then you say:
>
>: But nowadays, with the spread of awareness, even this practice has
>: been reducing. Some of the renowned Swamis and Hindu religious leaders
>: are advising people not to marry within their relations.
>:
>
>So why the need to discourage the practice? It seems like marrying
>one's cousin is a tradition among southern hindus, and if there is
>nothing in your scriptures condemning it, why are the swamis and
>hindu leaders doing so?
Alas, there is! Refer to my earlier post in this thread.
Kanwar Dhaliwal
> >> >cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
> >> >and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
> >> >groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
> >> 5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is also
> >> true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
> >
> >Then why the contradicting beliefs among Hindus on this issue. Are there
> >some subcommunities or groups which follow different traditions from the
> >mainstream.
> >
> To my knowledge, it is very common to see people who do not follow
> the rules and alas they are the mainstream. Tell me, from your experienc
> when somebody was looking for a bride, did he or his family try tracing
> the family line of the bride and see if it intersected within the
> prescribed radius? If you answered yes, then you are in the minority.
Among the Sikhs, you cannot marry among the same last name as your
grandfather, grandmother and their father and mother from both sides.
That excludes a person from at least 8 last names and on top of that you
cannot marry even a distant cousin. Anything violating the above would
be taboo.
KSD
Sankara Narayanan
Kanwar Dhaliwal wrote:
>
> Balakrishnan wrote:
> >
> > In article <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com> Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
<snip> <sniP>
> > >
> > >I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
> > >cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
> > >and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
> > >groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
> > >
> >
> > The scriptures do lay down a law as to whom you may marry. A man
> > may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
> > 5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is also
> > true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
>
> Then why the contradicting beliefs among Hindus on this issue. Are there
> some subcommunities or groups which follow different traditions from the
> mainstream.
Actually, there are literally hundreds of law-books, governing or recommending
this or that reg. such matters. I don't think we should consider all these
"local" books as "Hindu scriptures". These practices pretty much 'social'
and less "religious". They are based upon caste and family traditions.
I couldn't find anything reg. cousin-marriage in very popular 'smruti' texts
like Manusmruti, Apastamba/Bodhayana Grihya Sutras etc. Even if there is something
in these books, I don't think people even follow 1% of all recommendation in them.
I have an interesting observation from Mahabharata in this regard. Arjuna marries
Subhadra (Krishna's sister) who is his maternal cousin, right? I remember for sure
that Vasudeva was Pandavas' maternal uncle (was Kunti Vasudeva's sister, then .. or
they were indirect brother and sister ???)
Does that mean marrying maternal cousins was a practice ...or was this also an
exceptional marriage as that of Draupadi ??? Can anyone clarify this point?
>
> > The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at the
> > University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which I am
> > not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
> > interested.
Yes. I am interested in knowing about this source.
> >
> > >As Yashwanth has rigthly pointed out, South Indians marry their
> > >maternal cousins. In most of the Tamil families, one can marry the
> > >son/daughter of his/her sister also, if their ages suit for marriage.
> > >(marrying 'akkaa magaL' 'maamaa', maaman magaL' etc. is common, at least
> > >in villages)
> > >
> > Another reason for this is to keep the brother and sister connected
> > through the marriage of their children. This way the brother sends an
> > indirect message:Before you mistreat my sister, think of your daughter
> > who is in my house.
>
> Isn't this a pretty backward concept; pretty much colonial for that
> matter.
Yes, I agree with you that it's pretty much backward concept, born out of the
petty fears of a girl being mistreated in her 'sasuraal', plus keeping the
family property confined within the relations.
>
> >
> > >This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
> > >a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
> > >thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
>
> What is a gotra??
'gotra' is the ancestoral root. Most of the so-called higher castes in India
trace their ancestory to a great Rishi like Vasishta, Bharadwaja, Kaushika etc.
and they are considered by of that gotra. Among orthodox HIndus, the practice
rules that one SHOULD NOT marry within his 'gotra' at any cast.
('gotra' literally means cow-shed in Sanskrit, indicating that the 'gotra' actually
means a household, family or tribal identity)
>
> > >
> > It was not accepted to be moral, only that this was given as an
> > excuse. This is what happens when people read the rules partially and
> > put them into use.
What do you mean by partial reading of rules here? The rules themselves are
not very rigid in the first place. They have a lot of loopholes and excuses
here and there. I am sure one can easily search and find a local "rule-book"
and say that marrying maternal cousins in justfied there.
Setting all this aside, I think many people in South India, particularly
Tamil Nadu, educated people are slowly realising that such a marriage is
not healthy, eventhough it might be justified in one of their Shastras.
-Sankara Narayanan
> >
> > [SNIP]
> > >
> > >-Sankara Narayanan
> > >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > Balakrishnan
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BALAKRISHNAN VISWANATHAN
> > vis...@omc.lan.mcgill.ca
> > bs...@musicb.mcgill.ca
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sarve janaah sukhino bhavantu
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prem!
"K. Srinivasan" <sr...@geocities.com> writes:
>
> a reputed medical journal has reported that, from their study of first
> cousin marriages prevalent in Japan, Vietnam and may other countries,
> there was no negative findings except for higher incidence of still
> births and lower birth rate.
Could you please provide a reference to this report? It would be
really interesting, since this contradicts not only conventional wisdom
but also most other studies on the topic.
> Both good and bad are re-inforced. If at all, re-enforced bad traits
> have more chance getting eliminated by the survival process.
How so? I am interested in understanding how reinforced bad traits get
eliminated this way. Do you mean that these traits are eliminated
because of the lower birth-rate/infant-survival rate in these cases?
> Incidentally, Kerala and TN have highest cousin marriage rates in India
> :
> There is no specific disease concentration in that region either.
> K. Srinivasan of Quebec.
> sr...@ireq.ca
This is really newsworthy - could you please give us a pointer to this
report? It has hitherto been widely accepted that there is a higher
incidence of mental underdevelopment, learning disability and suscepti-
bility to some genetic diseases (including haemophilia) among children
in such marriages, in addition to the infertility and still-birth
problems which you mention. Most of these were reported to be very
apparent in situations where there was successive in-breeding over two
or three generations.
Prem! -- pr...@dronesclub.ebay.sun.com
===========================================================================
== Robin Leach is hosting a new show this year about the Royal Family. ==
== It is called "Lifestyles Of The Inbred And Useless." ==
===========================================================================
Balakrishnan
a last name basis, at least not uniformly. Many of the last names
found nowadays are actually titles from the past. For example Sharma,
Bhatt etc. Hence that system will not exactly work in our circumstance.
Another question is: how many people go through the process of looking
for a girl in the proper manner? If the rules had been followed, we
would not be having this discussion now. I am also curious, how many
last names are there among Sikhs? Since I am from the south, my
oppurtunities to observe from nearby are non-existant.
Kanwar Dhaliwal
Balakrishnan wrote:
> a last name basis, at least not uniformly. Many of the last names
> found nowadays are actually titles from the past. For example Sharma,
> Bhatt etc. Hence that system will not exactly work in our circumstance.
> Another question is: how many people go through the process of looking
> for a girl in the proper manner? If the rules had been followed, we
> would not be having this discussion now. I am also curious, how many
> last names are there among Sikhs? Since I am from the south, my
> oppurtunities to observe from nearby are non-existant.
Since the last names of both of your parents are common between you and
your relatives, they provide a label for any sort of blood relation
between any 2 given people. I'm not sure about the total number of last
names but my guess would be around 75-100 or so.
KSD
Subir De
Badmoon wrote:
>
> Subir De wrote:
> >
> > Badmoon wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Badmoon (Bad...@cwr.edu) wrote:
> > > > :
> > > > : Don't deny that most south Indian Hindus also marry among their first
> > > > : cousins. The reasons for this are even more disgusting; to keep the
> > > > : family property from being diluted. Height of sleaziness, won't you say?
> > > >
> > > > IS THIS TRUE???????????
> > >
> >
> > By the bushy beards of Sant Tulsi Das and Qazi Bad-Mun, what a curious
> > group of knowledge seekers of Hindu customs.
> >
> > As for marrying our Hindu cousins, it is certainly true. And those of us
> > who do not marrying our cousins, we, Hindus, marry our sisters.
>
> Holy cow man? now that's what I call Bhenchod, what say?
By the holiest of of cows, Qazi Bad-Muun can not only understand plain
english but is able translate so well.
That was a pleasant surprise, no ?
>
> This is
> > REALLY TRUE....... why ? Don't you find that believable ?
>
> I certainly find that believable because marrying someone within the
> blood relation can cause serious birth defects; medical research has
> proven that.
That is so true, Qazi Bad-Muun. And there is no dedicated medical
researcher of incest than you.
> Are you one of those retards?? Wonder whether your sisters
> and cousins must be saying Subir Le instead of Subir De.
I am afraid I am one of them, O Wise Qazi Badmuun. And all of us are
like that, too, really. Please let know soon as to what other matters of
unnatural sex that interest you.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....................
>
Qazi, I knew Guru Tulsi Das had borrowed my vibrator. But did you have
to take it from him ? Doesn’t this really tickle your fanny, I mean,
your fancy ?
> >
> > Subir De.
Subir De Retards.
PS. To gentle readers following this thread: Please no warnings to the
Qazi, I have worked too hard with this bait not loose this catch.
K. Srinivasan
Tharmarajah Kugarajah wrote:
>
> In article <331CCF...@cisco.com>, "Vivek R. Prabhu" <vpr...@cisco.com> writes:
> |> Now, a tricky situation comes when a couple that has been married
> |> this way, comes to the US, and say become citizens. US law does NOT
> |> recognize such a marriage, between cousins, and it would be a question
> |> as to what view the law would take, should it discover such a thing.
> |>----------------------------------------------------------------
> |> vpr...@cisco.com (Vivek R. Prabhu),
> the Law allows cross cousin marriages. In case people aren't aware, Einstein's
> first marriage was to his cross cousin.. There is a recent book that explores myths
> and the real dangers in light of historical data (I haven't read it).
> ----------------------------------------------------U OF Maryland System-------
> AUTHOR(s): Ottenheimer, Martin.
> TITLE(s): Forbidden relatives : the American myth of cousin marriage
> / Martin Ottenheimer.
>
> Urbana : University of Illinois Press, c1996.
> 179 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
> Includes bibliographical references (p. [155]-168) and
> index.
> Contents: U.S. laws prohibiting the marriage of relatives
> -- The reasons for U.S. laws against first cousin marriage
> -- European laws prohibiting the marriage of relatives --
> European views of cousin marriage -- The evolutionary
> factor -- Biogenetics and first cousin marriage -- Culture
> and cousin marriage.
>
> OTHER ENTRIES: Cross-cousin marriage--United States.
> Cross-cousin marriage--Europe.
>
> Author: Ottenheimer Martin
> Title: Forbidden relatives : the American myth of cous>
> United States--Social life and customs.
> Europe--Social life and customs.
My French Canadian colleague who passed away last year was
married to his cousin (for 37 years, another rare thing).
He said that his Catholic church would not allow that first.
So they paid some bribe and faked the church records itself
and were married. That was almost 40 years ago.
ks
K. Srinivasan
Tulsi Das wrote:
>
> Sankara Narayanan (san...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> : But nowadays, with the spread of awareness, even this practice has
> : been reducing. Some of the renowned Swamis and Hindu religious leaders
> : are advising people not to marry within their relations.
> :
>
> So why the need to discourage the practice? It seems like marrying
> one's cousin is a tradition among southern hindus, and if there is
> nothing in your scriptures condemning it, why are the swamis and
> hindu leaders doing so?
South is getting more into the main stream culture. Like a melting
pot. The dominant charateristics do eliminate the others.
This is the general trend in the south india. Nobody has the power
to prevent it. It is part of inevitable progress. You can see it
in the pop music and movies also.
K. Srinivasan
Prem! wrote:
> Could you please provide a reference to this report?
Will try. Please do try using using University search engines also.
> It has hitherto been widely accepted that there is a higher
> incidence of mental underdevelopment, learning disability and suscepti-
> bility to some genetic diseases (including haemophilia) among children
> in such marriages, in addition to the infertility and still-birth
> problems which you mention. Most of these were reported to be very
> apparent in situations where there was successive in-breeding over two
> or three generations.
> Prem! -- pr...@dronesclub.ebay.sun.com
Nobody is contradicting these findings. The children of such marriages
DO
have twice (or even higher) incidence of such diseases. However:
(1) The incidence of the same diseases in the society as a whole DOES
NOT go up.
(2) Often the reinforced conditions lead to those children not marrying
or have children and the defective genes get eliminated faster.
Thus cousin marriages may be harmful at the personal level, (like having
less children and possibly those with family inherited diseases),
But is benefitial to the society as a whole. There is no higher
incidence of
mental underdevelopment among south indians in spite of the extremly
high cousin marriage rate. Their ancesters were not fools to promote
that.
ks.
Kanwar Dhaliwal
The reason for promoting that has already been accepted earlier in this
thread. You won't be proud the hear it, I bet.
KSD
>
> ks.
Kanwar Dhaliwal
Only a fool can look at Indian cinema and try to infer some social ideas
from it. What are you talking about dude, How many people at the
grassroots level really change as far as their customs and social
behavoir goes. What the movies show reflects no more than 0.1% of the
population and its ideas, if even that.
KSD
Badmoon
Really, you're the epitomy of a sorry ass who has lost the point. I
guess it is characteristic of all losers to resort to such gimmicks when
they have nothing more to say over something. Subie De sahib, are you in
any way related to Shobha De, another perverted product of your
homeland. Inbreeding sure reaches out within you guys as far as
perverted practices go.
Amitabh Hajela
Kanwar Dhaliwal wrote:
>
> Only a fool can look at Indian cinema and try to infer some social ideas
> from it. What are you talking about dude, How many people at the
> grassroots level really change as far as their customs and social
> behavoir goes. What the movies show reflects no more than 0.1% of the
> population and its ideas, if even that.
>
> KSD
Change is a dynamic and continuous process; I don't think we
underestimate the magnitude and scope of change taking place in India
right now, at all levels of society, in rural as well as urban areas.
Let's take the most economically stagnant, socially conservative, least
educated, least modernized region in India as an example - rural Bihar.
Do you really think that the culture (defined as behaviour, norms,
attitudes, practices, beliefs, etc) in a remote Bihari village is
identical to the same village 100 years ago? To outsiders, who just
take a quick glance, it may seem so, but be assured, that's not the
case. Change has taken place at hundreds of points, in hundreds of
ways, big and small. Ideas have changed. Attitudes have changed,
behaviors have changed, and beliefs have changed. Knowledge of the
outside world has increased manifold, as has external and internal
influence. If you were to transplant a villager of today and place him
in his village a century ago, the culture shock would be readily
apparent to him, as well as the people from back then.
Now, of course, the rate of change may not be as rapid in place A as in
place B. If you were placed in Punjab 100 years ago, you would be
completely out of your element; it would have been a different world.
If an Italian was placed in Italy a century ago, the change would be
even more.
BIG BADD JATT
Subir De (vortex!s...@attmail.com) wrote:
:
: Qazi, I knew Guru Tulsi Das had borrowed my vibrator. But did you have
Why did you lend it to him, are you screwing your cousins now instead?
Also, unless you're a woman, i think you'd be a bit strange using a
vibrator.
BIG BADD JATT
Ramesh Gopalaswamy (ram...@umich.edu) wrote:
:
: Actually, I remember one of the laws of Manu regarding marriages
: which pretty much advises against a man (ofcourse!) marrying his cousins
: (maternal or paternal). Unforunately, a quick search of my compter copy
: of Manu's Laws did not help me locate the exact reference - Chapter &
: verse.
:
: Ramesh
isn't this Manu dude the same guy who invented the dreaded caste system
and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
of the low caste????
Kanwar Dhaliwal
He might be a 2 in 1 hermaphrodite really. Neither a she, nor a he but
an it.
Anonymous IU Student
This Badmoon is tcho cute. He's almost as sweet as old
Harj !
May Badmoon and Harj be the mothers of a hundred brave
little Khalistanis (each).
BIG BADD JATT
Anonymous IU Student (stu...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: This Badmoon is tcho cute. He's almost as sweet as old
: Harj !
:
duh, this bahmanonymous is getting to be true bore. Concentrate on
your studies dweeb before your student visa expires and you are
sent back to the slums you grew up in.
Kanwar Dhaliwal
Amitabh Hajela wrote:
>
> Kanwar Dhaliwal wrote:
>
> >
> > Only a fool can look at Indian cinema and try to infer some social ideas
> > from it. What are you talking about dude, How many people at the
> > grassroots level really change as far as their customs and social
> > behavoir goes. What the movies show reflects no more than 0.1% of the
> > population and its ideas, if even that.
> >
> > KSD
>
> Change is a dynamic and continuous process; I don't think we
> underestimate the magnitude and scope of change taking place in India
> right now, at all levels of society, in rural as well as urban areas.
Every country in this world is changing for that matter; very fast too.
>
> Let's take the most economically stagnant, socially conservative, least
> educated, least modernized region in India as an example - rural Bihar.
> Do you really think that the culture (defined as behaviour, norms,
> attitudes, practices, beliefs, etc) in a remote Bihari village is
> identical to the same village 100 years ago? To outsiders, who just
> take a quick glance, it may seem so, but be assured, that's not the
> case. Change has taken place at hundreds of points, in hundreds of
> ways, big and small. Ideas have changed. Attitudes have changed,
> behaviors have changed, and beliefs have changed. Knowledge of the
> outside world has increased manifold, as has external and internal
> influence. If you were to transplant a villager of today and place him
> in his village a century ago, the culture shock would be readily
> apparent to him, as well as the people from back then.
>
> Now, of course, the rate of change may not be as rapid in place A as in
> place B. If you were placed in Punjab 100 years ago, you would be
> completely out of your element; it would have been a different world.
> If an Italian was placed in Italy a century ago, the change would be
> even more.
It's the relative change that matters really. How much faster can Bihar
grow so that it can catch up with other states and how much faster can
India grow so that it can catch up with other countries? So Bihar would
have to grow exponentially faster, wouldn't it. What do you think are
the chances of that happening? A Hundred years ago, people rode horses
even in the US. By the time all Indians get into cars, Americans might
be in space(Just Joking). What I mean is that there is no growth
explosion in India right now. Whatever the growth is, it is being
nullified by equal or more growth everywhere else.
Let's face it; today US is sitting on its hard work of the 40's, 50's
and the 60's. They might never grow at that rate again but they probably
will never be caught.
KSD
Sankara Narayanan
Ramesh Gopalaswamy wrote:
>
> Parthasarati Dileepan (dile...@utc.edu) wrote:
> : Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
> : <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com>...
> : >
> : > I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
> : > cousins.
>
> : This may be true, but ...
>
> Actually, I remember one of the laws of Manu regarding marriages
> which pretty much advises against a man (ofcourse!) marrying his cousins
> (maternal or paternal). Unforunately, a quick search of my compter copy
> of Manu's Laws did not help me locate the exact reference - Chapter &
> verse.
>
> Ramesh
You WON'T find it in Manu's laws because it is NOT there. Manu does
not say saything about cousin marriage in his book, neither advoctes
not protests.
MOst of his pedantic laws are about marrying among different castes
and the types of marriages (Gandharva, Brahma etc.)
-Sankara Narayanan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sankara Narayanan
Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:
>
> Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
> <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com>...
> >
> > I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
> > cousins.
>
> This may be true, but ...
>
>
> by definition) that say a lot about personal life. (Aside: religion
> by definition tell us how to conduct our personal lives, is it not?
> Bhagavath Geetha, a Hindu scripture by anyone's definition,
> is full of such advice.)
What I meant was there is NO rigid law regarding things like marriage,
food or daily prayers etc. in HInduism as it exists in other religions.
The Supreme Court of India considers a marriage a HIndu one if the act of
circling the fire with 7 steps (called 'sapta padi) is performed. Even
the tieing of mangal-sutra ('thali') is not considered mandatory. Plus,
the S.C. also considers any marriage as a Hindu one, if it was performed
as per the family tradition, even if these rites are not performed.
Scriptures like Bhagavad-gita advice on perfect human ideals like Karma
Yoga, Gyana Yoga etc., but it gives a lot of freedom for the seeker to
choose his methods, modes and means to achieve his goal.
So, in that sense Hinduism is a very _personal_ religion, eventhough it
doesn't interfere with your everyday persoanl duties. I hope you're
getting my point.
<snip> <snip>
> >
> > This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
> > a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
> > thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
>
> I am not sure about this. Only cross cousins marry. Parallel
> maternal cousins, i.e. child of mother's sister, even though of different
> gothra, do not marry. Besides, most Tamils are unfamiliar with
> the concept of gothra.
You're right in saying that parallel maternal cousins don't marry.
Eventhough people don't know the root of many customs, they follow
it, right? Probably, the source of explanation (or excuse) of cross-
cousin marriage has it's roots in the 'gotra' concept.
-Sankara Narayanan
>
> -- Dileepan
Balakrishnan
In article <5fuk50$9...@knot.queensu.ca> 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (BIG BADD JATT) writes:
>Ramesh Gopalaswamy (ram...@umich.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Actually, I remember one of the laws of Manu regarding marriages
>: which pretty much advises against a man (ofcourse!) marrying his cousins
>: (maternal or paternal). Unforunately, a quick search of my compter copy
>: of Manu's Laws did not help me locate the exact reference - Chapter &
>: verse.
>:
>: Ramesh
>
>and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
>of the low caste????
He did not invent the caste system, it was prevalent at the time. I
am unaware of your second assertion.
Balakrishnan
In article <331EE9...@vnet.ibm.com> Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>Kanwar Dhaliwal wrote:
>>
>> Balakrishnan wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com> Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>
><snip> <sniP>
>
>
>> > >
>> > >I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
>> > >cousins. Since Hinduism doesn't interfere with one's personal life
>> > >and choices, it doesn't lay down any strict norms in this regard. Variuos
>> > >groups follow customs as per their family traditions.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The scriptures do lay down a law as to whom you may marry. A man
>> > may only marry a girl who is separated 7 degrees on the paternal side,
>> > 5 degrees on the maternal side and has a different gotram. This is also
>> > true for the girl. This rules out marrying one's own cousin.
>>
>> Then why the contradicting beliefs among Hindus on this issue. Are there
>> some subcommunities or groups which follow different traditions from the
>> mainstream.
>
>
>Actually, there are literally hundreds of law-books, governing or recommending
>this or that reg. such matters. I don't think we should consider all these
>"local" books as "Hindu scriptures". These practices pretty much 'social'
>and less "religious". They are based upon caste and family traditions.
>
>
>I couldn't find anything reg. cousin-marriage in very popular 'smruti' texts
>like Manusmruti, Apastamba/Bodhayana Grihya Sutras etc. Even if there is something
>in these books, I don't think people even follow 1% of all recommendation in them.
>
>
>I have an interesting observation from Mahabharata in this regard. Arjuna marries
>Subhadra (Krishna's sister) who is his maternal cousin, right? I remember for sure
>that Vasudeva was Pandavas' maternal uncle (was Kunti Vasudeva's sister, then .. or
>they were indirect brother and sister ???)
>
>Does that mean marrying maternal cousins was a practice ...or was this also an
>exceptional marriage as that of Draupadi ??? Can anyone clarify this point?
>
>
>>
>> > The reference is "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier at the
>> > University of Manitoba. He has referenced the original work which I am
>> > not able to recall at the moment. I can bring it in if anybody is
>> > interested.
>
>Yes. I am interested in knowing about this source.
>
>
>> > >This is because of the gotra concept. Once a girl gets married to
>> > >a man, she gets his gotra, so marrying the maternal relation was
>> > >thought to be moral, while marrying paternal cousins is NOT.
>>
>> What is a gotra??
>
>'gotra' is the ancestoral root. Most of the so-called higher castes in India
>trace their ancestory to a great Rishi like Vasishta, Bharadwaja, Kaushika etc.
>and they are considered by of that gotra. Among orthodox HIndus, the practice
>rules that one SHOULD NOT marry within his 'gotra' at any cast.
>
>('gotra' literally means cow-shed in Sanskrit, indicating that the 'gotra' actually
>means a household, family or tribal identity)
>
>> > >-Sankara Narayanan
Prem!
"K. Srinivasan" <sr...@ireq.ca> writes:
> Prem! <pr...@dronesclub.ebay.sun.com> wrote:
> > It has hitherto been widely accepted that there is a higher
> > incidence of mental underdevelopment, learning disability and suscepti-
> > bility to some genetic diseases (including haemophilia) among children
> > in such marriages, in addition to the infertility and still-birth
> > problems which you mention.
>
> Nobody is contradicting these findings. The children of such marriages
> DO have twice (or even higher) incidence of such diseases. However:
> (1) The incidence of the same diseases in the society as a whole DOES
> NOT go up.
Paradoxically, this means that first-cousin marriages are beneficial, on
the whole, but largely to those who do not practice it. I had not under-
stood this train of thought. I (mistakenly) got the impression that you
were saying there were no significant drawbacks at all to first cousin
marriages.
> Thus cousin marriages may be harmful at the personal level, (like having
> less children and possibly those with family inherited diseases), But is
> benefitial to the society as a whole. There is no higher incidence of
> mental underdevelopment among south indians in spite of the extremly high
> cousin marriage rate. Their ancesters were not fools to promote that.
> ks.
I am sorry, but my focus was rather limited to the subject at hand - I
really wasn't planning to arrive at any conclusion about the intelligence
of anyone's ancestors here...
...although now that you bring it up, it does strike me as curious that
(according to the above theory) these ancestors cared so little about
the possible detrimental effect inter-cousin marriage would have on the
_personal_ lives of their own descendants. Perhaps these wise men
shrewdly saw that it was quite alright for society on the whole even if
their own grandchildren turned out retarded...
Prem! -- pr...@dronesclub.ebay.sun.com
Prem!
"K. Srinivasan" <sr...@ireq.ca> writes:
> Prem! wrote:
>
> > "K. Srinivasan" <sr...@geocities.com> writes:
> >
> > > a reputed medical journal has reported that, from their study of
> > > first cousin marriages prevalent in Japan, Vietnam and may other
> > > countries, there was no negative findings except for higher
> > > incidence of still births and lower birth rate.
> >
> > Could you please provide a reference to this report?
>
> Will try. Please do try using using University search engines also.
Thank you - I did look at some search results at the Stanford Center,
but none of the abstracts that I could find matched the conclusion you
referred to.
Perhaps if you could at least provide the name of the reputed journal
in which this was published (which you likely recall offhand), it would
help greatly in finding the report to which you refer. I do have access
to several decades of back-issues of the New England Journal of Medicine
and The Lancet, so if you read it in one of them, I will be able to
find it quite easily.
Thank you,
Prem! -- pr...@dronesclub.ebay.sun.com
=============================================================================
== The only time Murphy's Law will fail is when your life depends on it. ==
=============================================================================
Ramesh Gopalaswamy
BIG BADD JATT (4h...@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote:
: Ramesh Gopalaswamy (ram...@umich.edu) wrote:
: :
: : Actually, I remember one of the laws of Manu regarding marriages
: : which pretty much advises against a man (ofcourse!) marrying his cousins
: : (maternal or paternal). Unforunately, a quick search of my compter copy
: : of Manu's Laws did not help me locate the exact reference - Chapter &
: : verse.
: :
: : Ramesh
: isn't this Manu dude the same guy who invented the dreaded caste system
: and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
: of the low caste????
Well, Manu did not invent the caste system. It must've been there
even before him! It just proposed "laws" to say, ratify it.
Ramesh Gopalaswamy
Distribution:
Sankara Narayanan (san...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
: Ramesh Gopalaswamy wrote:
: >
: > Parthasarati Dileepan (dile...@utc.edu) wrote:
: > : Sankara Narayanan <san...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
: > : <331C62...@vnet.ibm.com>...
: > : >
: > : > I don't think any Hindu scripture says _anything_ about marrying
: > : > cousins.
: >
: > : This may be true, but ...
: >
: > Actually, I remember one of the laws of Manu regarding marriages
: > which pretty much advises against a man (ofcourse!) marrying his cousins
: > (maternal or paternal). Unforunately, a quick search of my compter copy
: > of Manu's Laws did not help me locate the exact reference - Chapter &
: > verse.
: >
: > Ramesh
: You WON'T find it in Manu's laws because it is NOT there. Manu does
: not say saything about cousin marriage in his book, neither advoctes
: not protests.
: MOst of his pedantic laws are about marrying among different castes
: and the types of marriages (Gandharva, Brahma etc.)
No Sir, IT IS there! I FOUND it and YOU would too!!
Kindly sir, refer to Chap XI verses 172 & 173. Like
I'd mentioned before it was an online copy that I found this in.
I shall reproduce...................
172. He who has approached the daughter of his father's sister,
(who is almost equal to) a sister, (the daughter) of his mother's
sister, or of his mother's full brother, shall perform a lunar
penance.
173. A wise man should not take as his wife any of these three;
they must not be wedded because they are (Sapinda-) relatives, he
who marries (one of them), sinks low.
Sounds like he WAS refering to cousins! Anyhow would some learned
soul tell me what "Sapinda" means? Thanks
Ramesh
Valliappa Lakshmanan
In article <5g27am$i...@male.ebay.sun.com>,
Prem! <pr...@dronesclub.ebay.sun.com> wrote:
>
> ...although now that you bring it up, it does strike me as curious that
> (according to the above theory) these ancestors cared so little about
> the possible detrimental effect inter-cousin marriage would have on the
> _personal_ lives of their own descendants. Perhaps these wise men
> shrewdly saw that it was quite alright for society on the whole even if
> their own grandchildren turned out retarded...
the ancestors were probably demented by inter-cousin marriage and couldn't
think clearly :)
On the same subject, I read an article a few months ago (in Nature??)
that said that people studying genetic mutations and rare inherited diseases
are making a beeline to India. Apparently because of the high incidence of
inbreeding, even non-beneficial (and malignant) mutations survive in the
population and therefore, by collecting genetic materials from a large family
or jati, they could study these mutations and diseases.
According to the article, the Indian govt. was trying to regulate trade
in inbred genetic materials ... In the 1970s, it was Indian bones. In the
1990s, it is Indian genes.
lakshman
Valliappa Lakshmanan
In article <10MAR97.14...@vm1.mcgill.ca>,
Balakrishnan <BSX...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> wrote:
>In article <5fuk50$9...@knot.queensu.ca> 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (BIG BADD JATT) writes:
>>
>>and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
>>of the low caste????
> He did not invent the caste system, it was prevalent at the time. I
>am unaware of your second assertion.
>
>
> Balakrishnan
err ... the caste system didn't exist when Manu wrote about it. Manu's writing
was based on
wishful thinking and a need to categorize people. The system rigidified
centuries later when the Hindu kings lost power to invading Turks.
So, in that sense Manu "invented" the caste system.
lakshman
Balakrishnan
Pinda literally means 'rice ball' and sapinda therefore means 'with
rice ball' or 'he who has same rice ball'. This is probably a reference
to the sraaddha(thevasam) in which pinda is offered to the ancestors.
Hence a sapinda is probably someone who offers pinda to the same
ancestor(usually this is to the father or mother). Since it is known fro
other works of the time that women also participated in religious
ceremonies actively(as in performing it), I interpret it as saying that
you may not marry the son/daughter of one who offers pinda to the same
person as your fa(mo)ther. Since women no longer perform these(or others
it could be argued that marrying on the mother's side or father's
sister's side is allowed. However I do not think that that was the
motive behind his writing. If you could present the original work, it
would be easier to give a fuller interpretation. Maybe two or three
verses preceding the quote would be useful.
BIG BADD JATT
Ramesh Gopalaswamy (ram...@umich.edu) wrote:
:
: : isn't this Manu dude the same guy who invented the dreaded caste system
: : and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
: : of the low caste????
: Well, Manu did not invent the caste system. It must've been there
: even before him! It just proposed "laws" to say, ratify it.
So he gave this system legitimacy and incorporated his laws into hindu
scriptures? If so, how can any right minded person give any credence
to these "scriptures" which sanction discrimination and bigotry?
Subir De
ha ha ha, 2 brave, Baddy and enquiry-minded Khalistanis engaging in
wonder at the brighter side of sex ! Who said that Khalistanis do not
have a healthy interest in sex. btw, it was your bosom brother, Harj-ji
who started this vibrator thing in an earlier thread - ask him how best
to use this wondereful toy. What ? you have problem with short term
memory, too ? Too bad.
Subir De Whatever.
Balakrishnan
In article <5g3st8$klp$1...@artemis.backbone.ou.edu> laks...@nsslsun.nssl.noaa.gov (Valliappa Lakshmanan) writes:
>In article <10MAR97.14...@vm1.mcgill.ca>,
>Balakrishnan <BSX...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA> wrote:
>>In article <5fuk50$9...@knot.queensu.ca> 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (BIG BADD JATT) writes:
>>>
>>>and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
>>>of the low caste????
>> He did not invent the caste system, it was prevalent at the time. I
>>am unaware of your second assertion.
>>
>>
>> Balakrishnan
>
>err ... the caste system didn't exist when Manu wrote about it. Manu's writing
>was based on
>wishful thinking and a need to categorize people. The system rigidified
>centuries later when the Hindu kings lost power to invading Turks.
>So, in that sense Manu "invented" the caste system.
>
>lakshman
The caste system actually did exist before Manu but it was he who
made it rigid and eventually led it to become the despicable thing it
is today. He 'invented' the concept of caste heirarchy even though
varnaasramadharma predates him by at least one thousand years. Manu
wrote his smrti around 100 BC whereas the Rgveda in which castes are
mentioned was written around 2000 BC(according to traditional dating).
The wishful thinking existed long before Manu was even thought of. It
is possible that the train of logic involved actually worked well, but
there is no way of finding out. The rigidification of the caste system
did not wait for the Turks to come to India, it was set in motion by
Manu himself. Much of what Manu wrote(in general) is said to be a
reflection of life in those days and a fair amount is what he projected
society should be like.
Y. Malaiya
Balakrishnan wrote:
> >err ... the caste system didn't exist when Manu wrote about it. Manu's >writing was based on
> >wishful thinking and a need to categorize people. The system rigidified
> >centuries later when the Hindu kings lost power to invading Turks.
> >So, in that sense Manu "invented" the caste system.
The varnas did exist long before "Manu". The attempt to classify people
into varnas was only partly successful. Many groups did not fit in any
of the varnas, and they had to be classified into mixed varnas
(varNa-samkara).
> The caste system actually did exist before Manu but it was he who
> made it rigid and eventually led it to become the despicable thing it
> is today. He 'invented' the concept of caste heirarchy even though
> varnaasramadharma predates him by at least one thousand years. Manu
> wrote his smrti around 100 BC whereas the Rgveda in which castes are
> mentioned was written around 2000 BC.
The concept of varna hierarchy existed even before Manu. The early
Buddhist literature suggests that at the time of Buddha, the
Brahmins were generally respected by others.
Manu-smriti was composed in a feudal society, where harshness
was accepted. Contrary to popular belief, the varnas have always
been fluid. We know of communities that have risen or fallen
through the varna hierarchy. In fact some scholars have gone
so far as to declare that that the two middle varnas have ceased
to exist.
I think chAturvarNya has ceased to be a meaningful classification.
Practically all communities have acquired at least some traits of
all four varNas. There are untouchables writing original articles
in Sanskrit, and there are Brahmanas doing crafts and menial jobs.
It has been suggested and I would agree that today that a Hindu
today in general should be deemed to be a member of all four
varnas.
Manu-smrit Chap XI verses
paitR^ishhvaseyIM bhaginIM svasrIyAM mAtureva cha
mAtushcha bhratustanayaM gatvA chAndrAyaNaM karet \171\
>He who has approached the daughter of his father's sister,
>(who is almost equal to) a sister, (the daughter) of his mother's
>sister, or of his mother's full brother, shall perform a lunar
>penance
etAstisrastu bhAryarthe nopayachchhetu buddhimAn
GYatitvenAnupeyAstAH patati hyupayannadhaH \172\
>A wise man should not take as his wife any of these three;
>they must not be wedded because they are (Sapinda-) relatives, he
>who marries (one of them), sinks low.
{Word "Sapinda" does not occur in original. Probably added by
the translator)
Thus it recommends against marrying daughters of:
father's sister, mother's sister and mother's brother.
However, a smriti is a recommendation and not the law.
Yashwant
Amitabh Hajela
> : : and the same guy who maintained that women are inferior to even the lowest
> : : of the low caste????
> : Well, Manu did not invent the caste system. It must've been there
> : even before him! It just proposed "laws" to say, ratify it.
>
> So he gave this system legitimacy and incorporated his laws into hindu
> scriptures? If so, how can any right minded person give any credence
> to these "scriptures" which sanction discrimination and bigotry?
It's a question of keeping the good, throwing out the bad. Sure, many
Hindus are not proud of the Manushruti or whatever it's called; those
Hindus wouldn't call it a scripture. In every religion, people take
what they find to be worthwhile, and toss the rest (when they have that
freedom - I ain't talkin' about Saudi Arabia or nothin'). Some Sikhs
say the 5 Ks are not essential. Many Catholics and Jews question the
tenets of their religion. Even Muslims (a few) in the West do it. They
all accept what they like, or agree with, and ignore or speak out
against the rest. In Christianity, it's a pretty firm article of faith
that those who do not accept Jesus as Son of God, and redeemer of sins,
and having died for Mankind's salvation, etc., will go to hell. I have
some good Christian friends who've flatly told me they reject that
belief, even though they're christian. They believe how good a person
you are decides who goes to heaven. Even though there's no doctrinal
support for this belief. So that's just the way it is.
Balakrishnan
In article <33260912...@cs.colostate.edu> "Y. Malaiya" <mal...@cs.colostate.edu> writes:
>Balakrishnan wrote:
>
>> >err ... the caste system didn't exist when Manu wrote about it. Manu's >writing was based on
>> >wishful thinking and a need to categorize people. The system rigidified
>> >centuries later when the Hindu kings lost power to invading Turks.
>> >So, in that sense Manu "invented" the caste system.
>
>The varnas did exist long before "Manu". The attempt to classify people
>into varnas was only partly successful. Many groups did not fit in any
>of the varnas, and they had to be classified into mixed varnas
>(varNa-samkara).
>
>> The caste system actually did exist before Manu but it was he who
>> made it rigid and eventually led it to become the despicable thing it
>> is today. He 'invented' the concept of caste heirarchy even though
>> varnaasramadharma predates him by at least one thousand years. Manu
>> wrote his smrti around 100 BC whereas the Rgveda in which castes are
>> mentioned was written around 2000 BC.
>
>The concept of varna hierarchy existed even before Manu. The early
>Buddhist literature suggests that at the time of Buddha, the
>Brahmins were generally respected by others.
>
the existence of a rigid heirarchy.
>Manu-smriti was composed in a feudal society, where harshness
>was accepted. Contrary to popular belief, the varnas have always
>been fluid. We know of communities that have risen or fallen
>through the varna hierarchy. In fact some scholars have gone
>so far as to declare that that the two middle varnas have ceased
>to exist.
>
>I think chAturvarNya has ceased to be a meaningful classification.
>Practically all communities have acquired at least some traits of
>all four varNas. There are untouchables writing original articles
>in Sanskrit, and there are Brahmanas doing crafts and menial jobs.
>It has been suggested and I would agree that today that a Hindu
>today in general should be deemed to be a member of all four
>varnas.
>
True. But the emphasis on different parts of life given by different
families reflects their varna(born or acquired). The varnaasrama can
be cleaned up by derigidifying it. I am sure that this will meet with
much opposition because many people stand to gain from the current
situation. The varny should be based on behaviour and intelligence and
not on birth as this does not guarantee anything.
>Manu-smrit Chap XI verses
>
>paitR^ishhvaseyIM bhaginIM svasrIyAM mAtureva cha
>mAtushcha bhratustanayaM gatvA chAndrAyaNaM karet \171\
>
>>He who has approached the daughter of his father's sister,
>>(who is almost equal to) a sister, (the daughter) of his mother's
>>sister, or of his mother's full brother, shall perform a lunar
>>penance
Manu actually equates the cousins to a sister. There is no question
of 'almost equal to'. What is the lunar penance(candraayanam)?
>
>etAstisrastu bhAryarthe nopayachchhetu buddhimAn
>GYatitvenAnupeyAstAH patati hyupayannadhaH \172\
>
>>A wise man should not take as his wife any of these three;
>>they must not be wedded because they are (Sapinda-) relatives, he
>>who marries (one of them), sinks low.
>
>{Word "Sapinda" does not occur in original. Probably added by
>the translator)
>
>Thus it recommends against marrying daughters of:
>father's sister, mother's sister and mother's brother.
>
>However, a smriti is a recommendation and not the law.
>
>Yashwant
>.
That is true, but smrtis are accepted as laws by the people, mostly
due to the wisdom contained in them. Manu does not recommend against
marrying cousins - he outright decries it. On what basis does the
translator add sapinda?
Subir De
BIG BADD JATT wrote (from Sant Tulsi Das's holy terminal):
Oh, thou doth giveth us thy holy Duhs, Santy Tulsi Das, now reincarnated
as the Small Sad Slot. Only truly deep concentration in Khalistani
studies can bring forth such sweeet aduhvice.
Subir Duh.
there wuz Jazza, Harj-ji, then the Santy Tulsi Das and now the Sad Silly
Sat. We are holding a contest as to which mighty character is going to
emerge into sci next. Yo, do i hear a Surly Sard, a Hefty Curd, or was
that a Muha.Raja Pandit Singh-ji Hard ?
Ramesh Gopalaswamy
Balakrishnan (BSX...@MUSICB.MCGILL.CA) wrote:
: In article <5g2d87$1...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> ram...@umich.edu (Ramesh Gopalaswamy) writes:
: >Distribution:
[snipped, snipped, please refer previous posts in the thread, if
interested]
: >
: >Ramesh
: >.
: Pinda literally means 'rice ball' and sapinda therefore means 'with
: rice ball' or 'he who has same rice ball'. This is probably a reference
: to the sraaddha(thevasam) in which pinda is offered to the ancestors.
: Hence a sapinda is probably someone who offers pinda to the same
: ancestor(usually this is to the father or mother). Since it is known fro
: other works of the time that women also participated in religious
: ceremonies actively(as in performing it), I interpret it as saying that
: you may not marry the son/daughter of one who offers pinda to the same
: person as your fa(mo)ther. Since women no longer perform these(or others
: it could be argued that marrying on the mother's side or father's
: sister's side is allowed. However I do not think that that was the
: motive behind his writing. If you could present the original work, it
: would be easier to give a fuller interpretation. Maybe two or three
: verses preceding the quote would be useful.
: Balakrishnan
Thank you, sir for the explanation. The original was frmm an online
copy, a translation of Manu's Laws by G. Buhler. The chapter (XI)
I referred to deals with "penances" prescribed for doers of the forbidden.
I am reproducing fgew verses before and after the ones I alluded to
earlier...............
170. By means of these penances, a twice-born man may remove the
guilt of theft; but the guilt of approaching women who ought not to be
approached (agamya), he may expiate by (the following) penances.
171. He who has had sexual intercourse with sisters by the same
mother, with the wives of a friend, or of a son, with unmarried
maidens, and with females of the lowest castes, shall perform the
penance, prescribed for the violation of a Guru's bed.
172. He who has approached the daughter of his father's sister,
(who is almost equal to) a sister, (the daughter) of his mother's
sister, or of his mother's full brother, shall perform a lunar
penance.
173. A wise man should not take as his wife any of these three;
they must not be wedded because they are (Sapinda-) relatives, he
who marries (one of them), sinks low.
174. A man who has committed a bestial crime, or an unnatural crime
with a female, or has had intercourse in water, or with a menstruating
woman, shall perform a Samtapana Krikkhra.
175. A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male,
or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or
in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.
176. A Brahmana who unintentionally approaches a woman of the
Kandala or of (any other) very low caste, who eats (the food of such
persons) and accepts (presents from them) becomes an outcast; but
(if he does it) intentionally, he becomes their equal.
177. An exceedingly corrupt wife let her husband confine to one
apartment, and compel her to perform the penance which is prescribed
for males in cases of adultery.
178. If, being solicited by a man (of) equal (caste), she
(afterwards) is again unfaithful, then a Krikkhra and a lunar
penance are prescribed as the means of purifying her.
179. The sin which a twice-born man commits by dallying one night
with a Vrishali, he removes in three years, by subsisting on alms
and daily muttering (sacred texts).
180. The atonement (to be performed) by sinners (of) four (kinds)
even, has been thus declared; hear now the penances for those who have
intercourse with outcasts.
Theva
>
>The varnas did exist long before "Manu". The attempt to classify people
>into varnas was only partly successful. Many groups did not fit in any
>of the varnas, and they had to be classified into mixed varnas
>(varNa-samkara).
The categorizing of people were here in india even before rig-veda time, that
time harsh treatment towards caste might not be the case, but later vedic
speakers used that syestem to dominate the society and categorized length
even to "UNTOUCHABLES", and other than india subcontinent nowhere in the west
caste syestem found,where sanskrit ancestors might have come from so
categorizing people according to their work was in india even before vedic
times and even in South india Tamil nadu where people categorized to their
living places KURINJI, PALAI, NEYDAL, MARUDAM, MULLAI, here it categorized to
the land they live and properbly to the work of the people these were here in
Tamil nadu even before the sanskrit influence in south.
>I think chAturvarNya has ceased to be a meaningful classification.
>Practically all communities have acquired at least some traits of
>all four varNas. There are untouchables writing original articles
>in Sanskrit, and there are Brahmanas doing crafts and menial jobs.
>It has been suggested and I would agree that today that a Hindu
>today in general should be deemed to be a member of all four
>varnas.
>
The syestem might be fine if it followed without harsh treatment towards the
people, that is not possible in this indian society, the hindu society
allways failed to defend it invaders because of the caste dominance of the
upper class society and differences, the budhist and muslim came and rule
because of this treatement towards the society it divide the society and no
team work, no identity as a whole, only way india can prosperous and have an
idientity is with "NO CASTE SOCIETY" this would unite the aspects of INDIAN
otherwise cheap politician allways benefits and will not get to prosperous
india, but i don't think that is possible in near time. India will see China
become monster when india has that capabilities. So i think hindu should
not be deemed to be a member of four varnas if it not followed with great
humanity over other groups but that not possible in this political society.
Badmoon
Subir De wrote:
>
> BIG BADD JATT wrote (from Sant Tulsi Das's holy terminal):
> >
> > Anonymous IU Student (stu...@indiana.edu) wrote:
> > : This Badmoon is tcho cute. He's almost as sweet as old
> > : Harj !
> > :
> >
> > duh, this bahmanonymous is getting to be true bore. Concentrate on
> > your studies dweeb before your student visa expires and you are
> > sent back to the slums you grew up in.
>
> Oh, thou doth giveth us thy holy Duhs, Santy Tulsi Das, now reincarnated
> as the Small Sad Slot. Only truly deep concentration in Khalistani
> studies can bring forth such sweeet aduhvice.
Take it easy Subir. You're trying to speak medieval Hingleesh but your
Bengali stammer is showing. You owe it to your Bong phriends by
rectifying yourself.
Bwahahahahahaha.............
BIG BADD JATT
Ramesh Gopalaswamy (ram...@umich.edu) wrote:
:
: Thank you, sir for the explanation. The original was frmm an online
: copy, a translation of Manu's Laws by G. Buhler. The chapter (XI)
: I referred to deals with "penances" prescribed for doers of the forbidden.
: I am reproducing fgew verses before and after the ones I alluded to
: earlier...............
: 175. A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male,
: or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or
: in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes.
this is so damn hilarious, this manu dude must have been one sex obsessed
fiend
- he even had the time to write about having sex with a woman in a cart
drawn by an ox! i guess making love on a cart drawn by a horse is o.k.?
ALso, talking about "unnatural offence with a male" - i thought hinduism
was very tolerant of homosexuality, and like devdasis, there were male
prostitutes working in temples also - is this correct??
Manu Dube
Yeah yeah ...I am great.
Next ...
Anonymous IU Student
Badmoon wrote:
>
> Subir De wrote:
> >
> > BIG BALD JHATT wrote (from Sant Tulsi Das's holy terminal):
> > >
> > > Anonymous IU Student (stu...@indiana.edu) wrote:
> > > : This Badmoon is tcho cute. He's almost as sweet as old
> > > : Harj !
> > > :
> > >
> > > duh, this bahmanonymous is getting to be true bore. Concentrate on
> > > your studies dweeb before your student visa expires and you are
> > > sent back to the slums you grew up in.
Forgive me, Harj, my sweet. I am indeed neglecting my umm...studies
and my visa is fast expiring. It is all on your account.
I am so completely enamoured by you. Be my wife, oh Harj; marry me.
Be the mother of my children. Please...
> >
> > Oh, thou doth giveth us thy holy Duhs, Santy Tulsi Das, now reincarnated
> > as the Small Sad Slot. Only truly deep concentration in Khalistani
> > studies can bring forth such sweeet aduhvice.
Tis true doth thou spake, Sir De. The brave knights in shining
armour (whose ancestors saved our female ancestors from dem dark forces
of evil) studieth and studieth and cometh up with pearls of sacred
wisduhm 'bout mothers, sisters and cows. Glory be them !
>
> Take it easy Subir. You're trying to speak medieval Hingleesh but your
> Bengali stammer is showing. You owe it to your Bong phriends by
> rectifying yourself.
>
> Bwahahahahahaha.............
ha ha ha ha. Badmoon is so humourful. Ha ha ha. I love him too, but
I love Harj most.
ps: Harj, my sweet, I'm not Bahman.
Badmoon
Well dude, then I must introduce you to my friend Vivek. He also is
looking for some company for the night. Also, because of Bill Clinton,
you can now get into the army. There you get to roll around in trenches
with big bad guys who will spank you kinky.
Bwahahahahahahahaha...........
BIG BADD JATT
: I love Harj most.
:
: ps: Harj, my sweet, I'm not Bahman.
well i'm glad that you are able to express your homosexual desires so
openly (hiding behind an anon i.d. ;-)) perhaps you should visit subir duh
and take asircar's vibrator with you. I have heard that hindu males tend
to be effiminate so your wanting a Jatt's ghandasa up your ass is not
surprising, judging by your women, you'll keep coming back for more.