[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Kama Sutra and soc.religion.hindu
[ There has recently been some discussion about what articles are or
are not appropriate for soc.religion.hindu, and these are some of
my comments about Bobby Gupta's recent article which mentioned the
Kama Sutra. This article was originally posted to news.groups and
soc.culture.indian, since that's where Bobby Gupta posted his article
(obviously, since it got rejected from SRH). I've changed the title
to be a little more descriptive, since this is SRH ]
In article <1996Feb7.220611.14639@giant>, cwestbury@giant.intranet.com (Chris Westbury) writes:
[ in response to Bobby Gupta ]
|> You're halfway there! But you missed one little point! They *also* have to be
|> on some aspect of the Hindu *religion*! Not Hindu society! Not even ancient
|> Hindu society! And, sad to say, sex is no longer considered any part of
|> religion!
>From Mr. Gupta's rejected article:
"For example, I was talking to an American friend of mine about the
Ramayyana, and he was curious about the part where Sita is reunited
with Rama. Rama takes her in at first, as we all know, but then he
kicks her out after hearing some man yelling at his adulterous wife.
People say Sita was chaste and pure, so why would Rama do that?"
and
"Coupling this sort of information with the story leading up to Rama
kicking out Sita, it makes me wonder if there was ever a time during
this so-called "Ram Rajaya" when everyone was pure. I think this is
just wishful thinking."
Now, I'm not going to pass judgement myself over the logic of the
article, and in fact, I find the second question to be a little
naive, in all honesty. The first question, however, is a _very_
valid question, and this is quite often asked, particularly when
discussing the role of women in Hinduism, or Hinduism and
gender-relations.
I personally would dismiss the rest of the article, since most of
it doesn't interest me, but I would like to see a discussion on that
first point, and for that reason alone, I think it has at least
some relevance to soc.religion.hindu.
However, there is a larger question, and that is "Is the Kama Sutra
part of Hinduism?". Given that I think that the Dharma Shastras,
other sutras, and the laws of Manu are all valid topics for
soc.religion.hindu, I would have no problem with the discussion of
the Kama Sutra, so long as it related in some way to soc.religion.hindu.
I wouldn't want the conversation to degenerate into "I've tried this
and this, but haven't tried this yet", but I think that Mr. Gupta's
article is far from that.
I also have a comment about the last statement I quoted from you,
where you say "And, sad to say, sex is no longer considered any part of
religion!". I believe this statement is patently false, unless you'd
like to dismiss Tantric Buddhism and Tantric Hinduism. I personally
don't have a high opinion of what I've seen of Tantric Hinduism in the
US, but I do know that there is most definitely a fair degree of interest
in Tantra in general, so I believe that there is most definitely a role
for sex in religion.
-Vivek
P.S. I meant no offense in any of the above, and I hope that none is
taken, either by you, Mr. Westbury, or by Mr. Gupta.
