-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Upanayanam for Ladies?
- Thread starter Andal
- Start date
Fireside_Hindu
Jai Lakshmi Maa
Of course. Some already do I believe, though it is rare.
More and more often - even in India - girls are getting educated in schools too. Why should they not get the sacred thread for entering into that part of their lives?
:camp:
More and more often - even in India - girls are getting educated in schools too. Why should they not get the sacred thread for entering into that part of their lives?
:camp:
Shastra doesn't prescribe Upanayana for women. Moreover our traditional acharyas like Adi Shankara didn't ever support such that. Instead from scriptures it is very clear that women are forbidden to undergo any vedic rituals & even they can not hear Veda.
Shastra says so because women and Shudra are generally situated in lower Gunas. Veda welcomes only those who have situated in Satvika Guna. The people situated in lower varnas and so are greatly influenced by Maya, can misunderstood Veda and so there would be a great danger to true Vedic teachings. So its not so difficult to understand this. Veda restricts them because veda fears that they would interprate her wrongly.
Ram Krishna Hari....
Shastra says so because women and Shudra are generally situated in lower Gunas. Veda welcomes only those who have situated in Satvika Guna. The people situated in lower varnas and so are greatly influenced by Maya, can misunderstood Veda and so there would be a great danger to true Vedic teachings. So its not so difficult to understand this. Veda restricts them because veda fears that they would interprate her wrongly.
Ram Krishna Hari....
Last edited:
Nyingjé Tso
Dharma not drama
Womens priest are also formally ordained on Mahrastra too, I have seen some at Mumbai and Pune.
I am a woman and I hear the Vedas, recite the vedas, and do priestly rites. If I am going to any hell for this then I will gladly go with Mahadev on my lips and my duty done. If it is forbidden to me by Baghawan, then Baghawan will come to tell me to stop then. Nobody else in this world have any right to tell any women she is inferior or unworthy, nobody else.
Yes, it would be great that all womens can now be formally ordained, but I have no fear since it is more and more done in the world... There are more and more women priests seen at temples, and it is good news ! Womens are very much dedicated to vedic rites and learning, they take it very seriously. Some look like Devi mata have come Herself for puja, it is amazing to see !
Andal
resident hypnotist
Vannakkam JayaBholenath,
That must be such a beautiful site to see! I am very happy to hear it is happening elsewhere as well.
I like why you said as well about going to hell. I highly doubt Bhagavan is upset by women fulfilling spiritual rights and remembering him eternally
Aum Hari Aum!
That must be such a beautiful site to see! I am very happy to hear it is happening elsewhere as well.
I like why you said as well about going to hell. I highly doubt Bhagavan is upset by women fulfilling spiritual rights and remembering him eternally
Aum Hari Aum!
I will vote yes, because upanayanam or the so-called sacred thread ceremony is a modern practice that is not in the Vedas. Those who talk about scriptural injunctions in this regard, often certain sects of Vaishnavas, are using modern citations from their sect's Puranas and even that is dicey. I do not say upanayanam is not a valid initiation, it certainly is among many today and it is wonderful of a samskara, but varies from sect to sect, sampradaya to sampradaya, and there is no "final authority" to this later, post-Vedic practice, since the Guru initiation (verse Rishi, Maharishi, Acharya) came later as society was in more need of Gurus.
There is no upanayanam in the Rig Veda. Some sects associate upanayanam with "twice born", e.g. the dvija. We learn clearly what twice born (dvija) means from the Atharva Veda, I wrote an article outlining this Veda where it clearly indicates twice born means when you take a teacher, a Rishi or Acharya, as your Master then you take a mystical birth from that Master, you in a sense enter (and descriptively so in the Atharva and indirectly in Rig) that Master's "womb" (yes the female womb ideation is used here, even the Master is considered female in this rite and thus all twice born come from female or the energy of Brahman - strikingly in contrast to some sects attitude about such ceremony inclusive of the modern sacred thread or yagnopavidam and women), and then are born again - thus TWICE BORN - from that Master. No longer are you first birth mother and father your parents, now your new parent and thus twice born is the Master as your father and Savitri (of the Solar divines) your mother and this come the female again as Gayatri your mother. There is no use of a thread(s) at all in this rite of twice born in Vedic Rig or Atharva.
For some sects, in the modern Guru path (post-Vedic) the sacred thread ceremony is a rite of taking sanyasa (a form of renounced order that is brahmacharya, but also higher than brahmacharya in that a celibate student can be a brahmacharya while at the same time not a sanyasi). The thread(s) from the post-Vedic way, and almost always Gayatri from the Vedic way, are given by the Guru as initiation into sanyasa in many sects. It is about sanyas for them. There is an interesting story of a reveared Vaishnav saint who left his father to become a sanyas without ever participating in his birth father's wish of having the sacred thread ceremony on his son. This meant nothing to the son, all that mattered was to find his new father and the path to sanyasa.
There is a mutt that claims it is one of the original founded by Sankaracharya. Actually this is proven as a complete historical fabrication by both the other actual mutts and by archeologists and scholars, that this was an adopted fabrication to give prestige. Sankara never estiblished that mutt in question. But I do not want to get into that because it hurts others feelings and is not neccessary, some sects engage in the rite in different ways, different rules, you chose your own path. But the only reason is mention this is that, surprisingly this mutt itself, which is probably the number one advocate of restricting upanayanam, they themself totally admit that upanayanam is not a Vedic investiture. This is reinforced by a sect of Tamil Brahmins of which one their leaders makes clear "Vedic Upanayana had no investiture of a Yajnopavitam or sacred thread as performed today".
The Brahmopanishad, a minor upanishad, is the reference used by advocates, it mentions the 3 threads (yagnopavidam), actually the Sringeri Mutt of 14th Century gives a Sankaracharya recension. This authority of scripture given makes no mention it is restricted from women, and in fact it says the threads can be discarded (thrown away) by jnanis (those of Knowledge Path).
The number of threads even varies from sampradaya, school to school. For one it is six threads and two knots, each joining three threads together, or nine threads and three knots, or three threads, etc.. This rite has much diversity.
Certainly it is a beautiful and welcome rite. My personal view is, it is performed when becoming a sannyasi. Women can become a sanyasi.
Well back to work, I'm on a lunch break. I may post that article later.
Om Namah Sivaya
There is no upanayanam in the Rig Veda. Some sects associate upanayanam with "twice born", e.g. the dvija. We learn clearly what twice born (dvija) means from the Atharva Veda, I wrote an article outlining this Veda where it clearly indicates twice born means when you take a teacher, a Rishi or Acharya, as your Master then you take a mystical birth from that Master, you in a sense enter (and descriptively so in the Atharva and indirectly in Rig) that Master's "womb" (yes the female womb ideation is used here, even the Master is considered female in this rite and thus all twice born come from female or the energy of Brahman - strikingly in contrast to some sects attitude about such ceremony inclusive of the modern sacred thread or yagnopavidam and women), and then are born again - thus TWICE BORN - from that Master. No longer are you first birth mother and father your parents, now your new parent and thus twice born is the Master as your father and Savitri (of the Solar divines) your mother and this come the female again as Gayatri your mother. There is no use of a thread(s) at all in this rite of twice born in Vedic Rig or Atharva.
For some sects, in the modern Guru path (post-Vedic) the sacred thread ceremony is a rite of taking sanyasa (a form of renounced order that is brahmacharya, but also higher than brahmacharya in that a celibate student can be a brahmacharya while at the same time not a sanyasi). The thread(s) from the post-Vedic way, and almost always Gayatri from the Vedic way, are given by the Guru as initiation into sanyasa in many sects. It is about sanyas for them. There is an interesting story of a reveared Vaishnav saint who left his father to become a sanyas without ever participating in his birth father's wish of having the sacred thread ceremony on his son. This meant nothing to the son, all that mattered was to find his new father and the path to sanyasa.
There is a mutt that claims it is one of the original founded by Sankaracharya. Actually this is proven as a complete historical fabrication by both the other actual mutts and by archeologists and scholars, that this was an adopted fabrication to give prestige. Sankara never estiblished that mutt in question. But I do not want to get into that because it hurts others feelings and is not neccessary, some sects engage in the rite in different ways, different rules, you chose your own path. But the only reason is mention this is that, surprisingly this mutt itself, which is probably the number one advocate of restricting upanayanam, they themself totally admit that upanayanam is not a Vedic investiture. This is reinforced by a sect of Tamil Brahmins of which one their leaders makes clear "Vedic Upanayana had no investiture of a Yajnopavitam or sacred thread as performed today".
The Brahmopanishad, a minor upanishad, is the reference used by advocates, it mentions the 3 threads (yagnopavidam), actually the Sringeri Mutt of 14th Century gives a Sankaracharya recension. This authority of scripture given makes no mention it is restricted from women, and in fact it says the threads can be discarded (thrown away) by jnanis (those of Knowledge Path).
The number of threads even varies from sampradaya, school to school. For one it is six threads and two knots, each joining three threads together, or nine threads and three knots, or three threads, etc.. This rite has much diversity.
Certainly it is a beautiful and welcome rite. My personal view is, it is performed when becoming a sannyasi. Women can become a sanyasi.
Well back to work, I'm on a lunch break. I may post that article later.
Om Namah Sivaya
Last edited:
I don't think it's the religion, Kalidas. Some of the adherents, yes, but not the religion.
Kalidas
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's the religion, Kalidas. Some of the adherents, yes, but not the religion.
No no no I know I totally get that. It's some of the people sorry. I find it strange though. That these people can belong to a Religion that is very vested in the practice of Goddess worship and yet still find women to be "Lower". It does not seem logical to me.
I apologize for going off subject a bit, though not entirely, but let me rant a minute about this whole "Sankara says" routine.
I think this emphasis on "everything Sankaracharya" is also a modern phenomenon and is way overblown. He lived in the middle ages, and to me anything from that time period is pretty much "modern" to me compared to the ageless Vedas and those histories from the hoary past such as the Ramayana. And yes, many Puranas also have deep roots in time .... but not all Puranas.
Sankaracharya was one of the renown stalwarts, along with others, who lived at a time where there was a renaissance of effort to counter the sway and influence of Jains, Buddhists, later Muslims, and he wasn't the only one. For example, why should Sankara be, oh, more important than let us say Caitanya or a dozen others on the same par in saintly propagation of Hindu belief?
When I was younger, I was a fan of Sankara's many bhajans, such as to Annapurna and others, but then in the last couple of years the very same hardliners of restrictions and discrimination and who would tout Sankara as their advocate, these same were then telling me the bulk of these poems and songs were not ever wrtten by Sankara, and next they are telling me half of the works of his are fake, by others, or full of counterfeit rewriting and interpolations. Next I had Vaishnavs yelling at me that Sankara was actually a Vaishnav who thought "Vishnu Narayana is Supreme", while the same day I am reading scholarly research that Sankara's parent's were clearly Shaiva and he attended a Saiva temple, then I see Shaivites and Vaishnavs on some internet forum fighting over the "Who is Supreme?" stupid endless debate all based on something Sankara said or didn't say, harking back to the days when some ISKCONites would yell at me "Sankaracharya is a horrible mayavadi!" just because I had a (rather small) poster of Shankara Acharya on my wall.
Frankly, I do not really read anything, or even think much about, Sankara Acharya today. I respect him a lot, he doesn't trump the Vedas, Agamas, Ramayana, and many Puranas. I am not going to read his commentaries, I am just not that interested at this time, sorry. Oddly, while I cannot think of such happening in the past, nor ever did such happen in any temple, not even from "restricted temples" in India, for some reason the last couple of years I've been sort of "grabbed by the shoulders" by advocates of all sorts of "restrictions" who would literally be shoving pages and pages and passages and passages, and entire volumes also, of Vedas at me to read while saying "but you cannot read it, but here, look at this, but then, don't look, ok one quick peek, got it? Ok, now say you will never read it again, but first, I want to show you this, then close your eyes within 20 seconds after I flash it...." huh? It is almost comical, hillarious. I have never in my past have been so knowledgeable of the Vedas and only thanks to those "flash card" classes conducted by the "restrictionists". Before long I will be speaking Sanskrit.
I think this emphasis on "everything Sankaracharya" is also a modern phenomenon and is way overblown. He lived in the middle ages, and to me anything from that time period is pretty much "modern" to me compared to the ageless Vedas and those histories from the hoary past such as the Ramayana. And yes, many Puranas also have deep roots in time .... but not all Puranas.
Sankaracharya was one of the renown stalwarts, along with others, who lived at a time where there was a renaissance of effort to counter the sway and influence of Jains, Buddhists, later Muslims, and he wasn't the only one. For example, why should Sankara be, oh, more important than let us say Caitanya or a dozen others on the same par in saintly propagation of Hindu belief?
When I was younger, I was a fan of Sankara's many bhajans, such as to Annapurna and others, but then in the last couple of years the very same hardliners of restrictions and discrimination and who would tout Sankara as their advocate, these same were then telling me the bulk of these poems and songs were not ever wrtten by Sankara, and next they are telling me half of the works of his are fake, by others, or full of counterfeit rewriting and interpolations. Next I had Vaishnavs yelling at me that Sankara was actually a Vaishnav who thought "Vishnu Narayana is Supreme", while the same day I am reading scholarly research that Sankara's parent's were clearly Shaiva and he attended a Saiva temple, then I see Shaivites and Vaishnavs on some internet forum fighting over the "Who is Supreme?" stupid endless debate all based on something Sankara said or didn't say, harking back to the days when some ISKCONites would yell at me "Sankaracharya is a horrible mayavadi!" just because I had a (rather small) poster of Shankara Acharya on my wall.
Frankly, I do not really read anything, or even think much about, Sankara Acharya today. I respect him a lot, he doesn't trump the Vedas, Agamas, Ramayana, and many Puranas. I am not going to read his commentaries, I am just not that interested at this time, sorry. Oddly, while I cannot think of such happening in the past, nor ever did such happen in any temple, not even from "restricted temples" in India, for some reason the last couple of years I've been sort of "grabbed by the shoulders" by advocates of all sorts of "restrictions" who would literally be shoving pages and pages and passages and passages, and entire volumes also, of Vedas at me to read while saying "but you cannot read it, but here, look at this, but then, don't look, ok one quick peek, got it? Ok, now say you will never read it again, but first, I want to show you this, then close your eyes within 20 seconds after I flash it...." huh? It is almost comical, hillarious. I have never in my past have been so knowledgeable of the Vedas and only thanks to those "flash card" classes conducted by the "restrictionists". Before long I will be speaking Sanskrit.
Last edited:
That's cause it isn't logical. The only logic is some kind of protectionism, and that is only logical to the people who think that way. I just ignore it.
Besides, at least around this house, we know who's Boss.
Andal
resident hypnotist
That's cause it isn't logical. The only logic is some kind of protectionism, and that is only logical to the people who think that way. I just ignore it.
Besides, at least around this house, we know who's Boss.
LOL Vinayaka, I know many guys who feel the same
I think it's odd and I wonder if this was the culmination of the Manusmrti and Islam entering India. In ancient times women and men received the sacred thread. This is the grounds that Arya Samaj, Religioscope: India: a village where Hindu girls wear the sacred thread, Anandamayi Ma, and ISDS use to offer it to women.
I think it threatens what some people think a woman should be.
It's funny to see so many Vaishnavs speak against it as well considering that in relationship to Sriman Naryana we are all women.
Aum Hari Aum!
Sometimes I think, but its sort of subtle too. Regardless, most Hindus don't believe this way at all.
Not off topic at all. One time I was discussing with some Smarta friends about my Guru, and they had concluded that somehow He must be following Shankara. (Nobody knows anything except for Shankara) But it goes in one ear and out the other now. But like you, I respect all traditions.