Living Goddess

[Guest American Woman]

Glad if was of some help! Maybe all the video games are making people a little jaded these days.

It's hard to understand, isn't it?

You might find this article interesting: Divine childhood: How to reconcile a little girl's rights with the need to protect a national tradition. It's from the Nepali Times. Some excerpts:

....some Nepalis have begun questioning the tradition, arguing that this once-prestigious position is a violation of human rights.

A generation ago, hundreds of parents would offer their daughters for the royal kumari selection process, considering the post an honour. But in 2001, when royal caretakers went from house to house in Kathmandu looking for a prospective goddess, only five parents were willing to offer their daughters.

In September 2002, MP Bidya Bhandari, took a public stand against the kumari tradition during a press conference. She urged that the tradition be abolished: "This is a violation not only of the rights of the child, but of women's and human rights," she said. "The girl is isolated from normal society and after a number of years, when she begins to bleed, she is thrown out. It is not only traumatising, it is psychologically damaging for a child to be forced to shift between these two worlds."

Sapana Pradhan Malla, a lawyer and human-rights activist who founded the Forum for Women, Law and Development, agrees: "You are chosen when you are not able to decide what is good or bad for you. The child's interests are decided by parents who see this as a prestige issue, because the kumari is respected by the king."

While the government does provide a modest lifelong pension of Rs 3,000 rupees a month for its former goddesses this is a pittance compared to the value of a lost childhood.

Perhaps some progress has been made as a result of people speaking out against the practice. From what I've read, in August of this year the Supreme Court in Nepal ruled that the girls' human rights must be safeguarded. However, I haven't seen how their rights must be protected elaborated on anywhere, so hopefully it's not just 'window dressing.' The parents' objections to their daughters becoming a living goddess was heartening. Only five parents were willing to offer their daughters in 2001, so perhaps the refusal to give up their daughters will ultimately end this tradition.

Edited October 10, 2008 by American Woman

[myata]

Gimme a break! How many children in your own America and elsewhere are psychlogically damaged by parents forcing on them this and that kind of beliefs/traditions/routines ets. Children who have to go to somewhere, whether they want it or not, follow rituals which are meaningless to them, and much worse things. That's exactly why so many wise ones told us so many times: start changing the world - with ourselves.

[Guest American Woman]

Gimme a break! How many children in your own America and elsewhere are psychlogically damaged by parents forcing on them this and that kind of beliefs/traditions/routines ets. Children who have to go to somewhere, whether they want it or not, follow rituals which are meaningless to them, and much worse things. That's exactly why so many wise ones told us so many times: start changing the world - with ourselves.

I see. I shouldn't care about anyone because there are others who don't have it so great either. Great outlook. Thankfully there are people in this world who realize it takes caring and action to make changes, to undo the wrongs, so progress is being made in spite of outlooks like yours.

Edited October 10, 2008 by American Woman

[myata]

No, the advice is to apply your care where you at least understand (or have a better chance of understanding) what's going on. Progress happens by learning and sharing, which by definition is based on understanding and respect. No progress will / can come from lecturing how the others should behave.

For an obvious proof just put yourself in their shoes. Mentally. Do you want to be lectured by a alien, who's just jumped out of their saucer or whatever, how backward and damaging your most sacredly held beliefs are? How muct interest would you put in those lectures? How inclined would you be to follow them? And so, how much chance would they have to come through?

It's like that, unfortunately (for all self appointed goodness instructors, preachers, and so on). The world works two ways. You have to understand, before you can judge; and when you understand, fully and completely, you probably would be much less inclined to judge. If anything, because it's pointless, i.e. leads nowhere.

[Guest American Woman]

No, the advice is to apply your care where you at least understand (or have a better chance of understanding) what's going on. Progress happens by learning and sharing, which by definition is based on understanding and respect. No progress will / can come from lecturing how the others should behave.

Yes, progress does come by learning and sharing, which is exactly what I've been doing, so thank you very much for your validation.

For an obvious proof just put yourself in their shoes. Mentally. Do you want to be lectured by a alien, who's just jumped out of their saucer or whatever, how backward and damaging your most sacredly held beliefs are?

I think I have a little more in common with people from Nepal, and vice versa, than an alien off a space ship. Good grief. Give people some credit. They're not that different from us. We all share this world together, which is why we have international laws, courts, and the UN.

How muct interest would you put in those lectures? How inclined would you be to follow them? And so, how much chance would they have to come through?

Depends on what the "lectures" were about. But here's a newsflash: having an opinion does not a lecture make. And now here's another news flash. The world has had plenty to say about things the US has done. I imagine you were there, first in line, defending us, eh?

It's like that, unfortunately (for all self appointed goodness instructors, preachers, and so on). The world works two ways. You have to understand, before you can judge; and when you understand, fully and completely, you probably would be much less inclined to judge. If anything, because it's pointless, i.e. leads nowhere.

FYI, I am knowledgeable. That's why I have educated opinions. But here's another newsflash: having an opinion is not synonymous with "judging." But I do know what's right from what's wrong, and considering only five families would consider giving up their daughters in 2001 and the MP called for an end to the practice, I'd have to say a lot of people in Nepal agree with me, alien from another planet though I be.

You can go on not caring what goes on in the rest of the world, but I choose to be more global, more knowledgeable, more caring. And like I already said, thankfully there are enough people who care, people who act, to make progress in the area of human rights worldwide in spite of people like you.

[myata]

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I already pointed out that everybody is fully entitled to their personal opinions. From that perspective though, I find (fully accepting that it's self contradictory) developing strong opinions about others somewhat pointless. Indeed, I may strongly believe that the hat you like to wear is wrong, but what would be the point?

The difference arises when personal opinion becomes a basis, ground, for an action. At that point, we make a judgement, because judgment is the license, reason for action. So, if you want to change, you have to judge, then you have to understand, when you have to learn and share, and so on. A bit phylosophical, I know, apologies about that.

[WIP]

How gullible are you people? The Kumari does not "live a life in isolation" and does not "spend a night alone in a room among the heads of ritually slaughtered goats". Do you believe just anything you read on the interweb?

Did you bother to read the articles you linked? Probably not, or you would have noticed this half way down the wikipedia article you provided:

As a final test, the living goddess must spend a night alone in a room among the heads of ritually slaughtered goats and buffaloes without showing fear. [...] Having passed all the tests, the child will stay in almost complete isolation at the temple, and will be allowed to return to her family only at the onset of menstruation when a new goddess will be named to replace her.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumari#Life_of_the_Royal_Kumari

They have servants, they have playmates, they are allowed to go to school and they receive a lifetime pension of "around four times the average income".

http://www.vedicbooks.net/from-goddess-to-...ari-p-1539.html

"Reading this book is like traveling into the realms of very loving, genuine and thrilling experience of a living goddess. This book is a bridge that links the world of innocence with the world of experience. It also shows a unique and rare combination of innocence and power as reflected through the narratives of Rashmila Shakya as told to Scott Berry."

Wonderful! And you provided a link to a propaganda justification of the Royal Kumari by one who claims that the experience didn't leave her irreparably damaged. Should I believe a Western acolyte who accepts everything that has the word "vedic" in front of it? Or should I consider why the Nepalese themselves are revolting against this time-honoured tradition and refusing to cooperate with the Kumari selection process:

A generation ago, hundreds of parents would offer their daughters for the royal kumari selection process, considering the post an honour. But in 2001, when royal caretakers went from house to house in Kathmandu looking for a prospective goddess, only five parents were willing to offer their daughters.

[WIP]

Are you sure you know enough about these people and their beliefs to pronounce a judgement on them, already? It certainly didn't take you long.

How far should we go with cultural relativism? Is tradition off limits to criticism if it includes ritual sacrifice, cannibalism and attempting to divine the future through the death-throws of an unsuspecting citizen in a crowd who had just been stabbed in the back -- as the druid priests of my ancestors were fond of?

Good comments though, I'll find time to answer in detail, for now only want to note that it's always easier to see mistakes, errors, cruelty, etc in others. Why so, though? Shouldn't it be the other way around? It's ourselves, our problems, history, abilities and strengths that we should be able to know best. I.e be most successful, in finding, and solving, our own problems. And we still have a lot. And if we got even as far as half way of solving them, I'm sure many many people would come, out of their own free will, to learn from us, and make their own societies better. Wouldn't that be the best way to address the injustices in the world? Not excluding assistance of course - where it's freely given, and, importantly, received.

Needless to say that people find it easier to criticize foreign beliefs than the ones they are familiar with, so in this country, the majority Christians will often mock or ridicule the dogma of Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism and Scientology for that matter, but very few can step back and consider that a new religion introduced today that proposed that there is one God -- but he has three persons -- but he's still one God, and the son of God -- who is really God, was sent down to Earth by God the Father -- who is also the same God, as a ransom sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and during his brief time on Earth, he was 100% God still, but at the same time, 100% man -- this would all be considered as ridiculous as Scientology's doctrines of Zenu.

In the social context, Christian nationalists will link and highlight stories about abuses of madrassah students in Pakistan, and women escaping from abuse and unfair sharia law courts, even though their own ideas of social policy would be almost the same, except for putting a cross in front of it.

As for trying to avoid the trap of cultural superiority, this is part of the reason why I started changing my opinion about the Neoconservative movement a few years ago; much of their arguments about building democracies in the MiddleEast were based on an expressed or an implicit feeling of cultural and religious superiority over the Muslim World.

Most of the politicians and the movement opinion-makers denied that they were trying to impose their religion, but on the home-front they weren't shy about identifying America as a Christian Nation, and that their country's success came from their religious beliefs, so if more secular Americans couldn't make the connection, the religious right put the two together -- and so did Muslims who didn't want a return of Western Christian colonialism. Any non-Christian country could figure out that accepting the American vision, also meant accepting Christianity or at least Christian domination of their culture. And that's why I think it was a shame that some self-appointed spokesmen for secularism and freethought, such as Christopher Hitchens, could not envision the way the Iraqi Occupation would play out culturally, and it was the same old colonialism of the past and destined for disaster.

[myata]

How far should we go with cultural relativism? Is tradition off limits to criticism if it includes ritual sacrifice, cannibalism and attempting to divine the future through the death-throws of an unsuspecting citizen in a crowd who had just been stabbed in the back -- as the druid priests of my ancestors were fond of?

Again, we have to understand what is meant by "criticism"?? Is it you, living here, telling me, also living here "I don't like this or that tradition there. strongly, absolutely, at all"?

I may then agree with you completely, I don't like it - at all - and would never want to participate in anything like that. I don't know what else could be added to that though.

Or what you're saying is "I don't like, etc, and because of that we should go and make them stop doing that"?

Here, see the earlier comments. Essentially, the problem is that like individuals, societies cannot be changed from outside. They evolve. And they are much less likely to evolve in the right direction under duress, either by outright force, or "criticism". Especially one, coming from somebody who may not have given themselves time to fully understand who they are and what they are doing; ie. become one of them.

So yes, this applies to all societies, without exception, complete with their practices, traditions and cultures, however disgusting they may appear - to us. And no, not because of some abstract principle allowed to run wild, but because of very practical understanding of the simple fact: people can change, but they can't be changed.

Not yet, anyways. Science is still working on it.

Needless to say that people find it easier to criticize foreign beliefs than the ones they are familiar with, so in this country, the majority Christians will often mock or ridicule the dogma of Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism and Scientology for that matter, but very few can step back and consider that a new religion introduced today that proposed that there is one God -- but he has three persons -- but he's still one God, and the son of God -- who is really God, was sent down to Earth by God the Father -- who is also the same God, as a ransom sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and during his brief time on Earth, he was 100% God still, but at the same time, 100% man -- this would all be considered as ridiculous as Scientology's doctrines of Zenu.

Exactly. Another example is of course, the problem of aboriginal populations in Canada and the US. If this can't be solved, within arms reach from where we are, with all our resources, and hopefully, limited as it may be, still better communications with the people, and in generations of time, would not it be a sheer groundless (and dangerous, when taken to a certain course of action, as seen on so many occasions in the past) idealism to think that we can introduce an instant and beneficial change in totally foreign societies half a world away??

Most of the politicians and the movement opinion-makers denied that they were trying to impose their religion, but on the home-front they weren't shy about identifying America as a Christian Nation, and that their country's success came from their religious beliefs, so if more secular Americans couldn't make the connection, the religious right put the two together -- and so did Muslims who didn't want a return of Western Christian colonialism. Any non-Christian country could figure out that accepting the American vision, also meant accepting Christianity or at least Christian domination of their culture. And that's why I think it was a shame that some self-appointed spokesmen for secularism and freethought, such as Christopher Hitchens, could not envision the way the Iraqi Occupation would play out culturally, and it was the same old colonialism of the past and destined for disaster.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't limit the problem only to the West / East context. Misunderstanding, suspicion and fear of "the other" go very deep into the past, probably in our far ancestry and encoded in our genes. I'd agree though that one of the great failures of the West (singling it out only because at this moment in history it's in the forefront of social and technological state of development in the world) is that as so many civilizations before it, it could not rise over that instinctive "fear of the other", and work out a new model of dealing with other societies, that would fully respect their right to exist and develop in their own form and their own ways alongside with us, while allowing mutually benefitial communications and interactions. I.e being peaceful, in truth, fact and reality, something we like to claim, but never ever lived up to.

Edited October 11, 2008 by myata

[Rue]

Let me respond American Women.

As I understand it this girl will have a particular life until she menstrates then they will release her back into regular society and this particular life includes;

1-only being able to leave her palace on ceremonial occasions;

2-her family can't see her unless she is engaged in some formal ritual then they can see her indirectly or briefly;

3-the people she will grow up with, i.e., other children are screened and selected from the same caste she is in, the Newari caste and these children must show respect to her;

4- she will ceremonial duties and be taught with private tutors;

5-people will come to her with a wide range of illnesses seeking her blessing;

6-she will have servants (Kumarimi).

So in that respect one might argue there is a fine line between her life and what we see in Royal families or for that matter the children of extremely wealthy people or celebrities. In a way is her life that much different then what say Prince Chuck and Princess Ann and Eddie and Harry went through? Is it that much different then how Brad and Angie's kids live?

What makes her life a bit questionable is that once she menstrates she is pretty much sent back to her ordinary life very quickly with little time to adjust. Poof one day a pampered Godess, the next day, a Joe Blow like everyone else.

From what I understand former Kumaris receive a life pension from the state of 6000 rupees per month ($80). I would imagine that is adjusted to inflation and supposedly this pension is twice the official minimum wage and said to be four times the average income in Nepal so she does have that to fall back on.

So on the one hand, yes it seems to be a bit strange using our Western standards but is it any different then our extremely wealthy children or royalty or for that matter children living in extreme fundamentalist orthodox families?

Probably not.

I imagine she will have a lot in common with Michael Jackson's children.

[OddSox]

I imagine she will have a lot in common with Michael Jackson's children.

Which is kind of scary, but a far cry from 'child abuse'.