A request to the Vedic proselytes
Meenan Vishnu
In article <C4tIq...@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> m. vishnu writes:
>
>If Vedas contain Math, Science, Medicine etc, please give us
>at least one sloka from the Vedas!
>
>The Tamil Hindu magazines have a common expression sprinkled all
>over them and that is: "amerikkaavil vinynyaanikaL namathu mathak
>kirikaikaL nanmai tharuvana enRu kaNdu pidiththuLLaarkaL".
>(Scientists in America have conclusively found out that our
>rituals are beneficial) Every issue of Gnaanapoomi that you open will
>have this line. That is, the exploitive vedic rituals are sold to
>the people with the label "American Scientist endorse this".
>
>Yet NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE MAGAZINES provide any detail as to
>who these american scientists are ?
>what exactly did they do ?
>where did they publish their works ?
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's right. I remember one instance when nyaNaboomi said, "thirumNaththin
pOthu puthithaaga maNamudiththa kaNavaNum manaivium neruppai valam
varuvathu, iravin kaama veppaththai kuraippathaaga, (right) amerikka
vinynyaaNigaL kaNdu pidhththuLLaarkaL".
This sounded quite funny to me at that time. Later I realized that
nyaNaboomi's intention is not fun, but propagation of misinformation
for which *they* have been famous for.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A friend of mine sent me the above e-mail about a recent article in
nyaanapoomi which I had missed.
He said that the article contained a line with the magic phrase:
"American scientists have found out conclusively that our rituals
of going around the fire during a wedding has a purpose: it is
found conclusively that the heat of the fire reduces the couples'
lust on their first night!"
Now this is laughable. But we cannot simply dismiss this claim as
crap.
These are done with a purpose, a hidden message. The hidden message is
that "our ancestors had infinite wisdom and devised a way of life
which is most beneficial to us. The western science is only beginning
to understand the wonders of our ancestors. So people! don't question
the caste system and the rituals. These are wonderful way of life
created by our ancestors who had infinte wisdom."
This is the message driven home repeatedly with the crap:
"american scientists say our stuff is cool" without mentioning
any details of the scientist.
Another approach of these proselytes is to tarnish the image of
critics. Paint them as inconsistent individuals. I have already
quoted many incidence where the biographies of critics are willfully
distorted to project a wrong image to the people.
This idea of "ancestors had infinite wisdom and that you simply have to
follow the rules without thinking" is very dangerous which is partially
responsible for the backward status of our countries. However, this
view is beneficial for those who are enjoying under the current system
in that it makes the people into zombies who will not rebel against any
suppressive and exploitive systems.
Regards,
Meenan Vishnu
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
>
> In article <C4tIq...@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> m. vishnu writes:
/**** Some portions deleted, as I either have no comments on them,
or agree with MV ****/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> That's right. I remember one instance when nyaNaboomi said, "thirumNaththin
> pOthu puthithaaga maNamudiththa kaNavaNum manaivium neruppai valam
> varuvathu, iravin kaama veppaththai kuraippathaaga, (right) amerikka
> vinynyaaNigaL kaNdu pidhththuLLaarkaL".
>
> This sounded quite funny to me at that time. Later I realized that
> nyaNaboomi's intention is not fun, but propagation of misinformation
> for which *they* have been famous for.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> A friend of mine sent me the above e-mail about a recent article in
> nyaanapoomi which I had missed.
>
> He said that the article contained a line with the magic phrase:
>
> "American scientists have found out conclusively that our rituals
> of going around the fire during a wedding has a purpose: it is
> found conclusively that the heat of the fire reduces the couples'
> lust on their first night!"
>
> Now this is laughable. But we cannot simply dismiss this claim as
> crap.
Indeed, this IS laughable. What's wrong in a newly married couple
having a a "lustful" wedding night ? And why all this guilt
for that ?
> These are done with a purpose, a hidden message. The hidden message is
> that "our ancestors had infinite wisdom and devised a way of life
> which is most beneficial to us. The western science is only beginning
> to understand the wonders of our ancestors. So people! don't question
> the caste system and the rituals. These are wonderful way of life
> created by our ancestors who had infinte wisdom."
I have no comments about the caste system part for the moment, as this
has been extensively discussed on the net. But I have also seen some
members of the previous generation swear by all rituals and customs
saying they are "scientific" etc. And I have been both amused and annoyed
by such devotion to customs without questioning.
And some of them are just plain callous. I remember talking
to someone about how an old woman in my village (who, btw, belonged to
what is considered upper caste) who was widowed when she was barely 16,
had to shave her head, work like a slave for the family, sleep on
the hard ground without a mattress and eat just once everyday (imagine -
this at 16, when people eat a lot and feel hungry often), and of course
not participate in functions etc. This person (a man), coolly said "All
this sleeping on the hard ground and eating once a day will reduce her
desire for sex - and this is a scientific fact. Also, if she shaves her
head she will be ugly and so no man will look at her - and to further
reduce these chances, she doesn't come out much. All these customs are
practical". I was aghast. These people are simply heartless .
Either they are just plain stupid or they are heartless like
this. A lot of male chauvinism also goes under the name of "customs",
"scientific facts" and "Indian culture". Or it could be resistance to
change which gets cloaked in this fashion - people are just too scared
to change and are afraid to admit that, even to themselves.
> This idea of "ancestors had infinite wisdom and that you simply have to
> follow the rules without thinking" is very dangerous which is partially
> responsible for the backward status of our countries.
I agree.
> However, this
> view is beneficial for those who are enjoying under the current system
> in that it makes the people into zombies who will not rebel against any
> suppressive and exploitive systems.
Yes, I guess that is so. Just look at films like "naan pAdum pAdal" in
which the heroine (a widow) slaps the guy who proposes to her. What's
wrong with a man proposing to a woman if he wishes to marry her ? And
why is such a stupid action like the slapping in the movie branded "an
Indian woman's loyalty to her husband", "Indian culture" or some
nonsense like that ? And again, there were stupid movies in which a
woman marries a man merely because he has raped her - both old and
relatively recent ones. This is termed "kaRpu" - and I find that totally
senseless. I mean, how can a woman have positive feelings about a man
who has brutally assaulted her like that ? And why this extreme stress
on feminine virginity ? I do not advocate licentiousness - but then
aren't these customs going to ridiculous heights ? Why is being raped
a loss of "kaRpu", or marrying again a loss of "kaRpu" ? These are again
exploitative terms...
My intention is not to divert attention from what MV was trying
to say, but I'm presenting another aspect which hasn't been discussed
very much on the net - the exploitation of women in the name of "Tamil/Indian
culture", "kaRpu" etc...
Gayathri.
--
-----------------------------------------
email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
M. Sundaramoorthy
[rest of the article deleted]
> My intention is not to divert attention from what MV was trying
>to say, but I'm presenting another aspect which hasn't been discussed
>very much on the net - the exploitation of women in the name of "Tamil/Indian
>culture", "kaRpu" etc...
I appreciate your views. I will post a translation of an article
about equating "balaathkaaram" to "kaRapshippu", by a Sri Lankan
Tamil poet, Sivasegaram that appeared in a feminist magazine of
immigrant Tamils in Norway (of course, if I find time).
>
>Gayathri.
>--
>-----------------------------------------
>email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
>Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
Ranjith Ravindiran Suresh
>Tamil poet, Sivasegaram that appeared in a feminist magazine of
MMmm. 'Sri Lankan Tamil' is becoming a misnomer. First of all, it's a
Sinhalase word. This word was chosen after the Sinhala nationalists
chose the flag to represent Ilangai. That was the first insulting
thing(flag design) they did(right after Independence) to us. This flag
has no meaning what so ever to us now. If you see any Tamil literary,
currentlt writen, you will see reference to Eelam. Not to SR. This is
mostly the case. SR government would like the international community to
believe that 'we' also part of SR wile at the same time doing everything
it can to speed our mass exodus from our lands! More than 60% of Tamil
businessmen have left SR(92 figure). 200,000+ Tamils are in places like
Australia to Canada. Around 170,000 are in refugee camps in TN. Few
thousands have settled down in TN on their own(my grandmother is there
with a relative in Tiruchy who owns a house). Approximately 300,000
Tamils are in refugee camps in Eelam or staying with their friends and
relatives(figures given by a Sinhala MP in the Parliament!). Except for
in TN refugee camps, the numbers are rising in all categories. In
addition, atleast 30,000 Tamils have died so far since 1983. The most
pitiable status in the efforts to surive goes to thousands of fishermen
& their families. They can't fish & so must depend on food rations to
survive. Most who attempted to fish ended up killed by the SL navy(in
Colombo, it will be another news briefing on X# of LTTE men killed in
the sea!).
From Tamil Refugee Fund to U.N administered agencies(i.e., UNHCR,
constant efforts are made to look after refugees and the destitue ones
in Eelam. Many of the efforts and hardwork always end up defeated by the
SR government with it's writs and military actions. Many of our cutlural
institutuions(libraries, temples, schools, etc) we value so deeply had
been either fully destroyed or damaged by SL air forces' bombs and
artiller/mortar shells(seems like a systematic efforts to suppres our
identity). I don't have to be an LTTE supporter to verify all this.
Students in Jaffna had been studying with vLlak-eNnai since 1990!.
All this put together, I don't feel any need to identify myself as a Sri
Lankan Tamil. I consider it as an insult to me and all those thousands
back home who have to face the true face of 'Sinhala might' every day.
My father hasn't hasn't heard of from his mother in more than 5 months!
His parents were living in a refugee camp after losing their house to SL
navy shells. We lost ours to Sinhala thugs in 1983. To begin to identify
myself as an Eelam Tamil is the first path I have taken to express my
solidarity with my fellow kin back in a land we refer to as Eelam. I
hope you understand. Many of just don't even want to hear the word 'Sri
Lanka.'
Suresh
M. Sundaramoorthy
>In article <C4x89...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
> [rest of the article deleted]
>
>> My intention is not to divert attention from what MV was trying
>>to say, but I'm presenting another aspect which hasn't been discussed
>>very much on the net - the exploitation of women in the name of "Tamil/Indian
>>culture", "kaRpu" etc...
>
> I appreciate your views. I will post a translation of an article
> about equating "balaathkaaram" to "kaRapshippu", by a Sri Lankan
> Tamil poet, Sivasegaram that appeared in a feminist magazine of
> immigrant Tamils in Norway (of course, if I find time).
I am sorry. I don't have that issue and I should have returned to
the friend from whome I borrowed it. The name of the magazine is
'Sakthi', published from Norway.
On a related note, I am curious to know if anyone took note of the
male-centered preachings of Adi Sankara in Bajagovindham that
Prabhukumar is posting. In fact, one of the earlier verses equate
woman as a material object that is not worth going after.
I wonder how such a medieval work that blatantly insults half
of the humanity is celebrated as a master piece in 20th century,
even by the educated people. Moreover, I was bit annoyed, after
learning the contents, that a woman vocalist (M.S. Subbulakshmi)
could agree to sing.
I don't know if it is premature to conclude so, as Prabhu hasn't
completed his series. However, this comment is based on whatever
he posted so far.
Flames welcome. But before flaming, please read those verses, if you
saved and also send me a copy of the series.
>>
>>Gayathri.
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------
>>email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
>>Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
>
> M. Sundaramoorthy
> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
M. Sundaramoorthy
> >about equating "balaathkaaram" to "kaRapshippu", by a Sri Lankan
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >Tamil poet, Sivasegaram that appeared in a feminist magazine of
>^^^^^^
[Rest of the information in between the following lines deleted]
>
>MMmm. 'Sri Lankan Tamil' is becoming a misnomer.
>I hope you understand. Many of just don't even want to hear the word 'Sri
>Lanka.'
>Suresh
>
As far as I know, Sivasegram used to work at Peradeniya (sp?)
University which I guess is in Central province. I believe the
Central province doesn't come under the proposed Eelam.
As an aside, Sivasegaram is a very good poet and at least two
of his poetry collections are published in India. The first
one 'nadhikkarai moongilgaL' by Kavya Books, Bangalore and the
second one (don't remember the title) by Chennai Books, Madras.
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
What is 'kArapshippu' ? I haven't heard such a word before, and I'm curious
to know what it means.
As for 'Bhajagovindham' saying that woman is a material object not
worth going after, well - I have a couple of comments :
1. Since 'Bhajagovindham' preaches complete devotion to God and a detachment
from sensual pleasures, and the society at that time was male-chauvinistic,
I guess such a statement is not surprising. Several Hindu relegious texts
are certainly male-centric or male-chauvinistic. And I guess ancient society
for several centuries the world over has been this way. Like we do have
some Tamil proverbs like "peNN buththi pin buththi" (which I interpret to
be "sharp as a pin" :-) ).
A friend of mine reads the Bible out of interest in Bible stories, and
he once told me that in some passages of it, there were punishments for
killing animals/human beings. The compensation/punishment for killing a
slave or even an animal was much higher than that for killing a woman.
And there was also a passage saying a woman can fast only with her
father's/husband's permission. Why, even some Christian marriage vows
for the woman were to "love, cherish and _obey_ the husband", which only
reflects the male chauvinism of ancient society. The Bible/Bhaja Govindam
must have been written with good intentions, but couldn't help reflecting
the male-centricism of the society of those times.
It is upto every new generation to examine and correct the views held by
the previous generation. To accept the good, and reject the bad....As
for the "kaRpu" part, what bothered me was that still even in the present
society, such exploitation of women remains. Even now, a widow is called
"veeNai pOnavaL" and a divorced woman a "vAzhAvetti" when such terms are
not applied to men in a similar condition. Look at the dowry deaths, the
female infanticide statistics - as if a woman's life was worth nothing -
the way rapists go free while a woman cannot even sit freely in a park or
a public place just because if some guy bothers her there, it's considered
her fault since she shouldn't have been there in the first place ? The
way even present-day movies portray things like - if a woman has been raped
or seduced, she has nothing more to look forward to in life, and the way
such themes are lapped up by audiences ? The way every "hero" (zero ?)
obscenely chases a woman, harrassing her wherever she goes and how
movie-goers love it or ignore such things (this, IMO, is part of the reason
for the harrassment that goes under the name of _eve-teasing_) ? And
many people think of this harrassment as a "vayasu kOLAru" and simply
ignore it ! Meanwhile, women continue to take all kinds of nonsense from
society....
2. As I was reading your post, I was extremely amused by something. (People
who are devotees of Krishna, hit 'n' now !!!) After preaching that woman
is a material object not worth going after, 'Bhaja govindam' invites one
to sing the praises of a playboy :-) :-). So much for consistency !
No flames, please !
Regards,
Affable
(Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>Yes, I guess that is so. Just look at films like "naan pAdum pAdal" in
>which the heroine (a widow) slaps the guy who proposes to her. What's
>wrong with a man proposing to a woman if he wishes to marry her ? And
Revathi,nizhalgaL Ravi, Rohini and Aravind)This is a good movie out of the
recent ones. ( A must see.Well, according to my standards. If you don't like
it, don't blame me.) The husband ditches her wife and is having an affair
with another woman and is under the impression he can return to his wife at
any time in his life he wants. If I say one more word, I'll have to reveal the
climax. So, let me stop here.
Needless to say, the tolerance of our women in our male-dominated society is
due to lack of financial independence and fear of social ostracism.
Regards,
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.M.Viknarasah
against women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In chapter 9, verse 32
[ The book I am using is
sri math bahavath geedhai
-- explanation by swami sithbavAnandhar ]
"pArthA , keezhana piRaviyarhaLAna peNpAlar, vaisiyar, sooththirar
Ahiyavarum ennai sArndhu nichchaiyam parahadhi adaihinRanar"
ie even the people of lower birth like women, vaisiayar, sudras
finally will reach me [ translation is mine]
The explanation given in the book
"manap paripAhaththiRku ERRAR pOl piRavi mElAnadhu alladhu keezhAnadhu enRu
Ahiradhu. eeNdu iyambappatta moovarum keezhAna piRaviyarE. ekkuzhaththil
piRandhavarAyinum mAdhar uRudhiyAna uLLam udaiyavar allar. pEdhamaiyE
peNdiradhu iyalbu. thiNmai vAindhirukkum thaiyalar mihak kuRaivu. aththahaiya
siRupAnmaiyinar vidhi vizhakku enRE sollalAm. Aha podhuvAhap
peNmakkalai keezhAna piRaviyar enbadhu iyaRkaikku oththa sollAhum. izhich sol
alla"
.............
[ the rest of the explanation is not given to save space]
ie
[ translations are mine ]
depending on the mentality, a birth can be defined as "higher" or
"lower". The above stated categories belong to the "lower" births.
Whatever environment they may be in, women donot possess a firm mind.
"pEdhamai" [ I am not aware of any accurate english word] is a
charachteristic of women. The women with firm mind is very rare. Even
if there are some, they are only exceptions. All in all, it is not
an insult to call women as of "low birth". It is in consistent with nature"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally I donot take the meaning given by the interpreters
seriously. As these so called pandiths and "swami" do not seem to have
any knowledge of depth. They only parat what they have learnt.
A book like bagavath geedhai can only be interpreted
by a person who has lived by some prinsiples said in it. Same thing
with thukkuRal etc.
Even in this case, the explanation is greatly distorted
than what is said in the original lines. The interpreter seems to stuff words
into "krishna's" mouth.
However, the fact remians that women are concidred as
of "lower birth" -- atleast it seems so.
Although it is worth noting that the intention of the lines
is to say "whoever it is, he/she will finally reach me. The lower state
of mentality will not be a obstacle between me & my creation."
The statements about wemen is only an illustration NOT intension.
But this illustration implies male-chauvunism.
I am yet to see any book of dravidian origin to take
this stance. But I will not surprised if there is one. I will be greatful
if someone can point out, if there is one.
raj
Sundara Pandian
>Yes. In this aspect I am with you. Even Bagavath Geedhai seems to be biased
>against women.
Yes, there are male-chauvinistic verses in Bhagavad Gita like other
Sanskrit texts in Vedic religion.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In chapter 9, verse 32
>
>[ The book I am using is
> sri math bahavath geedhai
> -- explanation by swami sithbavAnandhar ]
>
> "pArthA , keezhana piRaviyarhaLAna peNpAlar, vaisiyar, sooththirar
>Ahiyavarum ennai sArndhu nichchaiyam parahadhi adaihinRanar"
>
> ie even the people of lower birth like women, vaisiayar, sudras
>finally will reach me [ translation is mine]
The translation that Sidbhavananda has given for this Gita verse (9.32)
is a correct one. Mani Varadarajan gave a wrong translation of this
verse earlier in SCT, and I was not surprised to see some `chamchas'
of Cho in the net praising Mani's translation.
[....]
>
> However, the fact remians that women are concidred as
>of "lower birth" -- atleast it seems so.
This Gita verse 9.32 is basically an appeal to those who are of
lower birth. The Vedic religion was not open to the lower classes of
society or to women, but Krishna is proclaiming a faith for all in
this Gita verse. If Mani or the `chamchas' of Cho in the net read
the verses 3.156 and 9.18 in Manu Dharma Shastra, they will notice
the ban on women and Sudras from even hearing Vedas. This may tell
them the low status of women in the Vedic religion.
>
> Although it is worth noting that the intention of the lines
>is to say "whoever it is, he/she will finally reach me. The lower state
>of mentality will not be a obstacle between me & my creation."
>The statements about wemen is only an illustration NOT intension.
Krishna gives hopes to women and lower castes in this verse and
proclaiming a faith for all.
>
> But this illustration implies male-chauvunism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes.
> I am yet to see any book of dravidian origin to take
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>this stance. But I will not surprised if there is one. I will be greatful
^^^^^^^^^^^
>if someone can point out, if there is one.
Gita refers to women as `paapa-yOnayah' - those who are born of an
"evil womb" (paapa yOni). I have not read a dravidian work with any
injunction like in Manu Dharma Shastra banning women from hearing
some works like Vedas or derogatory remarks as in Gita like they are
born of an `evil-womb' etc. But, there are male chauvinistic views
in Tamil books also. ThiruvaLLuvar wrote a chapter `peN vazhich chERal'
in his ThirukkuRaL and it has male-chauvinistic views. ( I don't agree
with the translations posted by Selva.) Pattinaththaar wrote `peNNaaki
vandhathoru maayap pisaasu' and AththichUdi says `thaiyal sollal kELEl'
which are also male-chauvinistic. As someone mentioned, there are
male-chauvinistic `pazha mozhi' like `peN buththi pin buththi' etc.
I have written more on this in the net earlier.
>
> raj
>
SP
R.M.Viknarasah
>In a previous article, r...@ukc.ac.uk (R.M.Viknarasah) says:
>
>
> Gita refers to women as `paapa-yOnayah' - those who are born of an
>"evil womb" (paapa yOni). I have not read a dravidian work with any
Sorry. This does not necessarily mean that women are called "paapa".
It could very well be that all human birth are due to their
sins -- else they will be in union with "Him". [I think the
meaning of "shrishthi" ( spelling !) itself is separation ]
Obviously we cannot be born from a "lingam" to call
it "paapa lingam" :-)
> Pattinaththaar wrote `peNNaaki
>vandhathoru maayap pisaasu' and AththichUdi says `thaiyal sollal kELEl'
^^^^^^^
I differ. Sensual/sexual attraction is a hurdle
to spiritual growth. PattinaththAr being a man ( hopefully not a
homosexual), expressed his frustration in this way. I can say this
with some certainity as I have read many more of his songs. They donot
refer to "womanhood" in general. It refers to a personified
uncurbed sexual desires of his.
As for aaththi soodi, it was written by avvai. Are
you implying that SHE was male chauvunist :-) I feel that there must be
a deeper meaning than the apparent one. But no comments until I find one.
>which are also male-chauvinistic. As someone mentioned, there are
>male-chauvinistic `pazha mozhi' like `peN buththi pin buththi' etc.
>I have written more on this in the net earlier.
I will not comment on this. As I am not sure of any
underlying meaning. Again I am not sure whether this is a "pazha mozhi".
Or a slang. Slangs are often distorded from their original form. But I remain
"un-commited" in this issue.
>
>>
>> raj
>>
>
> SP
raj
R.M.Viknarasah
>In article <930404215...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>In a previous article, r...@ukc.ac.uk (R.M.Viknarasah) says:
>>
>>
> Sorry. This does not necessarily mean that women are called "paapa".
>It could very well be that all human birth are due to their
>sins -- else they will be in union with "Him". [I think the
>meaning of "shrishthi" ( spelling !) itself is separation ]
> Obviously we cannot be born from a "lingam" to call
>it "paapa lingam" :-)
"mAdhA udal saliththAL; valvinaiyEn kAl saliththEn;
vEdhAvum kaisaliththu vittAnE! - nAdha !
iruppaiyoor vAzh sivanE innamOr ennai
karuppaiyoor vAramaR kA !
-----------
raj
ps
Note that the above words have been copied in one of the film songs.
song -- thAi thandha pichchaiyilE pirandhEnamma ...
film -- sarasvadhi sabadham
lines ---
"peRRavaL udal saliththAl; pEdhai nAn kAl saliththEn
padaiththvan kai saliththu OindhAnamma ..
meeNdum pAvi oru thai vayiRRil piRavEnamma
meeNdum pAvi oru thai vayiRRil piRavEnamma"
Sundara Pandian
>In article <930404215...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
[.....]
>
> As for aaththi soodi, it was written by avvai. Are
>you implying that SHE was male chauvunist :-) I feel that there must be
>a deeper meaning than the apparent one. But no comments until I find one.
I thought you had read my earlier postings referring to this
in the net. I think that this saying - "thaiyal sollal kELEl"
attributed to Avvai is an interpolation by a male poet. ( It is
obvious that Avvai (female) could not have written `thaiyal sollal
kELEl' in her AththichUdi. It must be an interpolation.)
> raj
>
SP
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>In a previous article, r...@ukc.ac.uk (R.M.Viknarasah) says:
>>In article <930404215...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>[.....]
>>
>>you implying that SHE was male chauvunist :-) I feel that there must be
>>a deeper meaning than the apparent one. But no comments until I find one.
>attributed to Avvai is an interpolation by a male poet. ( It is
>obvious that Avvai (female) could not have written `thaiyal sollal
>kELEl' in her AththichUdi. It must be an interpolation.)
auwwai wrote "uNdiR siRuththal peNdiR kazhagu"
Is it any chauvinism or advice.
anban
Kathiravan
>> raj
>>
> SP
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
> depending on the mentality, a birth can be defined as "higher" or
>"lower". The above stated categories belong to the "lower" births.
>Whatever environment they may be in, women donot possess a firm mind.
>"pEdhamai" [ I am not aware of any accurate english word] is a
pEdhamai is naiviety if there is word like that. It signifies
ignorance of a girl. pEthai peN-
vaLLuvan sang about vaasuki after her death:
"piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!
pOthiyO!
enRu thoongki naalum en kaN iraa!"
The above verse is a modern non poetic or puthuk kavithai
style of vaLLuvan's cry.
"you slept late and woke up early! O naive girl
How will sleep dwell upon my eyes"
>charachteristic of women. The women with firm mind is very rare. Even
>if there are some, they are only exceptions. All in all, it is not
>an insult to call women as of "low birth". It is in consistent with nature"
I think there is a lot of male chauvinism
accompanying the religious sentiments in India after the
sanskritic influence. There is less of that in ancient dravidian
society. Megesthenes [in Indica] has written about that. I have the exact
greek verse in one of my files. I shall quote that later.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also do not like some sentiments in aaNdaaL's poetry
that say "kaNNa you stole our bath robes. Please give them back"
veNNaiyai thirudinaai kuzhanthaiyaai iruntha pOzhthu.
En aiyaah uduppai thirudinaai. May be there is a philosophy
behind that :-)
anban
Kathiravan
> raj
Sundara Pandian
[....]
> vaLLuvan sang about vaasuki after her death:
>
> "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!
^^^^^^^^
> pOthiyO!
> enRu thoongki naalum en kaN iraa!"
^^^^^^^
>
> The above verse is a modern non poetic or puthuk kavithai
>style of vaLLuvan's cry.
You are giving misinformation on VaLLuvar. The verse you have
quoted attributing it to VaLLuvar is not considered as written
by VaLLuvar by Tamil scholars. `thoongi' is a later Tamil word
and it was not in usage in the days of VaLLuvar. Obviously, this
verse was an interpolation on VaLLuvar.
[....]
> anban
> Kathiravan
SP
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>In a previous article, k...@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi) says:
>[....]
>> vaLLuvan sang about vaasuki after her death:
>>
>> "pin thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!
> ^^^^^^^^
>> pOthiyO!
>> enRu thoongki naalum en kaN iraa!"
> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> The above verse is a modern non poetic or puthuk kavithai
>>style of vaLLuvan's cry.
> You are giving misinformation on VaLLuvar. The verse you have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>quoted attributing it to VaLLuvar is not considered as written
>by VaLLuvar by Tamil scholars. `thoongi' is a later Tamil word
>and it was not in usage in the days of VaLLuvar. Obviously, this
>verse was an interpolation on VaLLuvar.
vaLLuvan did not write this. I did
not give any misinfo. Somebody heard
vaLLuvan sing this. If you have misunderstood
my word 'sang', I am sorry. I had mentioned that it is a new
version. I do not exactly remember the original quote.
Anyway paaNdiar makes
me go downstairs to fetch my little handwritten notes on
kuRaL.
"adisiR kiniyaaLE! anpudaiyaaLE
padisoR Ravaraatha paavaai!-adivarudi
pinRoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE! pOthiyO!
enRoongkum en kaN iraa!"
The point I was trying to make is the use
of pEthai-a naive, innocent, obedient girl. That is all.
*********************************************************
adivarudi-chafe the feet.
padisoR Ravaraatha paavai-padi sol thavaRaatha paavai-
a girl who always listened to her husband
pinRoongki-sleep late
mun ezhuntha-wake up early.
This pictures pEthai explicitly. -
anban
Kathiravan
>[....]
>> anban
>> Kathiravan
> SP
M. Sundaramoorthy
I have no idea who wrote "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!".
But the word `thoongi' does appear in kuRal, in a slightly
different meaning.
'thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala thoongaRak
thoongaathu ceyyum vinai.
I leave it to you and Selva to decode the meaning of 'thoongal'.
>
>[....]
>
>> anban
>> Kathiravan
>
> SP
>
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
R.M.Viknarasah
>
> veNNaiyai thirudinaai kuzhanthaiyaai iruntha pOzhthu.
> En aiyaah uduppai thirudinaai. May be there is a philosophy
> behind that :-)
Yep. There is a philosohy behind this incident. :-)
Belive me.
Story
------------
When the "gOpiyar" were concious of their body, they
felt ashamed. So did not come out of the lake. They did not receive
their dress however they pleaded.
But once the over came their body-conciousness, they
came out of the lake. Krishna gave them their dress.
In short
-------
The "dress" is a symbol of aruL. Bodiliy shame is a representative
of "ANavam".
Putting btis together
---------------------
When we are conciuos of ourselves we cannot feel the
divine participation in life. The one who evolve above "ego" will
see the "aruL" of God in life.
Very simliar explanation was given to the event
in pAnjAli's life. Till she held on to her dress Kishna did not come to her
help -- atleast she did not feel that way. Once she surrendered totally,
she received his help
But the impotartant thing to notice is, only when one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
has exausted all his resourses can he surrender. Till then the mind will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
revolve around what we can do about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In reference to the original example, only when
the gOpiyars have exausted all their means, could they comeout of the
lake. Till then they were trying various means to get the dress.
>
> anban
> Kathiravan
Hinduism is an ocean of knowledge & experience. But one should
seek the treasure. NO FREE LUNCH :-)
raj
Sundara Pandian
>In article <930405163...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>In a previous article, k...@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi) says:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>> vaLLuvan sang about vaasuki after her death:
>>>
>>> "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>> pOthiyO!
>>> enRu thoongki naalum en kaN iraa!"
>> ^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> The above verse is a modern non poetic or puthuk kavithai
>>>style of vaLLuvan's cry.
>>
>> You are giving misinformation on VaLLuvar. The verse you have
>>quoted attributing it to VaLLuvar is not considered as written
>>by VaLLuvar by Tamil scholars. `thoongi' is a later Tamil word
>>and it was not in usage in the days of VaLLuvar. Obviously, this
>>verse was an interpolation on VaLLuvar.
>
> I have no idea who wrote "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!".
> But the word `thoongi' does appear in kuRal, in a slightly
> different meaning.
There was a mistake in my last posting about the word `thoongi'
and I am sorry that. My last posting should read as
".......`thoongi' as `sleeping' is a later Tamil usage and it
was not used in the sense of `sleeping' in the days of VaLLuvar
or in Sangam literature."
>
> 'thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala thoongaRka
> thoongaathu ceyyum vinai.
>
>
> I leave it to you and Selva to decode the meaning of 'thoongal'.
Thanks for pointing out this kuRaL #672. In this kuRaL, VaLLuvar
does not mean that
"Sleep for performing drowsy acts."
by "thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala". Here, the meaning for `thoongu'
is `delay' here. The translation for this kuRaL is
thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala = kaalam thaazhththi ceyya vENdiya
vinaikaLai kaalam thaazththi
ceyya vENdum. ( Delay the things
that are to be delayed.)
thoongaRka thoongaathu = kaalaam thaazhthaathu ceyya vENdiya
vinaikaLai kaalam thaazhththaathu
ceyya vENdum. (Don't delay the things
that are not to be delayed.)
The likes of Rajarama Krishnan may say that this kuRaL is very
obvious that even a stone-age man could have said. I like to tell
them that VaLLuvar uses `soR poruL pin varu nilaiyaNi' in this
kuRaL. The implied meaning in this kuRaL is
"Delaying things that are not to be delayed and not delaying
the things that are to be delayed brings forth troubles ."
>>
>> SP
>>
>
> M. Sundaramoorthy
> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
>
SP
Sundara Pandian
This is a correct posting. - SP ]
In a previous article, sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M. Sundaramoorthy) says:
>In article <930405163...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>In a previous article, k...@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi) says:
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>> vaLLuvan sang about vaasuki after her death:
>>>
>>> "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>> pOthiyO!
>>> enRu thoongki naalum en kaN iraa!"
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> You are giving misinformation on VaLLuvar. The verse you have
>>quoted attributing it to VaLLuvar is not considered as written
>>by VaLLuvar by Tamil scholars. `thoongi' is a later Tamil word
>>and it was not in usage in the days of VaLLuvar. Obviously, this
>>verse was an interpolation on VaLLuvar.
>
> I have no idea who wrote "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!".
> But the word `thoongi' does appear in kuRal, in a slightly
> different meaning.
There was a mistake in my last posting about the word `thoongi'
and I am sorry that. My last posting should read as
".......`thoongi' as `sleeping' is a later Tamil usage and `thoongi'
was not used in the sense of `sleeping' in the days of VaLLuvar
or in Sangam literature."
>
> 'thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala thoongaRka
> thoongaathu ceyyum vinai.
>
>
> I leave it to you and Selva to decode the meaning of 'thoongal'.
Thanks for pointing out this kuRaL #672. In this kuRaL, VaLLuvar
does not mean that
"Sleep for performing drowsy acts."
by "thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala". Here, the meaning for `thoongu'
is `delay' here. The translation for this kuRaL is
thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala = kaalam thaazhththi ceyya vENdiya
vinaikaLai kaalam thaazththi
ceyya vENdum. ( Delay the things
that are to be delayed.)
thoongaRka thoongaathu = kaalaam thaazhthaathu ceyya vENdiya
ceyyum vinai vinaikalai kaalam thaazhththaathu
ceyya vENdum. (Don't delay the things
that are not to be delayed.)
The likes of Rajarama Krishnan may say that this kuRaL is very
obvious that even a stone-age man could have said. I like to tell
them that VaLLuvar uses `soR poruL pin varu nilaiyaNi' in this
kuRaL. The implied meaning in this kuRaL is
"Delaying things that are not to be delayed or not delaying
M. Sundaramoorthy
>This is a response to Sundaramoorthy :
>
>What is 'kArapshippu' ? I haven't heard such a word before, and I'm curious
>to know what it means.
Sorry. There is a typo ;-). It should be 'kaRpazhippu' that is commonly
used word for rape. But it is a minomer and Sivasegarm argues that
it is intentional, not accidental.
The word literally means 'taking away or destroying the chastity' of
woman.
The points he raises (as much as I remember) are:
(1). The act is a forceful one committed by a male on the female and
hence the culprit is the male.
(2). So the act should have a word with a meaning that implies the
crime of the male, not describing the character of the woman.
(3). But the word, 'kaRpazhippu' is directed towards the female,
and has a stroger implication on the victim rather than the criminal.
(4). As a result, the society looks down at the victim (as
'kaRpizhanthavaL'), but not the one who committed the crime
or his character.
So, he argues that this act should be called as 'balaathkaaram'
(he uses the SL Tamil word, 'valORkaaram') that points out the
crime of the male.
To emphasise the implication of this 'kaRpazhippu' let me describe
an incident.
When I was in high school, I used to go to a Cycle Shop on the way
to read news paper (Dhina thanthi, that is as good as any Super
market tabloid, with full of sensational stories and lottery results).
There was a news about gang rape and the headlines for that reads
something like this:
'iLampeN maaRi maaRi kaRpazhippu'
and is vividly described. One guy reading this comments:
'mudhalla oruththan pOnaavE, kaRpu poyaachchu. appuRam enna maaRi
maaRi karpazhippu'.
Everyone around laughs (and of course, I have the guilt of laughing
too at that time).
See the cruelty that the word 'kaRpazhippu' brings in the minds of
the people.
> As for 'Bhajagovindham' saying that woman is a material object not
>worth going after, well - I have a couple of comments :
Yes. I wouldn't have, if it was not posted in this newsgroup. It was
surprising no one pointed out, neither those netters who argued about
male chavunism in Thirukkural nor the women netters, like you and
Meena, who reigstered their strong viewpoints during discussions on
dowry, eve teasing and of course, now on 'kaRpu'.
>
>1. Since 'Bhajagovindham' preaches complete devotion to God and a detachment
> from sensual pleasures, and the society at that time was male-chauvinistic,
> I guess such a statement is not surprising. Several Hindu relegious texts
> are certainly male-centric or male-chauvinistic. And I guess ancient society
> for several centuries the world over has been this way. Like we do have
> some Tamil proverbs like "peNN buththi pin buththi" (which I interpret to
> be "sharp as a pin" :-) ).
This not only insults women, but also the preaching is aimed at only the
males. Are the women not entitled to have devotion and qualified to
get salvation, whatever that means?. It annoys more when a woman
vocalist sings than the men talking about this at a great length.
>
>2. As I was reading your post, I was extremely amused by something. (People
> who are devotees of Krishna, hit 'n' now !!!) After preaching that woman
> is a material object not worth going after, 'Bhaja govindam' invites one
> to sing the praises of a playboy :-) :-). So much for consistency !
> No flames, please !
Me too. I thought I would raise this when Prabhu completes his
series.
>
>Regards,
>Gayathri.
>--
>-----------------------------------------
>email address :- gaya...@ecn.purdue.edu
>Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you !!
M. Sundaramoorthy
sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
P.S: I will stop participating in any other discussion until I complet
the series on Dalit literature, which I almost forgot as I jumped
in other debates.
P.S.S: Apologies to 'nondhanaar' Srikanth (nondhadhu naanumthaan),
for initiating the debate.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In a previous article, r...@ukc.ac.uk (R.M.Viknarasah) says:
>
>>In article <930404215...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>
>[.....]
>
>>
>> As for aaththi soodi, it was written by avvai. Are
>>you implying that SHE was male chauvunist :-) I feel that there must be
>>a deeper meaning than the apparent one. But no comments until I find one.
>
> I thought you had read my earlier postings referring to this
>in the net. I think that this saying - "thaiyal sollal kELEl"
>attributed to Avvai is an interpolation by a male poet. ( It is
>obvious that Avvai (female) could not have written `thaiyal sollal
>kELEl' in her AththichUdi. It must be an interpolation.)
Sundara Pandian, didn't we discuss this at length?
You quoted somebody's view that it was a pen name etc.
but there was nothing convincing about that.
I am not aware of any reasoning that avvai is a male poet.
( I would guess that the 2nd avvai who lived around 800 A.D
and not the 1st avvai during Sangam time. There was also
another avvai in 12th century or so I guess !! )
In any case, I don't think there is any convincing argument
that the avvai ( 2nd) is a male poet.
>
>> raj
>>
>
> SP
>
anbudan
-Selvaa
"thaayiR chiRandhothoru kOyilum illai" - avvai
"vaaimai enappaduvathu yaathonRum theemai ilaatha solal"
- adopted from ThiruvaLLuvar.
Sundara Pandian
>In article <930405005...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
[....]
>> I thought you had read my earlier postings referring to this
>>in the net. I think that this saying - "thaiyal sollal kELEl"
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>attributed to Avvai is an interpolation by a male poet. ( It is
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>obvious that Avvai (female) could not have written `thaiyal sollal
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>kELEl' in her AththichUdi. It must be an interpolation.)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Sundara Pandian, didn't we discuss this at length?
> You quoted somebody's view that it was a pen name etc.
> but there was nothing convincing about that.
> I am not aware of any reasoning that avvai is a male poet.
> ( I would guess that the 2nd avvai who lived around 800 A.D
> and not the 1st avvai during Sangam time. There was also
> another avvai in 12th century or so I guess !! )
>
> In any case, I don't think there is any convincing argument
> that the avvai ( 2nd) is a male poet.
Where did I say in the above lines that Avvai is a male poet?
I wrote in above lines you have quoted that "the saying `thaiyal
sollal kELEl' in AththichUdi' must be an interpolation on Avvai
by a male poet." Of course, we had a discussion on this topic sometime
in the last year, and I indeed wrote at that time that Avvai is the
pen-name of a male poet. However, I clarified my views when a kuRaL
discussion started again in the last month or so and withdrew my
previous claim that Avvai was a male poet. But I still maintain
that this particular saying `thaiyal sollal kELEl' is an interpolation
by a male poet. Also, it doesn't take much for one to see the meaning
in `thaiyal sollal kELEl'. The male chauvinism in this AththichUdi
saying is clear as day.
> anbudan
> -Selvaa
SP
Meenan Vishnu
>------------
> When the "gOpiyar" were concious of their body, they
>felt ashamed. So did not come out of the lake. They did not receive
>their dress however they pleaded.
> But once the over came their body-conciousness, they
>came out of the lake. Krishna gave them their dress.
>In short
>-------
> The "dress" is a symbol of aruL. Bodiliy shame is a representative
>of "ANavam".
> raj
No offence intended. But this sounds like vaariyaar stuff. There is
a joke. kirupaanantha vaariyaar once set out to explain the phrase
"nilaa athu vaanaththin mElE
palaanathu Odaththin mElE"
He said:
.--. o .--. o
._|_ | _ ..____ o .___ . ___ ..____ ______ .___ ._|_ | ______
| |_ |( \ || | ___\_| |_|_ | ( / || | / /\ | |_|_ |_|_ |/ /\ |
| _) O \_/ | | \__/ |(_./_)J O L__|| | O \/ | (_./ )(_./ ) O \/ |
(___/ / /
___ ___
/ (_). __ / (_) _ . o .___ .____ ___ . .___ . . . __
[ _ | | |[ _ ( \ | - - ___\_| |_|_ | | ( / | |_|_ | | | | |
\_(_)|__|__|\_(_) O \_/ \__/ |(_./ )| | O L__|(_./_)J | |__|__|
/ (___/ \__/
o ___ o
/ .____ .___ . . / \. ./ .____ . __ .____ ______ . __
| | |__ |_|_ | | |_ || || | |__ | | || | / /\ | | | |
| | | |(_./_)|___| (_) ||___|| | | ||__|__|| | O \/ | |__|__|
\______/ \______/
o .--. .--. ____ o
____ _ . o. .___ .|__| . |_ | .___ . / o \ / .____ .___
/ /\ \( \ | _) |_|_ |_|_| | | |0 |_|_ | _|__\_ || | |__ |_|_
\)\/ / O \_/ (_____(__) (__) |__|__| (_./_)J \_\_// || | | |(_./_)
(___/ \______/
.--. o
._|_ | ._ _. .____.____
|_|_ |/ | \| | | |
(_./_) | | || | | | 0
,___/ /
._. o .--. o ___
. . _ ..____ ______ .___ . / \ . .___ ._|_ | ______ / (_). __
| |( \ || | / /\ | |_|_ | () ._)| |_|_ |_|_ |/ /\ | [ _ | | |
|___| O \_/ | | O \/ | (_./_)J o \ |___ (_./ )(_./ ) O \/ | \_(_)|__|__|
(___/ \__/ / /
___ o .--.
/ (_) _ . o .___ .____ ___ . .___ . ___ . _ ___ _ |__|
[ _ ( \ | - - ___\_| |_|_ | | ( / | |_|_ | ( / |( \| | ( \| | |
\_(_) O \_/ \__/ |(_./ )| | O L__|(_./_)J O L__| O | | O | |
/ (___/
___ o .--. ___
/ \ .___ . . ___ ..____ ____ ______ ._|_ |/ (_). . . __
|_ | |_|_ | | |( / || | / /\ \/ /\ | |_|_ 0[ _ |_(_) | | |
(_) |(_./ )v_/|__) O L__|| | \)\/ /O \/ | (_./_) \_(_) _} |__|__|
/
o .--. o ____
____ _ . o . ___ ..____.____ .___ ._|_ | _ . / o \
/ /\ \( \ | ___\_|| /\ ( / || | | | |_|_ |_|_ |( \ | _|__\_ |
\)\/ / O \_/ \__/ ||_|/_ O L__|| | | | (_./ )(_./ ) O \_/ \_\_// |
/ / / /
o .--. o o
/ .____ .___ ._|_ | ._ _. .____.____ .___ _ ___
| | |__ |_|_ |_|_ |/ | \| | | | |_|_ ( \| |
| | | |(_./_)(_./_) | | || | | | (_./_) O | |
\______/ ,___/ /
o o o .--. o
_ _ . .___ .___ .___ . ..____.____ ________ .___ ._|_ | _ . o
/ V \ | |_|_ | |_ |_|_ | || | | | / /\ /\ | |_|_ |_|_ |( \ | ___\_|
O | (_/(_./_)| _)(_./ ) |___|| | | | O \/ \/ |(_./ )(_./ ) O \_/ \__/ |
/ | / / /
.--. o .--.
. . .___ .____ .___ _____| . . ._|_ | ____ ___ . .___ .|__|/ .____
|_(_) |_|_ | | |_|_ ( | | |_(_) |_|_ | / /\ \( / | |_|_ |_|_|| | |__
_} (_./_)| | (_./_) O | \__} (_./ ) \)\/ / O L__|(__) (__) | | | |
/ \______/
o .--. o !
.___ ._|_ | ._ _. .____.__ . .___ !
|_|_ |_|_ |/ | \| | | |_ | |_|_ !
(_./_)(_./_) | | || | | )_|(_./_)0
,___/
Meenan Vishnu
S.Sankarapandi
In article <C4x89...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayath
ri Krishnamurthy) writes:
(Gayathri's response to Meenan's posting was deleted because I agree with
both of them completely)
>
>Yes, I guess that is so. Just look at films like "naan pAdum pAdal" in
>which the heroine (a widow) slaps the guy who proposes to her. What's
>wrong with a man proposing to a woman if he wishes to marry her ? And
>why is such a stupid action like the slapping in the movie branded "an
>Indian woman's loyalty to her husband", "Indian culture" or some
>nonsense like that ?
I agree with you. Most of the Tamil movies are absolute nonsense and male
chauvunisitic. The irony is that these movies are praised by the popular
magazines and they get awards etc. I dont understand why there has not been
any concerted protest for these movies from all the faminists, women's
organisations and also all rational human beings. These movies and magazines
institutionalize the traditional role of the women in a new form. Unfortunately
there are more women movie-goers for these type of movies. Bhagyaraj's `antha
ezhu naatkaL' was shown to atract women of all centers (A, B & C) in Tamil nadu
and most of the women saw this movie more than one time. I am not finding
fault with women here but want to bring the point that these movies make the
women to accept the message and succeed in establishing an anti-liberational
opinion among them which is very essential for the male-dominated society.
> And again, there were stupid movies in which a
>woman marries a man merely because he has raped her - both old and
>relatively recent ones. This is termed "kaRpu" - and I find that totally
>senseless. I mean, how can a woman have positive feelings about a man
>who has brutally assaulted her like that ?
I am very happy to see your protest for this movie. When this movie was
released Ananda Vikatan admired this as the greatest movie of that year and
there was a very serious argument between me and one of my colleagues who is
a woman. I could not believe that she wanted to convince me that the movie
teaches how a woman can reform a person with non-violent means. In fact, she
probably would have got mixed feeling if she had not read Ananda Vikatan's
cover story which gave an intellectual interpretation for that movie. I was
saying that the director Parthiban might not have even thought about such an
intellectual aspect because I have seen many of our tamil directors how they
become successful in movie world.
> And why this extreme stress
>on feminine virginity ? I do not advocate licentiousness - but then
>aren't these customs going to ridiculous heights ? Why is being raped
>a loss of "kaRpu", or marrying again a loss of "kaRpu" ? These are again
>exploitative terms...
Again I will be very happy if these questions are raised constantly until these
exploitative and nonsense words disappear.
> My intention is not to divert attention from what MV was trying
>to say, but I'm presenting another aspect which hasn't been discussed
>very much on the net - the exploitation of women in the name of "Tamil/Indian
>culture", "kaRpu" etc...
>
I think I posted an article about popular Tamil magazines and construction of
gender identity by the male-chaunists through these magazines. I also wanted
to write about Tamil movies but did not attempt because I did not see even a
single response from the female netters though a few others (Bala, SP and
Ramesh Vaidhyanathan) shared their opinions. I also gave an example about how
the popular movie `puthu vacantham' intelligently imposes the traditional role
on educated women too. If considerable interest is there, I can write about
well known Tamil movies on how they establish the neo-male-cahuvinstic society.
S. Sankarapandi
SRINIVASAN,K
> I am very happy to see your protest for this movie. When this movie was
>released Ananda Vikatan admired this as the greatest movie of that year and
>there was a very serious argument between me and one of my colleagues who is
>a woman.
It is obvious you are discussing the movie SiRai. I will briefly recount the
story. A lady is really attached to her husband and they lead a happy life.
One day she is raped by a man. This makes her unacceptable to her husband which
comes as a real shock to her (Please note that she did not go marry the person
who raped her immediately as you or Gayathri had portrayed). She is so disgusted
with the attitude of her husband, she prefers the man who raped her to him. Now
you might say she could have chosen to live alone if she was disgusted with her
husband as opposed to living with the man who raped her. While that would have
been the ideal solution, it would have eliminated melodrama which seems to be an
essential ingredient in all our movies. However, by portraying the rapist as a
considerate, nice man after that, the director conveys a strong message -- even
a rapist is not as bad as a man who is heartless enough to detest his wife just
because she has been raped. In fact, that is the message I carried with me after
seeing the movie (of course, apart from Lakshmi's powerful portrayal of the
character).
So, if you say the movie preaches that if a woman is raped by man she has lost
her kaRpu to him and has to become his wife, I beg to differ.
I fully agree that naan paadum paadal was full of hypocrisy (btw, for saying
that at the end of the movie, I and a friend of mine were about to be beaten-up
in a theater; a few women cursed us out too!!).
--
SRINIVASAN,K
School of Textile Engineering Georgia Tech.
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt4084c
ARPA: gt4...@prism.gatech.edu
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
I was about to pull out this very kuRaL!!
thoongu means to wait ( stay quiet, to withhold).
The kuRaL says roughly 'what is to be done after
an approporiate waiting has to be done done
after such a waiting, and what is to be done without
waiting ( immediately) has to be done without delay'
There is also a subtle meaning. Generally thookku
means to _consider_ ( seer thookkip paarththal)
'to evaluate the pros and cons'; thoongu is a softer
rendering ( but only for the first part of kuRaL!)
Here again I feel ThiruvaLLuvar uses the word in
two senses ( reflect, wait; semantically related
but final meaning very different).
>
>>
>>[....]
>>
>>> anban
>>> Kathiravan
>>
>> SP
>>
>
> M. Sundaramoorthy
> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu
anbudan
-Selvaa
Bala SWAMINATHAN
>
>ri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>
> (Gayathri's response to Meenan's posting was deleted because I agree with
>both of them completely)
I too agree with her responses regarding the status of women in India in
general and TN in particular.
>> And again, there were stupid movies in which a
>>woman marries a man merely because he has raped her - both old and
>>relatively recent ones. This is termed "kaRpu" - and I find that totally
>>senseless. I mean, how can a woman have positive feelings about a man
>>who has brutally assaulted her like that ?
>
> I am very happy to see your protest for this movie. When this movie was
>released Ananda Vikatan admired this as the greatest movie of that year and
>there was a very serious argument between me and one of my colleagues who is
>a woman. I could not believe that she wanted to convince me that the movie
>teaches how a woman can reform a person with non-violent means. In fact, she
>probably would have got mixed feeling if she had not read Ananda Vikatan's
>cover story which gave an intellectual interpretation for that movie. I was
>saying that the director Parthiban might not have even thought about such an
>intellectual aspect because I have seen many of our tamil directors how they
>become successful in movie world.
And talk about the title for this movie "puthiya paathai" !! There seem
to be only a hand full of solutions, for the rape victim, provided by the
Indian filmdom.
1. The victim marries the rapist. (This can be eliminated if rapists
get a death penalty, IMO).
2. The victim commits suicide
This becomes a solution when the woman concerned is to be
portrayed as a sensitive and innocent woman.
3. The victim sacrifices her life for her loved one.
Typically by jumping infront of a bullet or a knife which
would otherwise have killed the hero.
4. The victim kills the rapist, and during the encounter she gets killed.
The point is that the victim cannot *live* after the incident.
But there are 'vithi vilakku's. In the movie 'kai kodukkum kai' Revathi
is a blind wife of Rajani. The local crook rapes her posing as Rajani;
and the hero says that as long as she has maritial fidelity she is still
a 'kaRpukkaraci', accepts her and lives with her. I think this was
directed by K. Mahendran.
The other one, vidhi was appreciated more for its court scenes rather
than for its "revolutionary" picture of woman. Actually, there was no
*rape* as such in this movie; it was a question of child support!!
>on educated women too. If considerable interest is there, I can write about
>well known Tamil movies on how they establish the neo-male-cahuvinstic society.
>
>S. Sankarapandi
PLEASE ...
S_Bala
--
____________________________________________________________________
| Time looks like an innocent thing; but verily it is a saw that |
| is continually sawing away the life of a man. -- Valluvar |
|__________________________________________________________________|
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>> 'thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala thoongaRak
>> thoongaathu ceyyum vinai.
>>
>> I leave it to you and Selva to decode the meaning of 'thoongal'.
> I was about to pull out this very kuRaL!!
> thoongu means to wait ( stay quiet, to withhold).
> The kuRaL says roughly 'what is to be done after
> an approporiate waiting has to be done done
> after such a waiting, and what is to be done without
> waiting ( immediately) has to be done without delay'
> There is also a subtle meaning. Generally thookku
> means to _consider_ ( seer thookkip paarththal)
> 'to evaluate the pros and cons'; thoongu is a softer
> rendering ( but only for the first part of kuRaL!)
> Here again I feel ThiruvaLLuvar uses the word in
> two senses ( reflect, wait; semantically related
> but final meaning very different).
vaLLuvan has used "thunju" for sleep.
I do not know the number but it is from inbam.
The girl is dreaming about the man in sleep.
She says;
"thunjungkaal thOL mElaraaki vizhikungkaal
nenjaththar aavar virainthu"
thunjungkaal-when I am asleep
vizhikungkaal-when I wake up
When I was sleeping it appeared he was lying on [mEl] my shoulders[thOL].
But when I woke up, alas! he was not there. This is a very poetic
kuRaL. To say that he was not physically
present, vaLLuvan puts it as "he disappears quickly[virainthu] but appears in my nenju[mind
or heart]" "nenjathar aavar virainthu"
The ethukai-mOnai in the kuRaL, thunju-nenju along with the depth
of the sentiments expressed makes me feel that vaLLuvan is
not only didactic [as he appears in aRam and poRuL] but also
a great poet.
aside-I studied vaLLuvan like most of the thamizh naadu school
goers. Just mug up the manap paadap paguthi, the kuRaLs meant
for mugging up and commit to memory. I was initially fed up
with the didactic content of kuRaL. We had too many advisors
parents, elders and teachers giving tons of advice. But later
I wanted to find for myself the poet vaLLuvan. I like vaLLuvan for
the poetry more than anything else. I admire him for
his views on equality. thamizh saanROrs before him have
expressed similar sentiments. This is my humble p.o.
anban
Kathiravan
T.C.A. Venkatesan
says:
>
>In article <1993Apr6.0...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>ssan...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (S.Sankarapandi) writes:
>> I am very happy to see your protest for this movie. When this movie was
>>released Ananda Vikatan admired this as the greatest movie of that year and
>>there was a very serious argument between me and one of my colleagues who is
>>a woman.
>
>It is obvious you are discussing the movie SiRai.
I thought he was talking about the movie `pudhiya paadhai' (as also
mentioned by Bala_S). I had the misfortune of watching this off-the-
beaten-path (HA!) movie.
The story is actually worse than mentioned previously by netters:
The heroine is raped by the `hero' (??) on her wedding day just
before the nuptials. When she reveals this, all of the groom's
family wants out. The groom, who is a doctor (may be the `educated
man with the revolutionary ideas' syndrome is being used here?),
meets her privately and tells her that he does'nt care about what
happened to her and he'll marry her.
So what does she tell him : She will not marry him! The reason: A
man with an attitude such as his is a very rare being (ain't that
the truth). Such a `god'ly person deserves more than a `sullied'
person such as herself. Huh !!!!! This is unbeleivable. What a
fantastic message for the audience. If a person behaves like any
normal human being should, he is GOD. And therefore should not be
allowed to carry out his beliefs (which was what made him divine,
in the first place!). What a Catch-22 situation!!
She then goes on to live with the man who raped her and transforms
him into a `good' man and everyone lives happily ever after.
If Ananda vikatan thought this was a good movie, their critics are
nothing but boneheads. This movie did not open a pudhiya pAdhai - it
was only another pAdhai to the age-old male chauvinistic junk.
If some of my dreams were to come true, the directors and story writers
(may be even the lead actors and actresses (how could they?)) of such
movies will loose all their money in such ventures and never attempt
such foolishness again.
In reality, probably, they made big bucks out of this movie.
The shame of it all!
Venky
*************************************************************************
T.C.A. Venkatesan Bitnet : IO92395@maine
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy Internet: ve...@gandalf.umcs.maine.edu
University of Maine
Orono, ME 04469 Phone : (207) 581-1022
"the child is grown, the dream is gone"
- Pink Floyd
S.Sankarapandi
In article <91...@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4...@prism.gatech.EDU (SRINIVASAN,K) wri
tes:
>In article <1993Apr6.0...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ssan...@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (S.Sankarapandi) writes:
>> I am very happy to see your protest for this movie. When this movie was
>>released Ananda Vikatan admired this as the greatest movie of that year and
>>there was a very serious argument between me and one of my colleagues who is
>>a woman.
>
>story. A lady is really attached to her husband and they lead a happy life.
>One day she is raped by a man. This makes her unacceptable to her husband whi
ch
>comes as a real shock to her (Please note that she did not go marry the person
>who raped her immediately as you or Gayathri had portrayed). She is so disgus
ted
w
>you might say she could have chosen to live alone if she was disgusted with he
r
e
>been the ideal solution, it would have eliminated melodrama which seems to be
an
>essential ingredient in all our movies. However, by portraying the rapist as
a
>considerate, nice man after that, the director conveys a strong message -- eve
n
>a rapist is not as bad as a man who is heartless enough to detest his wife jus
t
>because she has been raped. In fact, that is the message I carried with me af
ter
>seeing the movie (of course, apart from Lakshmi's powerful portrayal of the
>character).
>
>So, if you say the movie preaches that if a woman is raped by man she has lost
>her kaRpu to him and has to become his wife, I beg to differ.
>
>I fully agree that naan paadum paadal was full of hypocrisy (btw, for saying
>that at the end of the movie, I and a friend of mine were about to be beaten-u
p
>in a theater; a few women cursed us out too!!).
>
>
>--
>SRINIVASAN,K
>School of Textile Engineering Georgia Tech.
>uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt4084c
>ARPA: gt4...@prism.gatech.edu
Sorry Srinivasan, I thought I had mentioned the movie name. it was `puthiya
paathai'. I think you wil not have any objections to my (and Gayathri's )
arguments.
I agree with you on `ciRai' though it was not very realistic. I agree with
Anuradha Ramanan (it was her award winning short story) and R.C.Shakti (the
director), because she, being from a conservative Brahmin family, did not
intend to reform Anthony (the guy who raped her) but she protests him by living
in the same house and making him hate himself for ever for his crime. If the
author thought she as a woman needed a shelter under a man, then I would not
agree with her. But Anuradha Ramanan did not intend so.
S. Sankarapandi
S.Sankarapandi
In article <C52F8...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C
.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>In article <2BC069A...@news.service.uci.edu> sun...@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (
M. Sundaramoorthy) writes:
>>In article <930405163...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pa
ndian) writes:
>> I have no idea who wrote "piN thoongki mun ezhuntha pEthaiyE!".
>> But the word `thoongi' does appear in kuRal, in a slightly
>> different meaning.
>>
>> 'thoonguga thoongi ceyaRpaala thoongaRak
>> thoongaathu ceyyum vinai.
>>
>> I leave it to you and Selva to decode the meaning of 'thoongal'.
>
>
> I was about to pull out this very kuRaL!!
> thoongu means to wait ( stay quiet, to withhold).
> The kuRaL says roughly 'what is to be done after
> an approporiate waiting has to be done done
> after such a waiting, and what is to be done without
> waiting ( immediately) has to be done without delay'
> There is also a subtle meaning. Generally thookku
> means to _consider_ ( seer thookkip paarththal)
> 'to evaluate the pros and cons'; thoongu is a softer
> rendering ( but only for the first part of kuRaL!)
> Here again I feel ThiruvaLLuvar uses the word in
> two senses ( reflect, wait; semantically related
> but final meaning very different).
>
>
As a side note, Malayalees use the word `uRangu' and `uRakkam' for
sleeping and they laugh if we use `thUngu' because `thUngu' means `hang' in
colloquial Malayalam.
thUngic caavu = hang and die (in colloquial Malayalam)
S. Sankarapandi
Prabhukumar Ganapathy (PK)
>In article <59...@gos.ukc.ac.uk> r...@ukc.ac.uk (raj) writes:
>>Story
>>------------
>> When the "gOpiyar" were concious of their body, they
>>felt ashamed. So did not come out of the lake. They did not receive
>>their dress however they pleaded.
>> But once the over came their body-conciousness, they
>>came out of the lake. Krishna gave them their dress.
>
>>In short
>>-------
>> The "dress" is a symbol of aruL. Bodiliy shame is a representative
>>of "ANavam".
>
>> raj
>
>
>No offence intended. But this sounds like vaariyaar stuff. There is
>a joke. kirupaanantha vaariyaar once set out to explain the phrase
>"nilaa athu vaanaththin mElE
> palaanathu Odaththin mElE"
>
>He said:
>
>
>Meenan Vishnu
This was part of the casette released in Tamil by some college
students. (Title - "sirippO sirripu"). There was some nice
jokes and kadis in that casette.
In fact I would like to point out here vaariyaar swamigaL
is one of the few person who is very learned. Of course
to explain some "odd" stuff he gives some vague explanation
which might convince an ordinary guy but to a learned
person it is garbage. It is mainly becasue no one wants
to say something wrong (even though it is) about a
philosophy/person they like. This is true right from
religious leaders, cinema fans, political party sympathizers,
sports lovers, language lovers etc.
PK
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>So what does she tell him : She will not marry him! The reason: A
>man with an attitude such as his is a very rare being (ain't that
>the truth). Such a `god'ly person deserves more than a `sullied'
>person such as herself. Huh !!!!! This is unbeleivable. What a
>fantastic message for the audience. If a person behaves like any
>normal human being should, he is GOD. And therefore should not be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>allowed to carry out his beliefs (which was what made him divine,
>in the first place!). What a Catch-22 situation!!
Dear venky:
The problem in our culture/religion is simply biphase.
My observation is that all the movies play on
the emotions. Our people have the same problem.
For most of them they see heaven or hell. God
or asuran-devil. Either
its is excellent or rotten bad. People cry or
rejoice. Even kamban in his raamayaNam does that.
There will be a quantum leap of mood in just
one line.
You might question why bring religion. This
religious people spun stories that reflect our
culture now. I will need a lot of stuff to
undo that. As I mentioned the movie and media
are doing the job now. But this programming
had been done a long time ago in our literature.
I am also one person representing this culture.
This observation of mine may not be aggreable but
this is what I have seen.
I know when I was a kid they brought 20 point
program. Indiraa amma was a gOd. I myself acted
in a drama glorifying her deeds. Our drama
was even voted the best. At that time I
was only 10 years old and did not realize what
I was doing. Why should suddenly
she become gOd. She imposed emergency. Then
kalaignar suddenly became an asuran-devil. The
famous saying at that time was "cut cut kambarak cut
karuNaanidhiyai veLuththuk cut". The media /movie
all these things play the same game.
MGR came, he became gOd. Now kushpoo is
slowly becoming one. It will go on.
People simply do not know
or sometimes carried away
"periyOrai viyaththal ilamE
siRiyOrai ikazhthal athaninum ilamE".
>The shame of it all!
^^^^^^^^^
Only if we start attacking these magazines, personalities
things can change.
anban
Kathiravan
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>>He said:
>>
> < rest deleted>
>>
>>Meenan Vishnu
> In fact I would like to point out here vaariyaar swamigaL
> is one of the few person who is very learned. Of course
> to explain some "odd" stuff he gives some vague explanation
> which might convince an ordinary guy but to a learned
vaariyaar has come down to the cheap level
he had to praise jeya to get permission for
a donation college. he calls her "thamizh naattu kaaval araN".
paNam panthiyilE! kuNam kuppaiyilE!
vaariyaar evvidamO!
KK
> PK
Affable
>I agree with you on `ciRai' though it was not very realistic. I agree with
>Anuradha Ramanan (it was her award winning short story) and R.C.Shakti (the
>director), because she, being from a conservative Brahmin family, did not
>intend to reform Anthony (the guy who raped her) but she protests him by
living
>in the same house and making him hate himself for ever for his crime. If the
- Seneca (in 55 A.D.)
Btw, let us not blame the males [No, I'm not feeling guilty. :-)]
for all the problems of women. IMHO, the older women are also a part
of the conspiracy(??) against the women including themselves and ignorance
is the culprit. Of course,they were not allowed to come out of their
ignorance, thanks to the male dominated society. Nevertheless, older women
are partly culpable.
>S. Sankarapandi
Venkat
--
ven...@jetson.uh.edu | If you love something,set it free.
ven...@menudo.uh.edu | If it comes back, it is yours.
ven...@uhupvm1.uh.edu | If it does not, it never was.
ar...@tree.egr.uh.edu(NeXT mails OK)|
ar...@lisa.cc.uh.edu (-do-) |
(713)225-6426(h) & (713)743-4250(w) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mani Varadarajan
The translation that Sidbhavananda has given for this Gita verse (9.32)
is a correct one. Mani Varadarajan gave a wrong translation of this
verse earlier in SCT, and I was not surprised to see some `chamchas'
of Cho in the net praising Mani's translation.
I am quite tired of non-rebuttal rebuttals such as the one above.
Can you explain why my translation is "wrong"? You never have in
the past.
Mani
Sundara Pandian
>In article <930404215...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>
> The translation that Sidbhavananda has given for this Gita verse (9.32)
> is a correct one. Mani Varadarajan gave a wrong translation of this
> verse earlier in SCT....
>
>I am quite tired of non-rebuttal rebuttals such as the one above.
>Can you explain why my translation is "wrong"? You never have in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the past.
^^^^^^^^
>
>Mani
I posted a long article in SCI on this Gita verse (9.32) in the
last year and my posting was a follow-up to your translation and
reply to Meenan Vishnu in SCI. I don't have that posting with me,
but I remember what I wrote in that posting. I briefly mentioned
Sinha's claim of a original Gita in that posting and the wrong
portrayal of Buddha in Vishnu Purana and many other details, with
a word-by-word translation of Gita verse (9.32). Meenan Vishnu may
remember that posting, as the translation I posted was very similar
to the posting he posted. My posting was followed in SCI by a brief
discussion between V.Nagarajan and Dorai Sitaram.
I don't have my early posting on Gita (9.32) and I will soon
write another posting on this Gita verse.
It is my strong opinion that translations of ancient works with
an understanding of the culture in the time-period such works were
written will bear a good translation. Some Tamil netters hold the
hypothesis, "VaLLuvar is a divine poet. He could not have meant
this in his ThirukkuRaL, as it has a bad meaning in today's culture.
Therefore, we should try to bring only the good meaning from kuRaLs."
Some Vaisnavite people may hold a parallel hypothesis, "Krishna is
God. Therefore, he could not have meant this meaning in his Gita,
as it is bad in today's culture. Therefore, we should take only
the good meaning in Gita. Let us translate Gita in such a view
so that it all sounds good today. " If the netters read only
hypothetical translations, I am the wrong man. I don't have any
hidden agenda in the translations I post in the net. My interest
is to understand the *correct* meaning of the ancient verses in
Tamil or Sanskrit or whatever, and I don't try to translate Gita
or KuRaL in a hypothetical way with a view only to bring the good
meanings out of them ignoring the culture in the time-period such
works were written.
SP
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
> In article <1993Apr6.0...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ssan...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (S.Sankarapandi) writes:
> >
/* Some portions deleted to save bw */
> There seem
> to be only a hand full of solutions, for the rape victim, provided by the
> Indian filmdom.
/*** Routine Tamil-film-style solutions deleted ****/
> But there are 'vithi vilakku's. In the movie 'kai kodukkum kai' Revathi
> is a blind wife of Rajani. The local crook rapes her posing as Rajani;
> and the hero says that as long as she has maritial fidelity she is still
> a 'kaRpukkaraci', accepts her and lives with her. I think this was
> directed by K. Mahendran.
>
> The other one, vidhi was appreciated more for its court scenes rather
> than for its "revolutionary" picture of woman. Actually, there was no
> *rape* as such in this movie; it was a question of child support!!
What I thought was positive about vidhi was that the heroine, a minor,
who was seduced by the (z)hero is given a choice between (if I remember
right - saw it long ago) marrying the guy or sending him to jail (don't
comment that both are the same :-) ) - and she picks the latter
option. However, the jail sentence in the movie was for just 6 months
which I think is too little for seducing and making false promises of
marriage to a minor, and causing her much grief and an unwanted pregnancy.
No, the movie wasn't about child support - because the heroine never meets
the guy until many years later, and she brings up the child on her own.
Actually, the dramatic point is when the attorney for the herione asks the
defense lawyer for the (z)hero (who incidentally is the guy's father),
when asked for proof that the guy is the father of the heroine's child
"What's the proof that you are his father ?".
On an unrelated note, this reminds me of some discriminatory laws and
practices in India. There was an interview with a woman collector
(or some high woman official) in AV 2 yrs back - and she made a remark,
"I'm surprised that while raids in brothels result in prostitutes getting
arrested, they never arrest the customers !". If this is so, then this
is yet another hypocritical aspect of our society.
I really think, seeing some of the programs here in the U.S, that there
is a need for affirmative action towards women, in India. Not as reservation
per se but some way of assuring that women get represented. Back in '88,
while attending a campus interview, our whole class attended a pre-interview
speech by the prospective employer - and at the outset, the guy who made the
speech said "Frankly, we do not hire women, so all the women in this class
can leave if they wish to - this is because we work till 7:30 PM". We left
enmasse, but I felt acutely insulted. Did they even _ask_ the women if they
are ready to work for that long ? And thinking about this now, I'm
surprised that I could take this so lightly and give up without a fight
- think of the audacity of making a remark like that in public ! I suppose,
having been used to such discrimination - the way even many profs think that
women aren't meant for engineering disciplines, debates in college titled
stupidly like "Should women come to engg colleges ?", "Should a woman's
place be at home ?", "When jobs are scarce for _men_ isn't it a luxury
to have a 2-income home with the woman also working ?" etc - women become
numb....
>
>
> >on educated women too. If considerable interest is there, I can write about
> >well known Tamil movies on how they establish the neo-male-cahuvinstic society.
>
> >
> >S. Sankarapandi
>
> PLEASE ...
Yes, please ! Let's have such articles.
Balaji Kannan
gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>What I thought was positive about vidhi was that the heroine, a minor,
>who was seduced by the (z)hero is given a choice between (if I remember
>right - saw it long ago) marrying the guy or sending him to jail (don't
>comment that both are the same :-) ) - and she picks the latter
>option. However, the jail sentence in the movie was for just 6 months
>which I think is too little for seducing and making false promises of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't this a grey area ? I mean seducing is NOT a crime as long as
it is not connected to professional benefits....
[In consensual sex, one of the partners *has* to seduce]
>marriage to a minor, and causing her much grief and an unwanted pregnancy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This pushes the line that "I should marry someone with whom I have sex"
The indignation and moral outrage are understandable in the Indian context,
but this is something that in all probability will be trashed in a court
of law here. I think someone who decides to have premarital sex should
either insist that the partners [one of 'em atleast] take proper 'precau-
tions' or terminate the pregnancy [immediately] if it is 'unwanted'. The
latter may be the more painful process and so it is best to take precautions
when u 'submit' yourself. I was outraged too when I saw the movie but there
is li'l to accuse 'Mohan' from a legal standpoint. He is just one of those
BAD GUYS to be avoided. IMO "Poornima Jayaram" shares the 'blame' .....
Society should rather accept pre-marital sex instead of the "if you have sex
marry or go to jail ......" line.
[If it is a case of RAPE the story is different; but seduction and promises
(how can I even prove that someone promised to marry me) don't have much
say in a court of law. Ofcourse setniment carries a lot of weight; more
so amongst Indians (just my belief). There is an interesting case about
male atheletes in Lakewood High School, Calif. who formed a fraternity called
'Spur Posse' [GORY] and bragged about the number of girls each one hooked
and had sex with. As "Newsweek" reports, the case is diturbing but is
limited in defense unless a charge of 'rape' is brought against them.]
>No, the movie wasn't about child support - because the heroine never meets
>the guy until many years later, and she brings up the child on her own.
>Actually, the dramatic point is when the attorney for the herione asks the
>defense lawyer for the (z)hero (who incidentally is the guy's father),
>when asked for proof that the guy is the father of the heroine's child
>"What's the proof that you are his father ?".
Once again, it is not difficult to establish parentage. DNA fingerprinting
[its reliability is a raging debate, though scientists think that it much
more reliable than 'fingerprinting' used by forensic experts in criminal
cases] would answer these questions today. However, I agree that in India
only *now* is it being used to settle cases of disputed parentage.
[Personally, I think charges of rape and sexual harrassment should be
brought to light sooner than later. The more the delay, the less convincing
the argument ...... motives start playing a role]
Jayshankar as "Tiger Dayanidhi" plays the defense lawyer for the hero and
is a poor match for Sujatha. I guess the director intended to make it a
weak case for men from the start :-)
>On an unrelated note, this reminds me of some discriminatory laws and
>practices in India. There was an interview with a woman collector
>(or some high woman official) in AV 2 yrs back - and she made a remark,
>"I'm surprised that while raids in brothels result in prostitutes getting
>arrested, they never arrest the customers !". If this is so, then this
>is yet another hypocritical aspect of our society.
If this is true, it is sad !! :-( [One remedy maybe to make prostitution
legal. While it is unfortunate that people should trade bodies to survive,
it reduces the risk of harrassment by the police and politicians (who
wud still find some other means of harrassment :-()]
[...]
cheers,
bk
PS: Sujatha's was a sterling performance in "Vidhi". Manorama was 'Deadly'
as usual :-) Liked her "Luvvu, luvvu luvvunu adichche avan typewriter ellam
keduththuttaan ......"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"No task in an organization is so unsignificant and small that it can't
be split between two persons". ------- Parkinson's law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
>
>sleeping and they laugh if we use `thUngu' because `thUngu' means `hang' in
>colloquial Malayalam.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[1] In tamil too 'uRangu' means 'sleep'. ThiruvaLLuvar also
uses in 'uRanguvathu pOlum saakkaadu..".
In colloquial tamil too 'uRangu' is used. In the past
30-50 years things are a bit skewed because many think
what is spoken in madras is collquial tamil. My grand mother
who comes from Thiruchchi used to say 'ungaRathu illa,
udukkiRathu illa, nEraththukku orangaRathu illa ithu
enna thambi ippadi..' uRangu, uRakkam are used even today
but less often in urban areas. 'En uRakka(m) valliyaa ?
is still heard in Salem-Thiruchchi areas in some families
[ don't some of us think 'meyyaavaa?', '(i)raavOdu (i)raavaa'
as 'low tamil' while in fact they are 'high tamil' ?! ]
I think many other words are also used 'konjam nEram
saayE(n) !' 'konja(m) nEram kaN ayara vida maattaanE !'
.... etc. are also used. Please note 'saay' does not come
from sayanam ( probably the other way around !) - saay =lie
down.
[2] In tamil too, the semantic sense of 'thoongu' is 'to
wait, to be in suspension, to delay..'
Thats why we have 'thookku' a container with a handle
to hang [ there used to be a 'kadi' like this:
"nEththu raaththri 20 laddu pOttu vachchu irundhE(n),
kaalEla vandhu paarththa ellaa(m) seththu kidandhathu, En ?"
The 'silly' answer is ' Ennaa thookkila pOttuttaanga'.
thongu > thoongu. I think the words which apparently
baffled Kamban ' moongil ilai...thoongum pani neerE'
also could mean 'hanging dew drop'. Because 'thoongu'
has the meaning of 'hang' in tamil one of the meanings
of 'thoongu' is 'aadal' ( = swing, drama, dance).
Because an elephant swings its 'trunk' here and there
'thoongal' means 'elephant'. One of the four kinds of
'cheyyuL' is 'vanjippaa' which has a characteristic
sound ( which is supposed to be longish with a swinging
tone) and this rythm is called 'thoongal'.
[3] alaindhu aaduvathai ( like a pendulum) 'thoongal' ena
azhaiththu uLLanar. We can certainly use it for scientific
terminology. For example precession..( generally where
there is notion or property of 'long' to it; i.e slow..).
For example where long wavelenghths can be denoted as
thoongalai ( thoongu + alai ).. etc..
'thoongiruL' means 'miguntha iruL' as per dictionary; I think
it must have meant 'prolonged darkness'. Now this can be used
to denote 'nuclear winters' or 'prologned ignorance'.
[ I think we should begin to take pride in using and
understanding language with depth ( poruL thiNuvu
seRivu aRithal); don't some of us take pains to
understand english ( spelling, usage etc.), we should
show a similar interest for tamil mother tongue of most of
us.
>
> thUngic caavu = hang and die (in colloquial Malayalam)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In tamil this will be 'thongi(ch) chaavu'
>
>
>S. Sankarapandi
anbudan
-Selvaa
"thoongiruLai thookil ida vaareer!"
( saathi kodumaikaLaalum,
vaRumaik kEdukaLaalum,
Eyththa arasiyalaalum,
nammaik kawviya thoongiruL,
viraivilE
veengoLir nal aRivaalum
mangaa naR_paNiyaalum
muRRum theeravE
muyaluvOm vaareer!)
Gayathri Krishnamurthy
/** Some portions deleted from article to save bw ***/
>
> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>
> >What I thought was positive about vidhi was that the heroine, a minor,
> >who was seduced by the (z)hero is given a choice between (if I remember
> >right - saw it long ago) marrying the guy or sending him to jail (don't
> >comment that both are the same :-) ) - and she picks the latter
> >option. However, the jail sentence in the movie was for just 6 months
> >which I think is too little for seducing and making false promises of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Isn't this a grey area ? I mean seducing is NOT a crime as long as
> it is not connected to professional benefits....
> [In consensual sex, one of the partners *has* to seduce]
Yes, this _is_ a grey area. But the heroine in the movie is a minor,
(I remember a scene where the defense lawyer adds the prefix "minor"
sarcastically while addressing the heroine), and I guess that's what
makes it a crime (another netter sent me email saying seducing a
minor is equivalent to rape). Otherwise, it is a case of consensual
sex between consenting adults.
>
> >marriage to a minor, and causing her much grief and an unwanted pregnancy.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This pushes the line that "I should marry someone with whom I have sex"
No, I didn't mean to push that line....The heroine in the movie is a
conventional girl who has sex because the guy promised to marry her -
period. As for the unwanted pregnancy part, I just got a bit carried away
thinking of how such a person can live in an extremely conservative
society like in India (especially TN) and what kind of a life that would
be. Society won't leave her in peace. But then again, it is a little out
of context.
> Society should rather accept pre-marital sex instead of the "if you have sex
> marry or go to jail ......" line.
I agree. The line in itself is stupid. Besides, sexual desire and its
gratification does neither imply a desire to marry nor does it imply
compatibility in the long run, which IMO, is very important in a marriage.
But the way Indian society - esp TN society is right now, it seems to be
able to accept anything from a man while his sexual partner (if it is a
woman :-) ) gets all the ostracism and bad treatment. This is what I call
"bad".
> bk
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>I agree. The line in itself is stupid. Besides, sexual desire and its
>gratification does neither imply a desire to marry nor does it imply
>compatibility in the long run, which IMO, is very important in a marriage.
>But the way Indian society - esp TN society is right now, it seems to be
>able to accept anything from a man while his sexual partner (if it is a
>woman :-) ) gets all the ostracism and bad treatment. This is what I call
>"bad".
I think the TN society you know and talk about is limited.
I guess from the society you are discussing about and most
of the media talks about the TN society here misses some
people whom I know of. There are communities in TN
where the village council can decide easily in favor of
the abused person, men or women. The so called thaali
can be thrown away.
Due to urbanisation and high casteisation of all
the media, cinema a lot of better practices in
poor rural communities are not noticed.
The popular literature might not talk about it.
anban
Kathiravan
Mani Varadarajan
>In article <930404215...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>
> The translation that Sidbhavananda has given for this Gita verse (9.32)
> is a correct one. Mani Varadarajan gave a wrong translation of this
> verse earlier in SCT....
>
>I am quite tired of non-rebuttal rebuttals such as the one above.
>Can you explain why my translation is "wrong"? You never have in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the past.
^^^^^^^^
>
>Mani
It is my strong opinion that translations of ancient works with
an understanding of the culture in the time-period such works were
written will bear a good translation.
It's rather presumptuous of you to determine what Krishna means
in this verse and superimpose what you think is "correct"; you
are making the same error that you claim some Vaishnavites make.
I'm not saying that my translation is absolutely correct, nor am
I saying that your version is absolutely wrong. But it would be
rather foolhardy to claim that one particular translation is
"wrong" by positing that Krishna "couldn't have said that,
because the cultural milieu of the time doesn't seem to indicate
that he would say that."
The Mahabharata, which indeed is the context in which the Gita is
set, contains many passages that concur with my translation.
Commentators, both traditional and western, have chosen roughly
equally between the two translations. I choose one, you choose
the other. Fine. There's no need to be utterly self-righteous by
saying "Mani Varadarajan gave a wrong translation of this
verse..." without explaining why.
Some Vaisnavite people may hold a parallel hypothesis, "Krishna is
God. Therefore, he could not have meant this meaning in his Gita,
as it is bad in today's culture. Therefore, we should take only
the good meaning in Gita. Let us translate Gita in such a view
so that it all sounds good today. "
This may well be true, but I am not a party to this. My
religious feelings aside, I am very critical of offensive
passages in epics and Upanishads that I otherwise revere, and
accept them as products of that time period. No text is beyond
reproach, and I strive very hard to avoid text torturing; but
when an less offensive, linguistically acceptable translation
exists, I reserve the right to choose it for that very reason.
Happy Holy Week,
Mani
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>> thUngic caavu = hang and die (in colloquial Malayalam)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> In tamil this will be 'thongi(ch) chaavu'
>>
>>
>>S. Sankarapandi
> anbudan
> -Selvaa
> "thoongiruLai thookil ida vaareer!"
> ( saathi kodumaikaLaalum,
> vaRumaik kEdukaLaalum,
> Eyththa arasiyalaalum,
> nammaik kawviya thoongiruL,
> viraivilE
> veengoLir nal aRivaalum
> mangaa naR_paNiyaalum
> muRRum theeravE
> muyaluvOm vaareer!)
>
anbu
selvaa!
thaangaL enthak katcchikku pirachchaaram
seikireer:-)
I liked the article.
uRangku is used in many songs. I would like to quote one
of my favourite songs.
"kaalamithu kaalamithu kaNNurangku makaLE!
kaalamithaith thavaRa vittaal thookamilai makaLE!
aaraaro raariraro thangamE aaraaro aariraro!"
anban
Kathiravan
>
>
Balaji Kannan
(Kathiravan Krishnamurthi) writes:
>In <C54u4...@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> gaya...@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Gayathri Krish
>namurthy) writes:
>>I agree. The line in itself is stupid. Besides, sexual desire and its
>>gratification does neither imply a desire to marry nor does it imply
>>compatibility in the long run, which IMO, is very important in a marriage.
>>But the way Indian society - esp TN society is right now, it seems to be
>>able to accept anything from a man while his sexual partner (if it is a
>>woman :-) ) gets all the ostracism and bad treatment. This is what I call
>>"bad".
>I think the TN society you know and talk about is limited.
>I guess from the society you are discussing about and most
>of the media talks about the TN society here misses some
>people whom I know of. There are communities in TN
>where the village council can decide easily in favor of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How many among this 'village council' are women ??
>the abused person, men or women. The so called thaali
>can be thrown away.
>Due to urbanisation and high casteisation of all
>the media, cinema a lot of better practices in
>poor rural communities are not noticed.
Your point about popular cinema not reflecting rural
practices maybe right. However, I think what the film
media ignores/downplays is village *life*. The societal
structures are not very different and if they are, they
aren't progressive. Rural societies may certainly have
their plus points but life there is more or less frozen
in time. [Also some of those practices are outright
incompatible with 'urban' life]
cheers,
bk
Balaji Kannan
No, this is not a request to the Vedic proselytes :-)
[Boy, it has veered away from that !!]
(Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
>Yes, this _is_ a grey area. But the heroine in the movie is a minor,
>(I remember a scene where the defense lawyer adds the prefix "minor"
>sarcastically while addressing the heroine), and I guess that's what
>makes it a crime (another netter sent me email saying seducing a
>minor is equivalent to rape). Otherwise, it is a case of consensual
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with you that six months is not a fitting punishment for a
Rapist. I only doubt that he qualifies as one. [As a matter of mere
academic interest, does anyone know the peroid of jail sentences in
rape cases in India. Also, isn't a person below 18 classified as a
minor ?? In the movie, PJ looks anything but a minor though she was
shown as one [technically]. In this country, < 10/12 is classified
as one. Or so i think.]
[Just my opinion: If it is possible to seduce someone, then (s)he is not
a minor. Rape is forcing/thrusting oneself [with signs of psychological
/physical coercion] while aquiescing/submitting to having sex makes one
a willing partner in the act. The movie showed Poornima aquiescing to
Mohan's wishes; that he fooled her later by calling off the relationship
makes him a CROOK and NOT a rapist. I thought the movie was about punishing
crooks (because Sujatha brings her case too and I am not too sure she was
fooled as a minor) and hence looking at it fromt a viewpoint of unconditional
sex, the case seems pretty weak. Such CROOKS deserve to be socially humiliated
(and not legally reprimanded)]
[...]
>I agree. The line in itself is stupid. Besides, sexual desire and its
>gratification does neither imply a desire to marry nor does it imply
>compatibility in the long run, which IMO, is very important in a marriage.
You raised a very valid point here. The movies [North *&* South Indian]
fail to highlight this distinction. Sex inside marriage is invariably
linked to having children and sex outside of it is usually shown as rape.
The women are innocent lambs in either case. [Bhagyaraj was kinda different
in that he showed women could be sexually 'intimidating' too ; but he
made it look funny with I-am-*totally*-bhola-bala-compared-to-this-woman
:-) roles for himself too often, that it looked less like a serious
possiblity] He usually avoids rape scenes in his movies though some of
his movies *were* vulgarly sexist, w/o doubt. Also the mora-mappilai-
worship shown in Tamil movies makes one squirm]
>But the way Indian society - esp TN society is right now, it seems to be
>able to accept anything from a man while his sexual partner (if it is a
>woman :-) ) gets all the ostracism and bad treatment. This is what I call
>"bad".
True. As for movies, Laxmi & Sarita played very bold/powerful roles in
some movies that clearly strayed away from the traditional/submissive
roles women are usually relegated to playing in real life.
cheers,
bk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it
there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a
right to coerce others to act according to their own view of truth.
------- M.K.Gandhi
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bala SWAMINATHAN
>
>No, this is not a request to the Vedic proselytes :-)
>[Boy, it has veered away from that !!]
>
>>minor is equivalent to rape). Otherwise, it is a case of consensual
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>a minor. Rape is forcing/thrusting oneself [with signs of psychological
>/physical coercion] while aquiescing/submitting to having sex makes one
>a willing partner in the act. The movie showed Poornima aquiescing to
>Mohan's wishes; that he fooled her later by calling off the relationship
>makes him a CROOK and NOT a rapist. I thought the movie was about punishing
>crooks (because Sujatha brings her case too and I am not too sure she was
>fooled as a minor) and hence looking at it fromt a viewpoint of unconditional
>sex, the case seems pretty weak. Such CROOKS deserve to be socially humiliated
>(and not legally reprimanded)]
A crook can be a rapist and vice versa (not because of his vices!!).
Here in the US, if a person over the age of 21 had sex (consensual or
otherwise) with another person under the age of 16, then it would
be considered as rape.
/*
This was why Buttafucco was tried for raping Aimee Fischer (she was just
17 days short of 16 years, then). Somehow Butt. escaped scot free and most
of the Donnahue audience were not happy about this. One guy said that Butt.
had taught him a very good lesson, "if my teenage daughter wrecks the car
I would fix it myself."
*/
natpudan
Sarath Krishnaswamy
|>
|> No, this is not a request to the Vedic proselytes :-)
|> [Boy, it has veered away from that !!]
|>
Yeah. How do you change the thread name?
|> (Gayathri Krishnamurthy) writes:
|>
|> >Yes, this _is_ a grey area. But the heroine in the movie is a minor,
|> >(I remember a scene where the defense lawyer adds the prefix "minor"
|> >sarcastically while addressing the heroine), and I guess that's what
|> >makes it a crime (another netter sent me email saying seducing a
|> >minor is equivalent to rape). Otherwise, it is a case of consensual
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>
|> I agree with you that six months is not a fitting punishment for a
|> Rapist. I only doubt that he qualifies as one. [As a matter of mere
|> academic interest, does anyone know the peroid of jail sentences in
|> rape cases in India. Also, isn't a person below 18 classified as a
|> minor ?? In the movie, PJ looks anything but a minor though she was
|> shown as one [technically]. In this country, < 10/12 is classified
|> as one. Or so i think.]
|>
In the U.S. the age of consent varies by state and in fact can
differ from the age of majority (which is 18, or 21 for some things). A
typical age of consent is 16 or 18.
|> [Just my opinion: If it is possible to seduce someone, then (s)he is not
|> a minor. Rape is forcing/thrusting oneself [with signs of psychological
|> /physical coercion] while aquiescing/submitting to having sex makes one
|> a willing partner in the act. The movie showed Poornima aquiescing to
|> Mohan's wishes; that he fooled her later by calling off the relationship
|> makes him a CROOK and NOT a rapist. I thought the movie was about punishing
|> crooks (because Sujatha brings her case too and I am not too sure she was
|> fooled as a minor) and hence looking at it fromt a viewpoint of unconditional
|> sex, the case seems pretty weak. Such CROOKS deserve to be socially humiliated
|> (and not legally reprimanded)]
|>
Whoa. Wait a minute there. "Seducing" a minor is statutory rape in this
country. The implication is that even if you have consent from a minor,
it cannot be "informed consent", hence the "statutory" part. And I
note a SIGNIFICANT diffence among the words "consent" "acquiesce" and "submit"
as used above. Just think about how easy it is for someone famous or in a
position of perceived authority to impress a minor enough to have sex,
without that minor really understanding the inplications. Why should that
be treated solely with "social humiliation"? And isn't legal reprimand
a form of social humiliation?
--
*********************************************************
* Sarath Krishnaswamy *
* MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory *
* 545 Technology Square room 828 *
* Cambridge, MA 02139 (617) 253-1513 *
* skri...@ai.mit.edu *
*********************************************************
Asokan S.
: I agree with you. Most of the Tamil movies are absolute nonsense and male
: chauvunisitic.
Most but not all. I kind of liked the movies "Nenjathai Killathae" and
"Mouna Ragam" because they were a little different from the stereotype.
In both these movies, the heroine falls in love with a person but ends
up marrying a different guy, due to circumstances. Far from being
critical of the character, the directors (Mahendran in the former and
(Maniratnam in the latter) seem to suggest that it is a viable
alternative to women in such positions. Also, if I am not mistaken they
were both well received movies.
asokan.
Rajarama Krishnan
Here is my penny's worth on this topic.
1. Hinduism as a religion didnt exist till people outside started calling the
way of life practiced in India as Hinduism. This fact is charecterised in
several ways. Hindu was first a word in Urdu to refer to people living to
the East of the river Indus. Later it was adopted into other languages
including those languages of "people living to the west of Indus"!! There is
no specific Hindu philosophy. There is no way by which one can become a Hindu.
There is no distinction between a Hindu and non-hindu. (I am curious. Some
temples are known to say, only hindus are admitted. How do they distinguish
Hindus and non-hindus) There is no book or work that is "accepted" as divine.
Many schools claim that Vedas are divine but many other schools even go to the
extent of claiming that vedas are wrong. (eg. Carvakas). So in the traditional
sense Hinduism is not a religion.
2. Let me expand on "There is no hindu philosophy". There have been several
schools of Indian philosophies (note : I have intentionally used the word
Indian and not Hindu. I shouldnt even say Indian. I should say Aryan or
whatever you want to call it since I am not including Dravidian philosophies
etc. ) -- Nyaya, Vaisesika, Samkya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, Vedanta, Carvaka,
Buddhism, Jainism etc. etc. Each of them differs from the others in substantial
ways. These were the original schools. There are several other offshoots which
further differ from these. So there is no single thing called Indian or Hindu
philosophy. Acceptance of Krishna or Rama or whoever as god or even the
acceptance of God itself is not an essential part of Indian philosophy. This is
one thing that pleases me about it. None of the chief schools of philosophy
assume the existence of god in their defence of their philosophy.
3. If you read some parts of Vedas you will realise the following things,
a. There is nothing divine in what they say.
b. They are written by a large number of people with quite substantially
different views.
c. A large part of it quite primitive in nature. In most of Rig Veda there
is no reference to gold currency or any other form of monetary exchange
other than cattles. They are very susceptible to thew nature's whims. Their
moral code is very primitive. They dont have a clear social or political
organisation.
d. There is lot of junk in it. But there are a lot of interesting and original
philosophies in it too. It talks about polytheism and it also talks about
monotheism, monism (or holism) and atheism. It talks about "birth based"
caste. It also talks about the spiritual harmony of the whole Universe and
how every one of us is just a part of this organic Universe. It has lot of
junk prayers to gods asking for rain, cattle, death of enemies etc. and
it also tells you that you are god (Aham Brahmasmi).
e. It feels very nice to read a work that have been written by primitive men
several thousands of years ago that have been preserved in the same form. At
least from historical perspective Vedas are very interesting.
4. In our Indian way of life we have always had this tendency to accept the
words of the dead people as something noble. Because of this, even the
philosophers of later days whose philosophies were much more sophisticated,
had to base their philosophies on Vedas. They had to reinterpret Vedas to
incorporate their philosophy to gain public acceptance. This is what Sankara,
Madhava etc did.
5. Our society has always been divided by caste. All these philosophies
starting from Vedas have been based on this society. This class distinction
has been there in several other places too (Remember the British, French,
and Russian revolutions ?). We have come to a stage of social development where
we have to abandon these caste differences. Hence we have come to a point where
we have to call Vedas and several other philosophies wrong in this respect. We
dont need to abandon the philosophical works in these. But we do need to
evolve in our philosophies. We need to grow out of the philosophies that have
existed for several thousands of years in ways where they are not currently
applicable.
6. Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Bhagavat Gita and some more puranams on the
life of several gods were all written down by Vyasa. I am really amazed by this
guy's prolificacy. Vedas were there even before Vyasa, but he was the first one
to compile all of them together. Bhagavat Gita is just his own philosophy.
Krishna being god and speaking out noble truths etc. is all BS. There is no
point in arguing whether Krishna said something or Arjuna said it in the
Bagavat Gita. Neither did. Vyasa said it. He talked about his philosophy which
assumed the caste distinction which was a part of his society. It does have
good aspects of the Vedanta philosophy. It does contain several points that
worth pondering over like,
a. Karma.
b. Everything is me the god or universe or whatever you want to call it.
c. There is no good or bad.
...
That is all. I welcome your views on these.
I find BJP's propoganda very amusing (and at times scary). What do they mean
by a Hindu country. The muslims in India are as much Hindu as anyone else.
What do they mean by Hindu law. There is no such thing. How are they identiying
people as Hindus or non-hindus. There no religion by the name Hinduism.
Rajaram
R.M.Viknarasah
>
>Here is my penny's worth on this topic.
Nop. A laudable effort. Although I donot agree fully with all points of views.
Before anything , I have a request to make ..
in a analytical article like this, it is not worth including
words of very subjective & trivial natures eg "junk", "primitive" , "BS" etc.
These causes people to sidetrack from the mainstream -- from what I have
observed in the past.
>
>acceptance of God itself is not an essential part of Indian philosophy. This is
>one thing that pleases me about it. None of the chief schools of philosophy
>assume the existence of god in their defence of their philosophy.
Not altogether true. Some talk explicitly some very implcitly.
But most of them talk about a force beyond us. Some say it is
"God" ( with specefic names at times), some say it is "nature", "True Slef".
Note that even buddhism in general does not deny the presence.
In theravada buddhism buddha takes a complete rational stance where
there is no acceptance nor deyial of God. But in Mahayana buddhism
the mention of a power beyond us is explicit. The best part is
in Zen, the mention of "Bodhi sattvAs" relate very close to the
"Hindu concepts" . They have equivalents to Sivan, Vishnu and brahmman.
Some of the pictures ( see manuual of Zen -- by doctor Zuzuki --
I think the reference is correct, based on my memory), seem a
"japanised" vesrion of our "Gods". They even talk about a "God"
with blue neck ( neela kaNdan --- Sivan :-) There is one like
Saraswadhi etc.
>4. In our Indian way of life we have always had this tendency to accept the
>words of the dead people as something noble. Because of this, even the
>philosophers of later days whose philosophies were much more sophisticated,
>had to base their philosophies on Vedas. They had to reinterpret Vedas to
>incorporate their philosophy to gain public acceptance. This is what Sankara,
>Madhava etc did.
I differ. I donot think anyone re-interpreted ( assuming
that you mean thet said something which was not intended by the auther).
In my view they only changed the then existed views -- most of them were
currepted by social "evils".
>6. Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Bhagavat Gita and some more puranams on the
>life of several gods were all written down by Vyasa. I am really amazed by this
>guy's prolificacy. Vedas were there even before Vyasa, but he was the first one
>to compile all of them together. Bhagavat Gita is just his own philosophy.
>Krishna being god and speaking out noble truths etc. is all BS. There is no
>point in arguing whether Krishna said something or Arjuna said it in the
>Bagavat Gita. Neither did. Vyasa said it. He talked about his philosophy which
>assumed the caste distinction which was a part of his society. It does have
>good aspects of the Vedanta philosophy. It does contain several points that
>worth pondering over like,
No one knows whether they were said by Krishna ( elaborated by Vyasar)
or not. So to argue for or against is a useless effort. However
what is important is the contetnts, anyway.
But calling is is BS is a but too much over the top. Personnaly
I donot give anything much importance based on who said it. But
there are many who does it. Lets respect their sentiments too.
The same way you are asserting that the principles were Vyasa's
someone else can say that it is Krishna's ( after all both are
names :-)
>
>I find BJP's propoganda very amusing (and at times scary). What do they mean
>by a Hindu country. The muslims in India are as much Hindu as anyone else.
>What do they mean by Hindu law. There is no such thing. How are they identiying
>people as Hindus or non-hindus. There no religion by the name Hinduism.
>
It is funny that you jumped from the "high" altitude to
a deep valley in a few seconds :-))
No offence intended, but if it hurts I appologise to
BJP supportes :-))
>Rajaram
raj
Ravi 'Kity Bum' Sundaram
>>makes it a crime (another netter sent me email saying seducing a
>>minor is equivalent to rape). Otherwise, it is a case of consensual
There was a big thread in soc.(wo)men (all the threads in these
groups are very long) about statuary rape.
Having sex with a minor younger than X years of age
(X=15 usually) is stauary rape by definition. All the
details like consent, threat etc are ALL irrelevant.
Even if the minor is dressed like, acted like, looked like
an adult, even if the minor has explicitly lied about
his/her age it is statuary rape. All these details
will determine the severity of the punishsment that is all.
If the minor is younger than Y years of age (Y=12 usually)
then it is an act of Child abuse.
The thread I mentioned started out with the following case:
A 17 year old babysitter (girl) had sex with the
boy under her charge (11 at that time) and became
pregnant. She sued the boy for child support and,
after many appeals, the supreme court decided in her
favour.
The decision seems very much contradictory to the stated legal
basis I don't understand it.
Ravi Sundaram
UTA
Aero
Bala SWAMINATHAN
Isn't Mouna Ragam a blatant 'gapsaa' of Nenjaththai killaathE. If Mahendran
finished the movie in an Airport, Mani Rathnam did it in a Railway station
(lack of originality). If not for Karthik and ILayaraajaa (of course) this
one would have been a terrible flop, IMO.
In Madurai, Nenjaththai KilLLaathE was screened in the Mini Priya theater.
So was Mouna Ragam. This made the correlation easier even for the front
benchers. I heard someone shouting at the end of the movie, "Nenjaththaik
kiLLaathEyila irunthu appidiyE adichchuttaandaath thaay..." And, I saw the
movie in its first week, before any reviews were published.
This guy Mani Rathnam, may be a good director, but copies (or remakes)
movies (for eg. this Mouna Raagam, Naayagan, ThaLabathi etc.) without
giving proper credit; and our press never brings this out strongly. They
may mention this as a passing comment which may not be noticeable to many
readers.
All IMHO, of course!
Sarath Krishnaswamy
|>
|> >>makes it a crime (another netter sent me email saying seducing a
|> >>minor is equivalent to rape). Otherwise, it is a case of consensual
|>
|> There was a big thread in soc.(wo)men (all the threads in these
|> groups are very long) about statuary rape.
(etc.)
Not to be picky, but it's statutory, not statuary. Statuary rape
would probably be at least slightly painful and probably not too
gratifying. Not to mention proving consent might be difficult,
and it bothers the pigeons.
Sarath (amused at the concept).
Rajarama Krishnan
>>
>Before anything , I have a request to make ..
>
> in a analytical article like this, it is not worth including
>words of very subjective & trivial natures eg "junk", "primitive" , "BS" etc.
>These causes people to sidetrack from the mainstream -- from what I have
>observed in the past.
I am sorry if my words offended anyone. I never make an attempt to be formal
when I write something on the net. I just write like I would have talked to
someone I knew. I shouldnt have used the works "junk" and "BS". But I did use
"primitive" in the true sense of the word. I really think the people who wrote
Vedas were primitive in the sense I described. ie. their civilisation was not
advanced or sophisticated. This doesnt mean to say that what they said is
wrong. Actually sometimes I feel if I were removed from all these social
restrictions and structures I can be more introspective. May be, may be not.
:-)
Anyway I will try not to use "junk" words hereafter.
>>
>>acceptance of God itself is not an essential part of Indian philosophy. This is
>>one thing that pleases me about it. None of the chief schools of philosophy
>>assume the existence of god in their defence of their philosophy.
>
> Not altogether true. Some talk explicitly some very implcitly.
>But most of them talk about a force beyond us. Some say it is
>"God" ( with specefic names at times), some say it is "nature", "True Slef".
>Note that even buddhism in general does not deny the presence.
>In theravada buddhism buddha takes a complete rational stance where
>there is no acceptance nor deyial of God. But in Mahayana buddhism
>the mention of a power beyond us is explicit. The best part is
I agree that most of the Indian schools of philosophy, have the concept of god.
But what I said is different. None of the leaders like Sankara, Madhava,
Ramanuja etc. assumed the belief in god to defend their philosophy. That is,
their philosophy can be defended even to an atheist. (I dont know this for
certain. I have read very little of their commentaries defending their
philosophies. But Dr. Radhakrishnan says this in his book "Indian Philosophy").
>
>>4. In our Indian way of life we have always had this tendency to accept the
>>words of the dead people as something noble. Because of this, even the
>>philosophers of later days whose philosophies were much more sophisticated,
>>had to base their philosophies on Vedas. They had to reinterpret Vedas to
>>incorporate their philosophy to gain public acceptance. This is what Sankara,
>>Madhava etc did.
>
> I differ. I donot think anyone re-interpreted ( assuming
>that you mean thet said something which was not intended by the auther).
>In my view they only changed the then existed views -- most of them were
>currepted by social "evils".
During, what is called the Scholastic period in Indian philosophy, people
like Sankara, Madhava etc. propounded their ideas. They always used to quote
Vedas, Upanishads etc. to defend their claims. This is what I meant by saying
that they reinterpreted Vedas to incorporate their own philosophy. I should
have probably said they used Vedas to defend their own philosophies.
>>to compile all of them together. Bhagavat Gita is just his own philosophy.
>>Krishna being god and speaking out noble truths etc. is all BS. There is no
>>point in arguing whether Krishna said something or Arjuna said it in the
>>Bagavat Gita. Neither did. Vyasa said it. He talked about his philosophy whic
>>assumed the caste distinction which was a part of his society. It does have
>>good aspects of the Vedanta philosophy. It does contain several points that
>>worth pondering over like,
>
> No one knows whether they were said by Krishna ( elaborated by Vyasar)
>or not. So to argue for or against is a useless effort. However
>what is important is the contetnts, anyway.
> But calling is is BS is a but too much over the top. Personnaly
>I donot give anything much importance based on who said it. But
>there are many who does it. Lets respect their sentiments too.
>The same way you are asserting that the principles were Vyasa's
>someone else can say that it is Krishna's ( after all both are
>names :-)
Comeon does a guy saying 18 chapters full of Bhagavad Gita on the warfeild
sound plausible. OK OK! :-) Lets not get into the argument of whether Krishna
was just a fictional character or a exagerated real life character or
a real life human or a god. I will vote for one of the first two. As long as
people dont go about saying that what is said in it is correct because
Krishna is a god it is fine with me. You do seem to be prepared for this.
So I am not going to argue with you whether Krishna said it or Vyasa said it.
>
>>
>>I find BJP's propoganda very amusing (and at times scary). What do they mean
>>by a Hindu country. The muslims in India are as much Hindu as anyone else.
>>What do they mean by Hindu law. There is no such thing. How are they identiying
>>people as Hindus or non-hindus. There no religion by the name Hinduism.
>>
>
> It is funny that you jumped from the "high" altitude to
>a deep valley in a few seconds :-))
> No offence intended, but if it hurts I appologise to
>BJP supportes :-))
Dont coclude that I think that all BJP stands for is wrong. I do appreciate
some aspects of BJP too. :-) But this quoted aspect of BJP is certainly
amusing to me.
>
> raj
I am glad that we agree on most of the points.
Rajaram