Welcome back (this thread seems to have gone cold recently may be time to warm it up ) I asked for some information on the underpinnings of the teachings in the later parts of the SES --"higher " levels , several things were mentioned and Bella gave a way to find what "manu" was
(thanks) -- unfortunately the answers to my questions seem to again raise problems of the "political incorrectness" of taking issue with "traditional practices and culture" which almost guarantees I get another haranging or quasi-apologetic 'forgiveness' for not knowing any better ......
Accepting that risk, here goes ;- "manu", taught by the SES and at St James, is traditional Hindu Law still being practiced and by definition immutable and divinely inspired .
Go to www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/manu-full.html
for a thousand plus stanza printout "Laws of manu 1500 BCE "
There are repeated references to how "females cannot be trusted" , "females tell lies" "women must submit to men " ad infinitum and these are clearly the source for SES subjugation of women (and referred to by ex St James students )
In the opening stanzas (the Hindu "Genesis") for some peculiar reason they refer to the different status of 'animals with two rows of teeth ' -- not unlike the cloven hoof thing in Judaism (apart from Sharks what else has multiple rows of teeth? Funny how bizarre little quirks lodge in the memory )
Another mentioned in passing was "Chita" -- this too is a real doozy .
Check out http://humanists.net/avijit/article/shotihaho.htm
"SHOTI-DAHO" (what is it?) Chita refers to the quaint Hindu law that requires a wife to be burned (alive) on her husband's funeral pyre , or, in the case of multiple wives,concubines etc up to 700 PLUS females on one man's funeral pyre (how do you fit them all on ? -- now I am being flippant about a truly horrendous 'cultural practice' - apologies )
Where do manu and chita figure in the Vedic teachings behind the SES ?
(both only came to my attention from others postings on the WATD site )
For some other interesting folk law (that some would say we cannot criticize or "disrespect" since anything you want to nominate as 'equal' to anything else must be accepted as so by all others lest you condemn them as 'culturally insensitive' or 'racist' (good hate words in themselves)www.eniar.org/news/shame.html
carries an interesting story from the English Independent on line "secret abuse shame of aboriginal women"
Amongst the time honoured cultural practices of our aboriginal friends is described the intriguing one called "firestick" whereby an aboriginal man ,having reached the considered conclusion that his wife may have been unfaithful to him can administer an appropriate punishment by using a piece of wood taken from the fire to "enter" his woman with.
Other uses of "burning' to punish, perhaps kill are referred to , 'spearing' also sometimes causes death by infection or severing an artery but hey,it's culturally sensitive.
Hands up those who in all honesty will defend this practice or find it troubling to decide if it must be accepted as 'civilized'.
To conclude , the practice of marrying off (arranged marriage) of young women to older men -- also attracting criticism when practiced by the SES-
(who,let us not forget are a defineable group having a religious or other basis and therefore can claim any 'practice' within their group as being a cultural or traditional one therefore -to some- exempt from censure and, if you do, constituting actual "genocide" which again,somehow puts you in the evil league of Adolf Hitler )
Look up the case of "application of traditional aboriginal law " - the case of Jackie Pascoe Jamilimira -- basically Jackie, a middle aged aboriginal man, "bought", by means of gifts to her family , a 13 year old aboriginal girl as his 'wife' . She didn't like the idea and he "had" to beat her.
(see the law of manu at this point ) He also raped her and otherwise brought himself to the attention of the law and a white (male) magistrate
who, being politically correct ,decided that Mr Jamilimira had not broken traditional aboriginal law and should be let free.
Unfortunately an unenlightened black aboriginal magiststrate (Louise or later Lowitja O'Donoghue , who despite the Irish surname is aboriginal and a qualified magistrate in' white' law courts ) thought that the black law was barbaric and called for "justice" by application of 'white' British based law.
Is this confusing or what ? I(white male) am labelled racist by someone( white female) who would condone female (black) child rape by a (black ) aboriginal man who is condemned by a (female black) upholder of (white)western values as "barbaric" ?
Just to avoid poltically correct doublespeak and oblivious to cheap racist slurs I would condemn without qualification any of these female subjugating, uncivilized,barbaric practices whether manu,chita or even older cultural "beliefs" (eg aboriginal)
If we have no respect for our own cultural advances and swallow archaic crap whether 'mystic' eastern or aboriginal that are too profound and esoteric for our dulled sensibilities to properly appreciate we stand for nothing and fall for everything .
The same group pressure that silences people who enter the SES also operates to "defend" aboriginal 'pure' culture -- even the actual practices are quite similar . How can you claim to support and oppose essentially the same thing ? (ADG ??)
Can anyone add to the background of SES adult school beliefs (or defend them other than by name calling ?)
Happy reading Ross Nolan.