When I suggested this to a friend, he mentioned that as a Hindu he already gives up meat, so why the need to give up anything more? The answer is that as admirable (I think) as it is to give up meat, it is not something which, at this point of our lives, we struggle with daily. Challenging ourselves to give up something that has been an integral but not necessarily beneficial part of our lives in the present time can create discipline, and show us new opportunities and avenues to pursue in life. You might never know how much you like apples until you gave up chocolate, or how much you liked reading the New York Times until you gave up Facebook. The origins of Lent include the following, according to Wikipedia:

“Jesus retreated into the desert, where he fasted for forty days, and was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1-2, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-2). Jesus overcame all three of Satan’s temptations by citing scripture to the devil, at which point the devil left him, angels ministered to Jesus, and he began his ministry. Jesus further said that his disciples should fast “when the bridegroom shall be taken from them” (Matthew 9:15), a reference to his Passion. Since, presumably, the Apostles fasted as they mourned the death of Jesus, Christians have traditionally fasted during the annual commemoration of his burial.”

Stories of early Lent are also worth reading:

“Fasting during Lent was more severe in ancient times than today. Socrates Scholasticus reports that in some places, all animal products were strictly forbidden, while others will permit fish, others permit fish and fowl, others prohibit fruit and eggs, and still others eat only bread. In some places, believers abstained from food for an entire day; others took only one meal each day, while others abstained from all food until 3 o’clock. In most places, however, the practice was to abstain from eating until the evening, when a small meal without meat or alcohol was eaten.”

The idea of fasting is not uncommon in Hinduism — for example, my mom fasts approximately every 2 weeks (by the Indian calendar) for Ekadeshi/Agyaras, as well as on various special holidays throughout the year. Taking on this ritual of personal sacrifice every year could make us stronger individuals and learn more about ourselves. The Question of the Week: Do you think a practice such as Lent could be personally and spiritually beneficial in a developmental sense? Would it be fine for Hindus to practice something similar if they felt it was a good idea?

Related posts:

1. Lent Since last Wednesday, many people around the world, both Christians...
2. Question of the Week: Why vegetarianism? One of the most prominent issues in Hinduism is the...
3. Question of the Week: Is Hinduism a religion? At one of our weekly discussions a while back, we...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Rama’s obedience to the rules of family and law is certainly admirable, but at times can be disconcerting. As a member of the ruling family who clearly garners the most praise and respect from his people, Rama’s decision to travel to the forest because of his father’s bad judgment decades earlier, despite the fact that his brother, Bharat, is ready to restore him as King, and the fact that Rama would certainly have the public support to take back the throne if he desired, poses the question of which is more important: a responsibility to the people and a moral duty, or a responsibility to misguided laws and wishes made long ago (in this case, by a stepmother, Kaikeyi)? One of Rama’s character marks was his will to always, without fail or exception, obey the laws and norms of his society and family. As a contrast, in the Mahabharata, Krishna encouraged and told Arjun he had to fight against members of his own family, even if it meant that he would be breaking societal norms. Arjun had a greater moral duty to fulfill. This is not to say the rule of law is not important; the last eight years have shown us that obeying the rule of law is of utmost importance in a democratic society. But the Ramayana does not discuss the rule of law in a democratic society; it discusses societal and family norms that are many millennia old.

The most disconcerting element of the Ramayana is the general treatment and portrayal of his wife, Sita. Sita is nothing if not a good wife and friend to Ram; she goes with him to a dangerous forest for 14 years, after all. And to his credit, Ram (with the help of Lakshman, Hanuman, and a formidable monkey army) goes to Lanka recover his wife from the demon, Ravana. The trouble starts afterward, when Ram has his wife, Sita, march through a fire to prove her faithfulness to him through her years in captivity. The logical justification for this is fairly light, at least by my progressive standards: if Sita was possibly unfaithful to Rama during her captivity by a huge, ugly, demon, it probably was not by choice, and in this case, Ram is looking to punish her for being raped by a demon during his absence. Not only this, but why is Ram’s faithfulness never questioned? Between a highly eligible heir apparent to the throne and a woman imprisoned by a cruel demon, it seems sensible that one would worry slightly more about the faithfulness of the crown prince.

Despite the humiliating nature of the very action, Sita does walk through the fire and proves her obedience to Rama. Yet because people of the empire spread rumors about her supposed infidelity, Rama sends her on a second exile to the forest to live with the sage Valmiki, where she lives briefly before re-entering the Earth. The message that Rama’s action sends about the treatment or image of women is very sad. Sita did nothing to deserve a second exile and a depressing and lonely end to her life, and what does it say about a man when he values the pristine image of his royal throne above his wife’s well-being and happiness? Many will argue that Rama was just following the societal norms of the time, to which I would argue, if Rama was one of the greatest figures in our entire religion’s history, why did he not break convention for principles (women’s equality, general fairness) that are almost universally respected by good people in today’s world?

Many counter-arguments will be proposed to the points I make here, and I hope they will be. A common one might be that the Ramayana must be read in the context of the time period it was written in; I will agree that human society has definitely become more progressive since the time of the writing of the Ramayana, but I would also say that it is then necessary to change our views of the story for the times. There are still a multitude of worthy lessons to learn from the Ramayana; Rama is no doubt a good person, Lakshman is a very loyal and admirable character, Hanuman is courageous and unbelievably brave, and Bharata is a wise and kind brother to Rama. The Ramayana, however, just as the Bible is in Christianity, must be viewed with a critical eye as well; our faith and culture must promote gender equality and flexibility of thought and doctrine if Hinduism is to stay relevant in the future.

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: Are Hindu Epics Literature, History, or Scripture? Ram Navami was this past Friday, and for that reason,...
2. Question of the Week: Hinduism and Relationships We may all need food, water, and shelter to survive,...
3. Authentic or Apocryphal? Does it even matter? In one of the discussions with Swami Tyagananda during the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.