Rational explanations to ignorant thougts and practice.

[DoctorJ]

Friends,

Let's use this thread to provide rational explanations t0 ignorant thoughts and practice. If one does not have a rational explanation, s/he could still go ahead and pose the question and we can use our knowledge/experience to derive one after discussing the same.

Below, I quote our friend Bobus to initiate this thread.

There may be some truth in traditional wisdom - some of it may be applicable today, some of it too vague to be of any use today given that our knowledge has increased, and some of it may have been applicable in the context in which the wisdom arose. Examples:
--------------

Many may have heard the refrain "Dont throw garbage out at night - if you do, Lakshmi will go away".

In those days, there were no electric lights at home or in the street. Evenings/nights were dark, except for some oil lamps. In such conditions, it is difficult to see. Trash may contain a valuable object e.g. a gold ring of someone in the household that fell accidentally into the trash. If trash is dumped out at night, it would be difficult to see what is being emptied out and one may end up throwing valuable things out - hence the saying Lakshmi will go away and that it is better to dump trash out during the day. Of course, it aint applicable today when we have good lighting at night".
[/quote]

In Tamil Nadu, weddings are not conducted in the month of Maargazhi (Dec 15 to Jan 15) since it is considered inauspicious. Can one rationalize it? Here is my conjecture:

Pongal is the harvest festival and occurs around Jan 15. In an agri society, the time of harvest is very busy and labor is at a premium. At that time, if one holds a wedding which also demands a lot of labor, it would be socially disruptive, not many people will be able to attend, and cost a lot more since hired labor will be more expensive. So it is better to hold the wedding after the harvest and that is perhaps the origin of another saying about the month of Thai which follows the harvest. "Thai Piranthaal, Vazhi Porakkum" (when the month of Thai comes, routes will open up).[/quote]
================================================
Rational thinking could help people get over their ignorant inhibitions. -DJ :cool:

[KRV]

In Tamil Nadu, weddings are not conducted in the month of Maargazhi (Dec 15 to Jan 15) since it is considered inauspicious. Can one rationalize it? Here is my conjecture:

Pongal is the harvest festival and occurs around Jan 15. In an agri society, the time of harvest is very busy and labor is at a premium. At that time, if one holds a wedding which also demands a lot of labor, it would be socially disruptive, not many people will be able to attend, and cost a lot more since hired labor will be more expensive. So it is better to hold the wedding after the harvest and that is perhaps the origin of another saying about the month of Thai which follows the harvest. "Thai Piranthaal, Vazhi Porakkum" (when the month of Thai comes, routes will open up).

In addition to the above practical reason, there is also a spriritual reason IMO for this. In Bhagavad Geeta Chapter 11, Lord Krishna states "I am Mrigasheersha among all the months" while saying how he embodies the best among all categories of life on this earth and beyond. As a result, ancient wisdom holds "margahsheersham" (margazhi in Tamil) as the most sacred of all the months, a month dedicated to worship and spiritual pursuits. In Tamil tradition, it is also the month where Kodhai (AndAL), the daughter of Vaishnava priest, worshipped the Lord everyday and attained the status of the Lord's consort.

As a result of such religious and spiritual history accorded to this month of Margazhi, family or related economic activity conducted by humans such as marriage, buying a home or other such activity were not to be conducted this month lest the focus be distracted from worship and prayer. In ancient tamil, the days of Margazhi were referred to as "peedu" (pride or honor, for God), which over the centuries morphed unfortunately in vernacular as the days of "peedai" (bad or ill-fated). Nevertheless, it still had the same effect of not favoring this month for important family or economic activity.

[Suri]

Here's one (just my guess)

Circle the temple 3-5 times as an act of respect to God.

Tell the common man that exercising is good for you, walk every morning, and he may not follow through. Instill the fear of God and ask him to circle in reverence and exercise happens automatically...

[DoctorJ]

In my opinion, epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata are simply mythological tales penned by great authors likeValmiki and Veda Vyasa. Anyways, the point of discussion here is...

The depiction of Ravana as a 10 headed monster/demon (apart from being a good king, great Brahmin, a loving brother etc.) is...probably a way the author is trying to suggest that the individual was a multi-personality (please don't tell me ihe was 10 kids joined by a single body).

It is similar to the split or dual-personality of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the novel written by the scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson. It is about a London lawyer who investigates strange occurrences between his old friend Dr. Henry Jekyll and the misanthropic Edward Hyde. The work is known for it's vivid portrayal of the psychopathology of split personalities in mainstream culture. The very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" has come to signify wild and bipolar behavior. For more information, check this link Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
==================================================
It is hard to predict the ways of a normal person...Imagine dealing with somebody who has split or multi-personality. -DJ :cool:

[AK_GULT]

Jekyll & Hyde is a well-known fictitious story...There's no need to link it with a religious story...You should refrain from doing so...

"Whether Ramayana or Bible or Koran is a myth or not" should be discussed with a great deal of sensitivity, and should not be brushed up with an irrelevant J&H story...

That is inappropriate in this forum...and should be moderated.

AK

In my opinion, epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata are simply mythological tales penned by great authors likeValmiki and Veda Vyasa. Anyways, the point of discussion here is...

The depiction of Ravana as a 10 headed monster/demon (apart from being a good king, great Brahmin, a loving brother etc.) is...probably a way the author is trying to suggest that the individual was a multi-personality (please don't tell me ihe was 10 kids joined by a single body).

It is similar to the split or dual-personality of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the novel written by the scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson. It is about a London lawyer who investigates strange occurrences between his old friend Dr. Henry Jekyll and the misanthropic Edward Hyde. The work is known for it's vivid portrayal of the psychopathology of split personalities in mainstream culture. The very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" has come to signify wild and bipolar behavior. For more information, check this link Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
==================================================
It is hard to predict the ways of a normal person...Imagine dealing with somebody who has split or multi-personality. -DJ :cool:[/quote]

[layman]

Let me try out a few stuff from my side to understand the vision of our ancestors.

(1) Caste system
Our ancestors devised the caste system because they are the original capitalists, not the Americans or westerners. They had the vision that in the 20th century there will be a big divide between the haves and have nots. CEOs will be paid $100 million bonus for laying off poor worker and another $100 million golden parachute for incompetency. Our ancestors wanted to avoid unnecessary struggle and schooling etc for these select few to achieve these envious positions. They wanted to make the whole process simple. So, they said whoever born to such and such are born CEOs. Whoever born to so and so are born architects. Neat, huh:D

(2) Sathi
Our ancestors knew that our country is going to be overcrowded in the 20th century. So, they wanted to control our population in advance. Instead of a widow remarrying and producing children again they felt they are better off dying. Besides, who will pay social security, pension, health care etc? :)

(3) Ganga and Moksha
Our ancestors knew that Ganga is used for irrigation by farmers. They wanted to add manure and nutrition for plants. So, they said, throw dead bodies in Ganga so that they will reach heaven.

(4) God's anger
Whenever there was a disease in a village the village head used to say that it was not really any disease and the truth was that the village god was angry. As a remedy he arranges for the sacrifice (another great custom we should be proud of) of hundred cows or 10 humans etc. This was all for population control. If we had followed our tradition, a lot of villages would have been wiped out and we will not have this 1.2 billion people today. Because of these treacherous westerners and their allopathy medicines, we are suffering today. :D

(5)Female circumcision
In a certain society, females were circumcized so that they won't be able to enjoy the pleasure of sex. It is a great practice because their husbands need not spend money on Viagra, Cialis etc.

I can keep on adding. So, in a nutshell every practice we had was for valid reasons and I urge everyone to get back to those golden days. :emcry:

[Bobus]

My comments on #3 thru #6, and some thoughts follow:

#3 may have a grain of truth.

On a related note, that many places of piligrimage are tucked away in hills or remote places has intrigued me. Perhaps the location choice had to do with a desire to force exercise on those who seek access. Yet it seems more likely that the location choice was motivated by a desire to force piligrims out of and away from their day to day routine lives and provide an atmosphere that is conducive to reflection.

I have heard it being mentioned that when one visits a temple, one must sit down for a while, before leaving it. Again, the idea was perhaps to slow people down and promote reflection and to make sure people did not make a whirlwind tour of a temple or treat the visit as a mere chore among their other daily or weekly chores.

I have also wondered whether prayer was, among other things, an excuse/mechanism to allow people some private time in reflection. The then prevailing cultural norms did not quite allow people (especially women) to say "I want some time and space to myself". Yet for sanity, such time and space is almost essential. And the same cultural norms respected the private space and time of people in prayer.

The imposed seclusion of women in the household during the days of the monthly period was also perhaps a way of ensuring that women got much needed rest during that time. The practice of sending pregnant women to their parental homes until the baby is a few months old also had its merits - women are likely to be more comfortable in their parental home and also less burdened with daily chores.

The above is not to suggest that all was hunky dory. On the contrary, many practices sucked. Am merely trying to come up with some conjectures that provide some rationale to some traditional practices in the context in which they originated, especially those that served the people well. For example, the practice of forcing widows (even young ones) to shave their heads, give up ornaments and flowers, and wear a single piece of cloth does have a rational explanation - society wanted to ensure that no man was attracted to widows - however the practice was inhuman.

#4 is an interesting interpretation of the portrayal of a character in a story.

The member who posted #5 is entitled to sensitivity or revere the story - I dont agree with the censorship #5 seeks to impose.

#6 does not seem to come up with rational explanations for traditions.

[layman]

Bobus,

#6 was posted in sarcasm to drive the point that most of the traditions are BS and very few have rational explanations.

Casteism, Sathi, female circumcision etc are pure exploitation of one section of society over another. Sacrifice to village god etc are pure ignorance.

We can rationalize anything. It depends on the smartness of the person rationalizing and the foolishness of the people listening. But, we have to isolate BS from practices that may help mankind. That is my point.

[AK_GULT]

If you read it properly, I was not asking for censorship on character portrayal but I take exception to the fact that someone can brush aside a revered script...Freedom of speech is fine, as long as it's done in good taste...To illustrate, it's inappropriate for me to start out with "I believe Bible is a fictional piece written by a hypocritical church", and then justify the piece as an interesting character portrayal, as you did.

Be sensitive is what I'm saying...Arguing the merits of a certain myth or a tradition is ok but some moderation in a loose religious freedom of speech is required.

#3 is an interesting take but #4 is just plain stupid. Those scripts are revered & followed by many, and loosely brushing it as fictional works are not acceptable - not matter what spin you put on it.

AK

#4 is an interesting interpretation of the portrayal of a character in a story.

The member who posted #5 is entitled to sensitivity or revere the story - I dont agree with the censorship #5 seeks to impose.

[/quote]

[Bobus]

#9:

Before using the word censorship, I double checked what was in #5. There is no doubt in my mind, based on the following from #5 that censorship was sought.

You should refrain from doing so...

"Whether Ramayana or Bible or Koran is a myth or not" should be discussed with a great deal of sensitivity, and should not be brushed up with an irrelevant J&H story...

That is inappropriate in this forum...and should be moderated.

---------------

To illustrate, it's inappropriate for me to start out with "I believe Bible is a fictional piece written by a hypocritical church", and then justify the piece as an interesting character portrayal, as you did.

Whether you feel it is appropriate or not, is upto you. Your trying to impose your notion of propriety on others is a different issue.

Be sensitive is what I'm saying...Arguing the merits of a certain myth or a tradition is ok but some moderation in a loose religious freedom of speech is required.

What the heck is this language of requirement / should etc? They are just your views. You revere something and someone does not share your reverence and is expected to be sensitive to your reverence and you impose it as some kinda of requirement?

Those scripts are revered & followed by many, and loosely brushing it as fictional works are not acceptable - not matter what spin you put on it.

It is acceptable to me, even if billions follow or revere it. Clearly you find it difficult.