Rig Veda

[joannekim]

I agree that the death mentioned in the Burial Hymn was only ceremonious. After all, the priest tells the widow to rise up. I think the ceremonious death means that the connection between the husband and the wife broke that the wife is dead. At that time, it seems like the widow would go home after funeral. However, later, Hindus seemed to interpret the death literally that the wife was required to die when her husband dies. This shows how women was discriminated-they could not continue their lives alone after their husbands' death. I also heard that Hindus practiced polygamy...a lot of women must have died because of their husband's death.

[hafizh]

its not like the wife literally die with the husband sarah haha, it means that during the process of the burial ceremony the wife always stand by his side (the dead body) and mourn, crying, like she's not living. that's why the priest said, to go on living and join them, the people who still alive.
but im not really sure hehehe, lets just ask ms boyd tomorrow

[franicaza95]

I think like many people already mentioned, it as just a ceremonial thing! I mean i guess the reason why the women had to die along with the man was because I could reperesent how women and men were made for one another! Therefore if the man goes the woman should go with him representing love between two people. This kind if reminds me of Adam and Eve how they used a part of Adam to make Eve which then represents that women have part of men inside them.

[michellelee]

I found that part interesting since the ceremony was very different from our culture. I'm guessing that women just pretended to die only for the ceremony and kept living on. I don't think they were treated like ghosts after the ceremony but just as normal people alive. And I think the women did it to show respect to their husbands and also show them that they were loyal even after their husbands died.

[hannahs]

I didn't even know that the Burial Hymn was about that until we had the discussion. I think it's a very interesting culture! But I wouldn't die with my husband if he died, even if other people made me do it. I'd just say goodbye and cry for him. No dying involved. I love my life. Why would I let go of my own life just because he's dead? I'm alive. And....that's all that matters.

[yerin0727]

I also dont understand how women had to ceremonially die with their husbands. Back then, it was obviously common for women to be controlled by men and all that, but I think that they should just live on without their husbands if they die. Dying with them ceremonially is unrealistic and I think that if this was to happen, then husbands should ceremonially die with their wives if they were to die.

[sageda]

I think it's a symbolic ceremony but it's interesting that you mention this. Women were and still are seen as a secondary being under their husbands/male figure and have no other identity outside of them. It makes me wonder if the men did the same thing when their wives died.

[davidh]

Since this idea was in the past I understand because people had all kinds of ways of ceremony.... But If it happens nowadays, I would just look at it. I would try to stop these people because this just not fair for the women.

[minchoi0923]

Well, in cultural perspective, it was just part of the rituals and it is quite clear that women from that culture were treated as properties. I understand that this was part of the culture but like everyone else, I can't stop thinking that this is so unfair. Yes, that is a culture. But did they really have to kill the women? Men can't be born without their mother, who is basically a woman. Shouldn't they also give respect for that? For being "Mother"? I don't know. I know it's a ridiculous thing to argue against a particular cultural ceremony but that's just my thoughts.

[yerin0727]

Some people may still believe that women should have less rights than men, and that therefore, women should ceremonially die with men. However, this is wrong since people shouldnt die ceremonially. It may be a cultural thing, but I still do not understand how this goes on.

[sammy576]

In some cultures, there are some cases that when the emperor dies, all of his maids and servants die with him so that they can be of service in the after life. However, burying the wife along with the dead husband just seems downright absurd. Although in our time period
it may sound a little bit cruel, it may have been important back than; however, I think that wives should not be considered as property.

[minjaeyang]

I do not think it is fair that widows are considered dead even if the death is ceremonial. Firstly, there is too much sacrifice. There is no reason why a biologically live person should be named dead. Secondly, the women probably will be restricted of the things she can do. For instance, she probably will not be allowed to remarry or etc. Therefore, I think the Burial Hymn is unfair for women.