We assume as a given that polyandry, polygamy, or, more radically, incest wrong. I think this is just a perception because we were told this is wrong from our birth.
There are many conceivable social conditions where polygamy and polyandry must be encouraged, if not outright necessary. And a detailed reading of these holy books show at least 1-2 instances of incest, if not more (I am guessing a lot more. Quran does not have it, I think, as it is relatively recently written. But there is this instance of mohammad marrying his foster son's wife?). Incest became a taboo because it is genetically disadvantageous and people with severe disabilities were born (as is acknowledged in many advanced biology classes).
I think, the decision of practising polygamy, polyandry, homosexuality, or dare I say, (hopefully nobody starts abusing) incest is not morally indefensible if it practiced by consenting individuals. Of these polygamy and polyandry is more so not the business of anybody else, if all individuals consent. Incest, on the other hand, I think, needs regulation as innocent kids with severe disabilities may be born.
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 04:27 PM Permalink
Good morning, I read that. It would be fun to say those things independent of Gita, and see what people opine.
I think most would like it, but once the source is revealed gita, it might lose some of its' appeal. Anyway, the message is more important than the messenger.
And saying "new religion" when you advocated primacy of reason (loosely "no religion" as no faith is involved) is a little ironic.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:42 PM Permalink
No. i DID NOT use "new religion" at all. It was my dear friend George who used it. If he and u-my friends r comfortable thinking like that-fine.
I like Gita becoz it advocates "primacy of reason". See verse [18:63]. It is a good scripture becoz Krishna says logical things and "commends it to conscience of Arjuna and humanity". Bad scriptures r mandatory and illogical.
My conscience does not permit to pass off good things said by someone else as my own only to enhance its appeal.
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:43 PM Permalink
Illogical scriptures have to be made mandatory-otherwise no one will obey them.
Whether Krishna be God or not what I like is he talks to Arjuna nad not talks down to him.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:47 PM Permalink
If I could condense it even more it will be "pescribed action(duties) carried out with proper mindset". "Proper mindset to be developed by personality development(Ch.12 and 16) and meditation".
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 05:24 PM Permalink
My friend George thought that I was there to defend fairytales and incredulous things in hindu literature.I was here to oppose fairytales and incredulous things from bible which these eavngelist guys were imposing on everyone.
The moral of the story is that if u can blindly believe incredulous things in hindu scriptures, u can believe the incredulous things of Abrahamic faiths which becomes a greater threat to humanity.
From believing less dangerous things without questioning, one graduates to believing more dangerous things without questioning.
RE:Right and wrong?
by JGN on Jun 15, 2007 05:25 PM Permalink
Dear Anand, I am fine. As you know I am an Atheist. I had posted some verses from the Bible only due to some Christians abusing Hinduism (especially the Panchali episode). Please try to propagate Atheism as there is no point in fighting in the name of religions and the so-called holy books.
RE:RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 05:29 PM Permalink
JGN Dear-Jor ka Jhatka dheere se. Dont take away the comfort of a God so suddenly.
So, Gitaism is a transitional phase. Probably Vyasa had intended it that way. Gita is rationalism sugar-coated with theology. He thought Humanity will follow verse no.,63 of Chapter 18(Relect on what I say and then act as u plaese) and graduate to rationality.
But this Manu moron(first abusive word I am using) came from somewhere and screwed up Bharat Varsha. Actually, the period of 3BC to 14AD in Indian history is dark age. Our decline accelerated due to destruction of our institutions. But that Manu moron
RE:Right and wrong?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 05:16 PM Permalink
I guess I must improve my english. I did not say that you said its "new religion". I said it was not right for somebody to say so, when you didn't intent anything like that.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Anand Iyer on Jun 15, 2007 04:03 PM Permalink
I have not opposed incest per se in the biblical verses. That the father was seduced by wine by the daughters. It is deceit which is the greater immoral thing becoz it hurts or harms someone. Though personally I think incest is morally revolting, I am not here to impose my beliefs on others. If concerned people consent, well.... I am not to dictate moarality. Diito for all other things that u mentioned.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Sarath Chandra on Jun 15, 2007 04:20 PM Permalink
I did not keep in mind those specific incidents while typing the above message. I read some messages saying things assuming that polyandry is wrong.
These (polyandry and polygamy) have been practiced extensively in many past societies, and we would think it is right, if we were born then.
And yes, rape and deceit, obviously cannot be morally defensible.
RE:Right and wrong?
by Nostra Damus on Jun 02, 2008 07:55 PM Permalink
Though the Egyptians married their own sisters, incest is generally found revolting by most societies. Nowadays, it is not all that uncommon in the 'civilized' West, like among the Germans where a man kept as prisoner and raped his own daughters.
