- Shiv' Maha Puraan' sent by the reader
- Vidur'Neeti Kaashi edition sent by the reader
- Chaanakya'Neeti Arya Samaj edition sent by the reader
- Chaanakya'Neeti English edition sent by the reader
Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:00 AM
- Let us look at copy of Shiv'Puraan' that you have sent me. It states: उसके साथ तुम छल करो and, you have interpreted it as rape him. This interpretation could be more in tune with today's mentality, and you would realize that this is certainly not the only possible interpretation. A proper interpretation would be that which is in tune with the period that it relates to.
- To help you get a feel of this, first let me take you back to the sixteenth century, and then by 'extrapolation' derive its proper interpretation in context of the period to which the incident belonged to. Do you watch महा राणा प्रताप (Sony TV Mon-Thu 10PM)? At the alter of Jauhar जौहर, Patraani पटरानी of Chittore चित्तौड़ says something like this: 'if I never thought of a परपुरुष (another man) in my life...' That was how सतीत्व / पतिव्रत धर्म was perceived 'even up to' 400 years ago. So, you can visualize the पराकाष्ठा (height/ climax) of this concept in Hindoo history stretching back to numerous millenniums.
- Now look at the interpretation in महादेव (LifeOK Mon to Fri 8 PM). Shree Vishnu adopts the appearance of Jalandhar, much the same way Jalandhar had adopted the appearance of Maha Dev'. In doing so, जलंधर did छल to पार्वती, so did Shree Vishnu do to वृन्दा - mind you, none raped any one.
- You should be extremely careful interpreting things of another era in the backdrop of current era. Or else, you would be bringing much harm to your brethren whom you want to make more सशक्त. Christian missionaries and Christianized Hindoos do that either by malice or by ignorance. It is, however, not expected of sincere Hindoos to fall prey to that kind of behavior pattern.
- Now, let us look at विदुरनीति 17. कपटता for कपटता, साधुता for साधुता -- is it not same as छल for छल? They took Arjun' far away from चक्रव्यूह and killed his unarmed son, not in one-to-one fight but one to ten, or something like that. This justified later reciprocal event (द्रोणाचार्य vis-a-vis इति गज)
- Both versions of चाणक्यनीति endorse the same thought process. And that is why capital punishments were given and law and order was better maintained in earlier days.
- Now, returning to your recommendation of sodomizing the rapist because you cannot rape a man the same way you rape a woman, or 'quid pro quo' raping the rapist's wife is not the right interpretation of what we discussed above with regard to कपटता for कपटता, साधुता for साधुता, and छल for छल
- The day 'judgments' are delivered by literal interpretation of quid pro quo, that will be the end of 'justice'. One needs to understand (not literal meaning) and assimilate the underlying tone of what had been said elsewhere, and then interpret with great caution and wisdom.
- So, what would you do with the rapist as an appropriate दण्ड punishment? Do something that he will not be able to rape again. Castrate him publicly.
- Think, why did he rape in the first place? Was it to derive pleasure? Then do something which will not permit him to derive any pleasure of that functionality throughout his life. Castrate him publicly.
2013 07 11, 03:25 AM - my reply
- Hindoo is, by his very nature, incapable of raping the rapist's wife. A common Hindoo may find this repulsive. I am not speaking of exceptions. As a consistent behavior pattern, Hindoo is simply incapable of adopting this. If and when he does, he would be coming down to the level of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Marxism/Communism. And that will be the death of Hindooism.
- It is best to leave the verses, as it is, and allow the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusion as to how he would want to interpret them. When we begin to interpret them our way without reproducing the original verse by the side, all that we are doing is putting our ideas into their minds robbing them of the opportunity to ascertain whether they agree to our mode of interpretation or not. In reality this amounts to misleading them if our interpretation is incorrect. Driven by Parrot Humanoid Syndrome, such misleading ideas take control of numerous minds. This is precisely what Christians did all along and Marxists have followed the pattern. Those who understand Hindooism also know that the foundation on which Hindooism was built and rests till today does not conform to this method. For this very reason Hindooism has withstood the Test Of Time while others will perish.
2013 07 11, 03:41 AM - my reply
- When we say Shree Vishnu raped Vrinda on advice of Paarvati, we are telling Hindoos how dirty our Tridev' and significant Devees were; and, we are telling Christians and Marxists to go ahead and tell the world how dirty were our worshipped ones.
- By doing so we are hurting Hindoo interests thinking we are empowering the Hindoos. No, we are empowering malice ridden Christian missionaries and Marxist sickularists aiding them with additional ammunition to hurt us; and at the same time, we are adding to the guilt conscience of the self-condemning Hindoo.
- As time is very precious to me, I shall only deal with conceptual matters if I see it doing any good, or else quit the debate.