PDA

View Full Version : Circuncision and Hinduism



Nuno Matos
30 August 2007, 07:11 PM
Namaste

How does Hinduism sees circumcision?
Recently Yajvan call our attention to a upanishad that talks about sanyasa, were it is written that a circumcised fellow cant be a shaiva sanyasin. Why is that so in the view of the recent discovery's on the role circumcision has in preventing AIDS and other STD's. And what is the spiritual problem with a circumcised sanyasa? And why that doesn't matter for to be a Vaishnava priest or hermit? I am not circumcised but i really would love to have an answer or a discussion about the questions razed.

Thank you!

sm78
31 August 2007, 12:36 AM
Namaste

How does Hinduism sees circumcision?
Recently Yajvan call our attention to a upanishad that talks about sanyasa, were it is written that a circumcised fellow cant be a shaiva sanyasin. Why is that so in the view of the recent discovery's on the role circumcision has in preventing AIDS and other STD's. And what is the spiritual problem with a circumcised sanyasa? And why that doesn't matter for to be a Vaishnava priest or hermit? I am not circumcised but i really would love to have an answer or a discussion about the questions razed.

Thank you!

It has been personally revealed to me by a teacher that circumcision directly hampers the possibility of brahma gyanam.

As far as scriptures go, it is heavily criticized in puranas like Bhabisya Purana. It is cirtainly a mleccha achara and is not in line with Vedic Achara.

Nachiketa
31 August 2007, 08:22 AM
Namaste,

Circumcision as such only reduces the likelihood of contracting HIV but does not wholly prevent it.

Since, to a large extent HIV is prevalent in the permissive sections of the society the concept of Brahmacharya should be propagated among them for a better control of the HIV situation !

As an aside, if circumcision is really that good for a man, then why did God even think of a foreskin ?

For me, the human body is a temple...violate it and you will add to your karma.

Pranams to all

sm78
31 August 2007, 08:37 AM
Namaste,

Circumcision as such only reduces the likelihood of contracting HIV but does not wholly prevent it.

Since, to a large extent HIV is prevalent in the permissive sections of the society the concept of Brahmacharya should be propagated among them for a better control of the HIV situation !

As an aside, if circumcision is really that good for a man, then why did God even think of a foreskin ?

For me, the human body is a temple...violate it and you will add to your karma.

Pranams to all

I myself subscribe to the same views as yours.

Nuno Matos
31 August 2007, 08:46 AM
Namaste Nachiketa

Brahmacharya is a violation by privation of the human body and its functions. And what about cutting your hair, or piercing your ears or even taking drugs, or cutting your under tongue link connection in order to do the Kechari, or cutting your nails, or the stretching of the penis to a point that he doesn't work no more, or putting a silver ring on your penis that will cut the inner soft band of your penis. etc...?
And we shouldn't judged a man just by the fact he is circumcised. It is not such a bad Karma it is a good one by the contrary especially if is indulging on Samsara.

I think that going against nature is part of nature to!

Nuno Matos
31 August 2007, 08:51 AM
Namaste sm68


The Bhabisya Purana is a matter for another controversial tread on Hot topics

Thank you!

Agnideva
31 August 2007, 10:51 AM
Namaste Singhi et al,

It has been personally revealed to me by a teacher that circumcision directly hampers the possibility of brahma gyanam. As far as scriptures go, it is heavily criticized in puranas like Bhabisya Purana. It is cirtainly a mleccha achara and is not in line with Vedic Achara.
Just by way of curiousity, how does circumcision hamper the possibility of brahma-jnana? What does foreskin have to do with Divine knowledge?


The Bhabisya Purana is a matter for another controversial tread on Hot topics!
:D Yes, you're right, perhaps that is a different hot topic altogether!

OM Shanti,
A.

Nachiketa
31 August 2007, 11:09 AM
Namaste Nachiketa

Brahmacharya is a violation by privation of the human body and its functions. And what about cutting your hair, or piercing your ears or even taking drugs, or cutting your under tongue link connection in order to do the Kechari, or cutting your nails, or the stretching of the penis to a point that he doesn't work no more, or putting a silver ring on your penis that will cut the inner soft band of your penis. etc...?
And we shouldn't judged a man just by the fact he is circumcised. It is not such a bad Karma it is a good one by the contrary especially if is indulging on Samsara.

I think that going against nature is part of nature to!

Namaste Nuno Matos
You will agree that there is a difference between circumcision by scriptural injunctions and circumcision just to have a merry time and not contract HIV. He could also have done it for other medical reasons. So rest assured that I do not judge a man based on whether or not he is circumcised !!;)
Though I am still a long way off from "not judging anybody".

My concept of Brahmacharya ( I cannot quote the scriptures due to lack of intimate knowledge) does not include privation of bodily functions or organs. If an aspirant feels so, then IMHO, he is not yet ready to be a Brahmacharin. Mind you, I am not saying that this is for or against nature after all they say " Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma "

My humble 2 cents
Thanks

satay
31 August 2007, 11:46 AM
namaste,
I do feel that this discussion is not appropriate for HDF, however, let's see where this leads us to...

sm78
03 September 2007, 01:40 AM
Namaste Singhi et al,

Just by way of curiousity, how does circumcision hamper the possibility of brahma-jnana? What does foreskin have to do with Divine knowledge?


Perhaves in a similar way as the nerves in the spine and brain have to do with divine knowledge.

I however have no knowledge of which nerves gets effected when one cuts off the foreskin.

Yaruki
03 September 2007, 02:00 AM
Personally I think its totally wrong. Thats like me saying "well I really only use 4 fingers so I should go ahead and chop off my pinky finger"

I also see it as pure cruelty to a newborn baby, the poor kid has enough on its plate and you go and chop a bit off his penis, talk about rude!

sm78
03 September 2007, 07:36 AM
namaste,
I do feel that this discussion is not appropriate for HDF, however, let's see where this leads us to...

Its something which Hindu's have no reason to ponder on. Just because some practice of another religion "correlates negatively" with AIDS occurrence rate, need not make us ponder on the efficacy of the practice. Religious practices are defined by scriptures and teachers of the same.

satay
03 September 2007, 11:21 AM
namaste singhi,


Its something which Hindu's have no reason to ponder on. Just because some practice of another religion "correlates negatively" with AIDS occurrence rate, need not make us ponder on the efficacy of the practice. Religious practices are defined by scriptures and teachers of the same.

My feeling exactly. I don't see why hindus have to talk about this or how this is a 'hot topic'. I would say that this goes in the irrelevant topic' category, perhaps I will move the thread to canteen later.

The practice doesn't concern us. Infact, current medical opinion is that this practice should be stopped, it is the cause of many medical problems. So this is why the hospitals here are starting to charge money for those wishing to have this done on their new born son here in Canada. It used to be free of charge as medical profession supported this practice but new research shows otherwise.

I personally find this and all other practices of abusing one's body (be they done by hindus or nonhindus) sickening, especially when it is done to a child without his approval simply based on some corrupted spiritual tradition.

satay
03 September 2007, 11:22 AM
Personally I think its totally wrong. Thats like me saying "well I really only use 4 fingers so I should go ahead and chop off my pinky finger"

I also see it as pure cruelty to a newborn baby, the poor kid has enough on its plate and you go and chop a bit off his penis, talk about rude!

I agree completely. The practice is cruel, however, it is not 'chopping' off the penis!!

Nuno Matos
03 September 2007, 05:18 PM
Namaste all

If you want to stop this discussion go a head!
I Was referring in the first place to the sannyasa upanishad;

" . Now these (persons, though possessing dispassion, are not entitled to renunciation – a eunuch, a fallen man, a maimed person, women, a deaf person, a child, a dumb person, a heretic, an informer, a student (who has not completed his study), a Vaikhanasa anchorite (belonging to a Vaishnava sect), an ardent Saivite (Haradvija), a salaried teacher, a man without prepuce and one without ritual fire. Even if they renounce the world they are not entitled to instruction in the great scriptural texts (such as 'That Thou Art')."

I have never recommended mass circumcision of Hindus or of India or even of any other place in this World. I just don't understand why this upanishad puts in the excluded bag a Vaishnava a Bahkti a salaried teacher, a man without prepuce,one without ritual fire a women etc..withe the exemption of a child which is comprehensible but not acceptable.

What is the importance of this text( sannyasa) and the above written in Hinduism spiritual laws? Are does rules still used today?

Thank you!

Eastern Mind
09 September 2007, 11:19 AM
Might as well add my two bits. I have two sons. The first one was circum cised, and because of that experience, the second one was not. The decision on the first one was more or less 'doesn't really matter either way' and the health professionals thought of it as 'a good idea'. I'm here in the west. Not sure of the 'health' take in India. The second one wasn't and that decision totally was based on ahimsa. We felt the pain (heard would be a better verb) of the first baby boy, and couldn't see ourselves going through that again. Its just too violent, and against an innocent human. Aum Namashivaya

I am free
22 October 2007, 01:36 AM
There are 3 million people with HIV/AIDS in India. AIDS is posed to reach epidemic proportions in India...we can take the threat of this disease seriously and be aggressive about AIDS prevention OR we can hide our heads in the sand go the Africa way.

With 80% of India's population being Hindus, this is very much a relevant issue for this forum.

As far as I am aware, the WHO is still studying the link between circumcision and AIDS. But if scientifically proven that AIDS can be prevented through circumcision, the WHO and the Indian goverment may aggressively promote circumcision for all male infants in India.

And as far as mutilation is concerned, until my parents' generation almost every baby (male or female) used to have his/her ears pierced, the practice being largely restricted to only female babies now. This is done without their consent ofcourse and it is simpler and less painful for the children to get this done when they are babies, than when they grow up. Same too with circumcision.

sm78
22 October 2007, 02:10 AM
There are 3 million people with HIV/AIDS in India. AIDS is posed to reach epidemic proportions in India...we can take the threat of this disease seriously and be aggressive about AIDS prevention OR we can hide our heads in the sand go the Africa way.

With 80% of India's population being Hindus, this is very much a relevant issue for this forum.

As far as I am aware, the WHO is still studying the link between circumcision and AIDS. But if scientifically proven that AIDS can be prevented through circumcision, the WHO and the Indian goverment may aggressively promote circumcision for all male infants in India.

And as far as mutilation is concerned, until my parents' generation almost every baby (male or female) used to have his/her ears pierced, the practice being largely restricted to only female babies now. This is done without their consent ofcourse and it is simpler and less painful for the children to get this done when they are babies, than when they grow up. Same too with circumcision.

Namaste,

Ear piercing it is a vedic samaskaar, circumcision is not. There ends the story for pious vaidika hindus.

As far as promoting circumcision is concerned, i am sure indian govt will not leave a stone unturned to an opportunity to introduce further mlecchachara into society.

satay
22 October 2007, 10:03 AM
Namaste,




With 80% of India's population being Hindus, this is very much a relevant issue for this forum.


No. This issue is irrelevant to Hindus.



As far as I am aware, the WHO is still studying the link between circumcision and AIDS. But if scientifically proven that AIDS can be prevented through circumcision, the WHO and the Indian goverment may aggressively promote circumcision for all male infants in India.


Here are the facts:



Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

Circumcision and HIV infection: review of
the literature and meta-analysis

R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic (http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/), Lakeland Center, USA

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/




And as far as mutilation is concerned, until my parents' generation almost every baby (male or female) used to have his/her ears pierced, the practice being largely restricted to only female babies now. This is done without their consent ofcourse and it is simpler and less painful for the children to get this done when they are babies, than when they grow up. Same too with circumcision.

Piercing ones ears is not the same thing as cutting the skin of baby's penis in order to 'show your love to god'.

The maleccha barbaric practice of mutalating the genitals of their babies will not be adopted by Hindus no matter how hard malecchas or the Indian Gov't try.

satay
22 October 2007, 10:14 AM
More facts about Circumcision and HIV...



Circumcision and HIV infection

In recent years, many articles have appeared in the literature that have examined the relationship between circumcision status and the risk of contracting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. This page introduces abstracts, full text articles, and other material about this relationship. The materials are indexed in chronological order.

Whether circumcision status plays a role in HIV risk or not, it is important to recognize that HIV can be prevented through several known very effective means, such as condom use, and limiting exposure to multiple partners. Rather than advocating circumcision, given the existing evidence, it would be appropriate to advocate better public health education, so that individuals can make appropriate decisions regarding their own sexual behavior.

Furthermore, the consideration of circumcision with regard to STD and AIDS prevention does not apply to children. Kept intact from birth, they can weigh the issue for themselves when they are old enough to consent. A vaccine may even be available by the time they reach adulthood!

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

Haridas
22 October 2007, 02:26 PM
I think that it's completely illogical to say that circumcision is forbidden and that it's adharmic. 90% of circumcised males had it done to them in a way that they had no say in the matter (when they were babies, etc.). The rest had it done to them because it could save their life or because it would greatly help them. An insignificant minority has it done to them for "cosmetic" purposes.

It's illogical to say that you can't receive Divine Knowledge because your parents circumcised you.

I am free
22 October 2007, 11:43 PM
Namaste Satay,



No. This issue is irrelevant to Hindus.


I stated my reason why I feel this issue is relevant to Hindus. With India being seen as a future hotbed for AIDS and the fact that 80% of Indians are hindus, the issue of circumcision and AIDS prevention would be relevant to Hindus. Is there any reason why you feel it is not?



Here are the facts:


The issue of Circumcision and AIDS is being debated by the scientific and medical community. What you have pasted are not "facts" - just some material to support your view "against" circumcision. I am sure I can find many articles on the web "for" circumcision as well. However I chose not to spread misinformation by pasting biased information.

The WHO is currently still studying the matter and have not take a definite stand either for or against circumcision. Here is the link:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/



Piercing ones ears is not the same thing as cutting the skin of baby's penis in order to 'show your love to god'.


I do not understand your reference to 'show your love to god'? I was talking of circumcision for medical reasons.



Whether circumcision status plays a role in HIV risk or not, it is important to recognize that HIV can be prevented through several known very effective means, such as condom use, and limiting exposure to multiple partners. Rather than advocating circumcision, given the existing evidence, it would be appropriate to advocate better public health education, so that individuals can make appropriate decisions regarding their own sexual behavior.


With this I totally agree.

sm78
23 October 2007, 01:17 AM
I think that it's completely illogical to say that circumcision is forbidden and that it's adharmic. 90% of circumcised males had it done to them in a way that they had no say in the matter (when they were babies, etc.). The rest had it done to them because it could save their life or because it would greatly help them. An insignificant minority has it done to them for "cosmetic" purposes.

It's illogical to say that you can't receive Divine Knowledge because your parents circumcised you.

No one is saying that ... :)

satay
23 October 2007, 12:27 PM
Namaskar,




I stated my reason why I feel this issue is relevant to Hindus. With India being seen as a future hotbed for AIDS and the fact that 80% of Indians are hindus, the issue of circumcision and AIDS prevention would be relevant to Hindus. Is there any reason why you feel it is not?


What you posted was this


There are 3 million people with HIV/AIDS in India. AIDS is posed to reach epidemic proportions in India...we can take the threat of this disease seriously and be aggressive about AIDS prevention OR we can hide our heads in the sand go the Africa way.


This reads to me like you were trying to pass HIV/AIDS connection to Cicumcision as a fact. Maybe its just the way I read it...

I provided links to papers that conclude that the studies done in africa that tried to make such a connection between the two didn't show that foreskin had anything to do with the infection and that "Rather than advocating circumcision, given the existing evidence, it would be appropriate to advocate better public health education, so that individuals can make appropriate decisions regarding their own sexual behavior." To which you already agree.

Therefore, Indians shouldn't concentrate on circumcision or cutting of the foreskin but should concentrate on better health education and safer sex habits. So from this my statement that 'No, the issue of circumcision is not important to Indians.'


The issue of Circumcision and AIDS is being debated by the scientific and medical community.


Yes. Perhaps if you had said this in your original post, it would have been clearer (for me anyway).




I do not understand your reference to 'show your love to god'? I was talking of circumcision for medical reasons.


This practice has its roots in the maleccha traditions 'to honor god by mutilating the genitals of one's son'.


What historic "medical reasons" does this practice have? Could you please shed some light on this?

satay
23 October 2007, 12:33 PM
It's illogical to say that you can't receive Divine Knowledge because your parents circumcised you.

Namaskar Haridas,

Personally I think that the 'divinity' or the knowledge of it has nothing to do with ones foreskin. However, the practice of mutilating the genitals comes from maleccha traditions and adds no value to the process of seeking of truth, so this is why it is irrelevant to the hindu tradition and thus to the Hindus.