Posted: 04 December 2012 at 4:29pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by anu rulz
at risk of blasphemy, i respectfully disagree..even if it was for the "greater Good", not even God has the right to violate a woman's chastity..whether it was lust or duty, a woman was cheated and raped..and then later, we try to compensate by calling her one of the 7 pious women..why? because she was wronged and all know tht..same goes with Ahilya..for no fault of hers, she was punished..what was Vrinda's fault? tht she prayed for her husband??how was it not her duty? if she hadnt, she would have been blamed for not being "pati-vrata".. all through history and mythology, the woman has been blamed for whatever she does..remember the saying of "sita chup rahi to ramayan hua, draupadi boli to mahabharat hua" u just cant win...
I respectfully disagree. Your argument is flawed. You are equating God and humans on the same plane. Thats the biggest problem with stories... it makes God feel more human-like rather than the True reality. The biggest Truth is that God is genderless. What do you say about Ayyappa?? Hope you have heard of the story of Shiva mating with Mohini (Vishnu's feminine form) ?? In their "level" there is no male/female distinction.. there are feminine/masculine characters/gunas... they are not physically different.
Now when it comes to Vrinda.. lets assume Vishnu kept quiet and did not interfere. No one would be able to destroy Jalandar.. that would mean countless women raped/murdered at the hands of a demon... who is going to take the burden of those deaths??? Brahma? Shiva? Devatas? Vishnu?? Or ... Vrinda???
Vishnu might have had guilt that he did not act at the right time, but Vrinda would never be able to excuse herself for being the cause for countless women being raped/murdered. All it required was for Vrinda to yield to the fact that her husband was a demon who tortured others. Her selfishness made her blind to the sufferings of others.
This is a classic example to show that Bhakthi can be more dangerous than Tapasya. If with Tapasya, you can attain boons to do both good and bad, you at least leave behind loopholes so God can counter it. With Bhakthi, you can literally bind God. So even God becomes helpless in front of his Bhaktha. Vrinda misused her Bhakthi towards Vishnu.
You also say that 'she would have been blamed for not being "pati-vrata"' < this is totally false. There are countless demons who have died at the hands of Shiva and Vishnu and i bet you don't know who their wives were :P No one blames them for not being "pati-vrata". Lets enumerate all demons in devon ke dev itself: Tarkasur (who was his wife?? no one knows, no one cares, no one blames), Bhasmasur (who was his wfie?? no one knows, no one cares, no one blames) and i can go on and on all the way till Vishnu's most recent Avatar of Krishna. No one remembers those wives nor do they blame them. So this argument is flawed too.
According to me, if Vrinda had prayed to Vishnu to give her husband a better brain rather than asking for his health, she would have never suffered like the way she did... Jalandar would have been alive and this world would not have suffered unnecessarily.
Just because one becomes a Pati Vratha stree, she cannot overturn the fact that Good has to triumph over Evil. That is going against Nature. What Vrinda was doing was indirectly evil... by protecting her husband, she was promoting evil. At least i hope you don't say otherwise.. supporting evil is as bad as doing evil. However, Vishnu chastising Vrinda did not result in any evil.. Vrinda marries Vishnu in her next birth (Tulsi Vivah) and thats the end of story. In fact, I go on to say that its a great thing that when Shiva requests Vishnu, he took up the task instead of handing it over/passing the responsibility to anyone else... He knew the consequences of the Act and still chose to go ahead with it... He knew very well that he would be cursed and was ready to face that... He did not care about what the Universe thought/would think about the act because for him, his duty to protect the Universe was more important than his image/prestige/esteem. He did not do it in secrecy... he took the consent of his consort, the devatas and Shiva/Brahma before engaging in this act.. This kind of decision can only be taken by a God and not by mere mortals.
That way, one can argue that Shiva should have stopped Sati from self-immolation irrespective of any kind of obligations/situations... one can also argue that Ram should have not let Sita give Agni Pareeksha just because some people in the court doubted her character; why just that.. one can also argue that there should only be Good (suras) and no Evil(asuras)... these arguments are total nonsense and have no well-defined logic. When the people who went through this suffering have no issues with it later, we have no right to call it unholy and it will definitely result in blasphemy. Comparing it with Indra's case is even worse. Indra did it out of lust, for his own self. That did not result in Greater Good.
You cannot equate a Murderer with a Soldier. Both kill. But one is honored while the other is hanged. If you only look at the Act of "killing" then you should punish both. But the "reason" is more important than the "Act".
Edited by shripadk - 04 December 2012 at 5:11pm