Women and Vaishnavism?

[ratikala]

namaskaram fireside ji :namaste


some interesting coments here which made me think ....

what about sri rama ? ...... what about sita mata ? what about srimati radharani ?

yes it is true so many westerners are attracted to krsna , but vaisnavism isnt solely the worship of krsna ,...this seems to get forgotten ....

This is an interesting comment because as a female Shakta I have often thought "Why not Krishna/Vishnu?". As in, I recognized the tremendous popularity of Krishna here in the West, yet he was not really the form of God I was drawn too. However I do get it.

to many indian women sita mata is very important , indian woman are drawn to her as a model for all womwn , the perfect wife , the perfect mother the ideal and model of piety .

yet many posts above seem imidiately to jump to the idea that atraction is physical , ....''krsna is a hunk'' , ''a ladies man '' and that gods are ''macho'' .....

but there is so much more to krsna , narayana , rama, et a'l .....than mere physical beauty
krsna is 'all attractive' , but that attractiveness is refering to every aspect of his being not onlt his physical atributes ...

Krishna is very charismatic in his portrayals. He is a lover a warrior and a sage as various points. He seems like a fun guy to hang out with. If you think about the western mind-set as well as our tendency to be weened on Greek and Roman hero stories, Krishna is the closest to fitting the western "hero" ideal.

...but isnt rama equaly heroic ?

Shiva, on the other hand probably strikes most westerners as stoic, mysterious. And with every other non-Hindu I have met, the first (and sometimes only) thing they attribute to Shiva is Destruction. He is a "evil" god. Or at least a scary god. Unless they look further, Shiva is a no-go for a lot of people. Even in one adopts Hinduism, this kind of mindset about Shiva can be hard to overcome (speaking from experience here)

I am comenting here from my experience only , ....many western devotees donot undestand the esoteric aspects of siva so yes there is a no go area which prehaps canot easily be understood .

Shakti is viewed in a similarly negative light, even among many women whether they want to admit it or not. She is often thought of as temperamental, highly sexual, fierce, dominating - qualities that women are discouraged from exhibiting in the west all the while being told they should be demur, quiet, not make a fuss, and let others sexually exploit them as much as they want. Don't fight back. Again, on a deep psychological level, women (and men) in the west have trouble with Shakti for these reasons. Only with deeper reading and education does the shift change. For me, no such shift was needed really, because Devi called to me from the start.

I didnt come across devi worship untill later on , so to a westerner prehaps this appears as a very cultural form of hinduism that in the same way is a little hard to understand . the whole idea of shakti is quite alien to the western mind , this is prehaps why they seem to need a very physical incarnation that they can relate to a little easier , as the whole idea of potent energies is too hard to grasp .

However as a westerner, raised in the west, I get the appeal of Krishna - I just don't share it. There is a place for Vishnu and his incarnations in Shaktism for sure, and I respect any Hindu who is genuinely devoted, no matter who they are devoted to.

...not that I am in any way criticising your comment , ... but I am sometimes a little worried that many vaisnava dont get it either .....

this whole idea of krsna as a lover is so misconstrued that I realy have to close my ears when people talk like that , ....krsna is radha's beloved and as radha is his eternal shakti how can we as women even think to put our selves in that position . we cant and we shouldnt . so if this is the attraction it is wrong . it is an understandable mistake but it is wrong .

as a devotee who was given the temple service of looking after sri sri radhakrsna , my service was to both as one entity , I could never look at krsna without taking srimati radhrani's permition to serve him . (thus I dont sepperate the names radha and krsna as when they are to gether they should be worshiped as one)
serving gopal ji is very different he is a child so you protect and nurture him , it is a very different relationship , but everything done is in their service and not for our own pleasure , ....allthough of course it is allways pleasurable to serve which ever form one is serving :namaste

Sorry for the long rant!
:camp:

why sorry ? it is interesting to hear anothers observations .....

realy in all my years of service I cant understand westerners attraction ? how that they can think that it is ok to be so over familiar with god ? ..and denegrate him to the idea of the dream boy , when he is so much more .....

ha ha ...my turn to say sorry for the long rant !

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Vaishnavism of the day believes in the hierarchy of--
1) God(s)
2) Avatara-s
3) People (among men)
4) people (men vs. women)
5) food
6) guNa-s
7) in short, a worldview always colored by H word

So, should we say, Vaishnavism as practiced today is hardly simply Vishnu-worship; there are deep undercurrents- accumulated purely because of historical reasons- of various worldviews/ philosophies that one has to subscribe to before embracing Vaishnavism.

In short, Vaishnavism looks right now, not hard-core Hinduism, but a some kind of middle ground between Abrahmanic and Brahmanic religions.

So, I guess, Vaishnavism becomes the popular destination for westerners shifting towards Hinduism, and for Easterners shifting away from Hinduism.

I thus rest my case here.

Please do tell me even one way in which Vaiṣṇavam resembles the Abrahamic "religions"? Do you realize how offensive your statements seem? On a previous thread you call Jesus (a lying Jewish desert charlatan) an "avatāra" and now you're calling Vaiṣṇava-dharma "Abrahamic"? Wow! Whatever, to each his own...

Aren't there countless scriptures that go into great detail on the physical attributes of Krishna?

Apart from Jayadevagosvāmī's Gītāgovinda, I don't know of any texts that go into "great detail" in regards to the beauty of his śarīra or portray the rāsalīlā in a sexual nature. In fact, the Mahābhāratam goes into very little detail in regards to the rāsalīlā and the first text to refer to him as Gopījanavallabha (the beloved to the cowherd girls) is the Harivaṃśapurāṇam. Everything about Śrīkṛṣṇa is beautiful, not just his appearance or his flute, hence why the refrain in the Madhurāṣṭakam is "madhurādhipater-akhilaṁ madhuram" (everything is charming/sweet about the lord of sweetness).

They definitely make it seem as if he's very attractive, second only to Rama in terms of physical beauty.

Saying that one avatāra is somehow lesser than another in a certain way is an example of navavidha-dveṣa, as I've said before. However, from a strictly pāñcarātrika perspecive, Śrīkṛṣṇa has all the characteristics of Śrīrāma and more, as he is the pūrṇāvatāra of Mahāviṣṇu. When Śrīmahāviṣṇu manifested himself as Śrīrāma, he purposely hid his svarūpāvasthitakalā (ability to be aware/fixed in his true form), hence why when the anyadevatāḥ reached Laṅkā, Śrībrahmādeva told him "tvaṃ trayāṇāṃ hi lokānāmādikartā svayaṃprabhuḥ." Śrīkṛṣṇa, on the other hand, was well aware of his nature, and hence told Arjuna "bījaṃ māṃ sarvabhūtānāṃ viddhi pārtha sanātanam."

 

[ratikala]

when one is thinking of krsna as a lover it is better to think in this way , thinking of the divine couple , then one tries to understand divine love ....

 

[Poeticus]

Please do tell me even one way in which Vaiṣṇavam resembles the Abrahamic "religions"? Do you realize how offensive your statements seem? On a previous thread you call Jesus (a lying Jewish desert charlatan) an "avatāra" and now you're calling Vaiṣṇava-dharma "Abrahamic"? Wow!

Dude, I totally forgot about that. That conversation was so long ago, it slipped my mind that KT called you-know-who an avatāra of Lord Shri Vishnu.

 

[Poeticus]

yet many posts above seem imidiately to jump to the idea that atraction is physical , ....''krsna is a hunk'' , ''a ladies man '' and that gods are ''macho'' .....

Geez, you get so serious that it becomes buzz-killing.

 

[ratikala]

Geez, you get so serious that it becomes buzz-killing.

and too much humor is thread killing

any how as a devotee yes I get pretty serious ,

 

[Poeticus]

and too much humor is thread killing

any how as a devotee yes I get pretty serious ,

It wasn't too much humor. If it was, the OP would have objected and not followed suit by mentioning other Glorious, Macho, Extravagant, and Honorable Deva-s.

I'm not a fool, Ratiben. I know the adhyatmic (adhyatma) qualities of Shri Krishna and Shri Rama. I may not know those qualities as well as you do, and I won't make an excuse by stating why I don't.

 

[ratikala]

It wasn't too much humor. If it was, the OP would have objected and not followed suit by mentioning other Glorious, Macho, Extravagant, and Honorable Deva-s.

I'm not a fool, Ratiben. I know the adhyatmic (adhyatma) qualities of Shri Krishna and Shri Rama. I may not know those qualities as well as you do, and I won't make an excuse by stating why I don't.

jai jai , MV bhai , I know you are not a fool , that is why I expect some interesting posts from you , and you do write sone very interesting posts , ....but also you do like to play ,


I wasnt refering to your previous comments , ...but to your ..''geez ratiben '' ..

Ha , you are just trying to distract me from being serious .....
well it hasnt worked , I am just serching for more favorite pictures .....

Ha , and PS ... stop trying to get jaskaran to rekindle old disputes with KT ji it is not devotee like behavior

Oh yes , ...PPS ....why are so many women attracted to vaisnavism ???

some just love to cook for gopal ji ....

 

[Vinayaka]

Please do tell me even one way in which Vaiṣṇavam resembles the Abrahamic "religions"?

I haven't been around much Vaishnavism, but there are several obvious parallels between one small sect within Vaishnavism and Christianity.

1) A focus on a divine person or persona, much less on more abstract versions. This persona is God.
2) An incredibly spirited sense of proselytysing in the public realm, absolutely almost rude attempts to convert.
3) A lot of focus on good/bad philosophy including hell.
4) Missionary zeal of "I'm right, you're wrong", my way is the only way.

Perhaps it's far more common in the west to encounter this. The only other Vaishnava school I've seen at all is the South Indian one of Venkateswara in a couple of temples here in The west. There is none of the above, at least to any noticeable degree.

But when one is approached by Vaishnava missionary zealots outside Tiruchendur Murugan temple telling you you're at the wrong kind of Hindu temple, it could easily be interpreted as Abrahamic tactics.

 

[Poeticus]

I wasnt refering to your previous comments , ...but to your ..''geez ratiben '' ..
Ha , you are just trying to distract me from being serious .....

I'm not trying to distract you from anything.

Oh yes , ...PPS ....why are so many women attracted to vaisnavism ???
some just love to cook for gopal ji ....

What about ISKCON and Krishna being the primary nouns that women in the West hear when it comes to something Hindu-related? That could also be why so many women (in the West, since the OP is talking about Western women converts/adoptees) are attracted to [Gaudiya-Krishna-Bhakti] Vaishnavism.

 

[Vinayaka]

But as to the OP, I haven't noticed it at all, but I have noticed that women in general are more likely to be drawn to Hinduism. Hinduism is reflective, soft, intuitive, and artsy, and it's practices soften the ego. The manly man of the west may see it as a sissy religion, not for the 'strong'. In the same way, women are more likely to be drawn to vegetarianism. http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/vegetarianism-in-america/ 59% female, 41% male

But these observations could be dead wrong.

 

[ratikala]

What about ISKCON and Krishna being the primary nouns that women in the West hear when it comes to something Hindu-related? That could also be why so many women (in the West, since the OP is talking about Western women converts/adoptees) are attracted to [Gaudiya-Krishna-Bhakti] Vaishnavism.

I think that is changing due to things like the internet there is a lot more accesability ,it is so much easier to look things up and ask questions .

when I first came in contact with vaisnava's it was because being vegetarian I used to go to shop in an indian area , so over time I came to talk with people , mostly it started because not many british used the indian shops and they got used to seeing me every sunday and we got talking ,

....but yes the first contact many people here have with hinduism is western devotees , ISKCON , in the media and on the streets .
even though more indian comunities are setting up bigger temples and these are higher profile most british people would feel out of place amongst indians because of the cultural differences and the language . in our temple the guru spoke mostly in gujarati with a little english thrown in , that is difficult to follow at first , if I hadnt come from a buddhist background I wouldnt have understood much at all ,so anyone coming from a christian background would feel a little lost both culturaly and phylosopicaly , occasionaly I used to go to the manor (ISKCON's original temple) with a freind but I didnt realy feel so at home amongst westerners , to me their take on things was ... deffinately western .but I could see how it worked for them it was a big happy family , many westerners need this , it is all a part of being in a group some thing missing in society here , maybe that is important , there is a kind of solidarity and also some thing to beleive in , some explanation about this life , that too is missing here , the mainstreem occupation is mass consumerism so for anyone seeing or hoping that there is more to life then this ISKCON provides an answer , and for a lot of people there is a empty space in their hearts and they need some thing to focus on , something greater and more meaningfull than this hedonistic lifestyle , ISKCON and Gaudia Math provide this , many prople slate them for their enthusiasm , but it is just their karma , and amongst them there are some good devotees . interestingly enough it is not just women that take to it but equal amount if not more men realy throw them selves into a completely different lifestyle . but it deffinately is a particular type of person .

I dont think that it is deffinately the actual vaisnava philosophy that draws people , because there is also a big section of people drawn to buddhism who could have just as easily been drawn to hinduism because at first many of these people are just looking for some answers and a different way of life , it is just that the ISKCON , Gaudia Math traditions have madethem selves accessable .

but this whole love for krsna , that is something which slowly grows , and talkes many years , if not lifetimes to understand . devotion has to replace the old emotional needs and desires .

 

[ratikala]

But as to the OP, I haven't noticed it at all, but I have noticed that women in general are more likely to be drawn to Hinduism. Hinduism is reflective, soft, intuitive, and artsy, and it's practices soften the ego. The manly man of the west may see it as a sissy religion, not for the 'strong'. In the same way, women are more likely to be drawn to vegetarianism. Vegetarianism In America | Vegetarian Times 59% female, 41% male

But these observations could be dead wrong.

interesting , to me there allways seemed to be more western men to women which took to it with seriousness , but it may well differ from place to place , I think that there are a lot of men that dont want to be the big ego , they have seen through it and want to find a deeper fullfilment .

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I haven't been around much Vaishnavism, but there are several obvious parallels between one small sect within Vaishnavism and Christianity.

Which sect [or sects], if I may ask, are you referring to? Gauḍiyā-s? If so, could you please provide proof from the writings of Caitanya, Rūpagosvāmī, Narōttamadāsa, Viśvanāthaṭhākura, Baladevavidyābhūṣaṇa, etc. Unless there is some pramāṇa to support your claims, then I'm afraid that your anecdotes don't really mean much to me, as the views of ISKCON leaders (many of whom are themselves quite controversial) hardly represent the views of the entire Gauḍiya-Vaiṣṇava-Sampradāya.

1) A focus on a divine person or persona, much less on more abstract versions. This persona is God.

What does that even mean? The Abrahamic "God" (cough...daitya...cough), HaShem, is not viewed by Abrahamics to have any actual form and they revile our arcāvigraha-s (and hence our āgama-s), so there's no relation there. If you mean that the authentic Vaiṣṇava-sampradāyāḥ do not adopt the impersonalist views of advaitin-s, then that doesn't necessarily make them less "Hindu." If anything, the impersonalism of the advaitin-s historically caused them to be viewed as less "Hindu" by the mīmāṃsaka-s during the time of Ādiśaṅkara. Besides, who decides what is "Brāhmaṇic" or "Abrahamic" anyway. Just because a sect doesn't look at "Brahman" from an imperonalistic detached perspective doesn't make them any less "Hindu." What kind of logic is that?

2) An incredibly spirited sense of proselytysing in the public realm, absolutely almost rude attempts to convert.

Oh, I see how you're playing things. Oh well, I guess the Nāyaṉārs must have been just as "Abrahamic" as many of their attempts to convert the Jaina-s in ancient Tamiḻakam. Of course, this is assuming that you don't have a blatant double standard with regards to sectarian bias.

3) A lot of focus on good/bad philosophy including hell.

You must be kidding me. Do you expect me to believe that there is a focus on condemning others to "Hell" in Vaiṣṇavism? You must be bluffing; in fact, I challenge you to find a single Vaiṣṇava who says that you go to Pātāla or Naraka for not worshipping only Viṣṇu.

4) Missionary zeal of "I'm right, you're wrong", my way is the only way.

The idea that one will not get mukti without the kṛpā of Bhagavān (i.e. Śrīman Nārāyaṇa) is the traditional view of all Vaiṣṇava-sampradāyāḥ, and the general view is that the preferred method of reaching that goal is through śaraṇāgati. At the same time, however, even evil-doers such as Rāvaṇa and Hiraṇyakaśipu were granted freedom from saṃsāra, so it seems illogical for any Vaiṣṇava to claim that one is rejected from mukti in this lifetime, as that would be making the assumption that they know the līlā of Śrīkṛṣṇa, which according to Vaiṣṇavism is impossible for a jīva to know. To the contrary, in Christianity, anyone who doesn't worship the fraud on a Crucifix (hence covered by the blood of Iesous Christos), would spend eternity in a lake of fire due to their belief in original sin. Again, there's no comparison and to suggest as such is rude.

Perhaps it's far more common in the west to encounter this. The only other Vaishnava school I've seen at all is the South Indian one of Venkateswara in a couple of temples here in The west. There is none of the above, at least to ant noticeable degree.

Well, isn't that quite descriptive. Both Mādhvā-s and Śrīvaiṣṇava-s worhip Śrīraṅganātha and Śrīveṅkaṭeśvara, although I assume you're talking about Śrīvaiṣṇava-s (you can correct me if I'm wrong). Judging from the writings of the Āḻvārkaḷ, Śrīvaiṣṇava-s are even less likely than Gauḍiyā-s to worship deities other than Lakṣmī and Viṣṇu. It is also viewed as a sign of weakness by Rāmānujācārya, and he even goes so far as to say that the anyadevatāḥ (including even Śiva) are themelves liable to fall into saṃsāra and hence cannot lead one to a state of Kaivalya and that the worship to deities such as Indra, etc. eventually goes to none other than Śrīviṣṇu, as he states in his Gītābhāṣya:

ये अपि अन्यदेवताभक्ताः ये तु इन्द्रादिदेवताभक्ताः केवलत्रयीनिष्ठाः श्रद्धया अन्विताः इन्द्रादीन् यजन्ते।
तेऽपि पूर्वोक्तेन न्यायेन सर्वस्य मच्छरीरतया मदात्मत्वेन इन्द्रादिशब्दानां च मद्वाचित्वाद् वस्तुतो माम् व यजन्ते अपि तु अविधिपूर्वकं यजन्ते।
इन्द्रादीनां देवतानां कर्मसु आराध्यतया अन्वयं यथा वेदान्तवाक्यानि'चतुर्होतारो यत्र संपदं गच्छन्ति देवैः।
इत्यादीनि विदधति, न तत्पूर्वकं यजन्ते।
वेदान्तवाक्यजातं हि परमपुरुषशरीरतया अवस्थितानाम् इन्द्रादीनाम् आराध्यत्वं विदधद् आत्मभूतस्य परमपुरुषस्य व साक्षाद् आराध्यत्वं विदधाति।
चतुर्होतारः अग्निहोत्रदर्शपौर्णमासादीनि कर्माणि कुर्वाणा यत्र परमात्मनि आत्मतया अवस्थिते सति व तच्छरीरभूतैः इन्द्रादिदेवैः संपदं गच्छन्ति।
इन्द्रादिदेवानाम् आराधनानि तानि कर्माणि मद्विषयाणि इति मां संपदं गच्छन्ति इत्यर्थः।
अतः त्रैविद्या इन्द्रादिशरीरस्य परमपुरुषस्य आराधनानि तानि कर्माणि आराध्यः च स व इति न जानन्ति।
ते च परिमितफलभागिनः च्यवनस्वभावाः च भवन्ति।
तद् आह॥९.२३॥

But when one is approached by Vaishnava missionary zealots outside Tiruchendur Murugan temple telling you you at the wrong kind of Hindu temple, it could easily be interpreted as Abrahamic tactics.

Again, could you provide pramāṇa to support your view that this is somhow representative of Vaiṣṇavism? This seems to go against the verse "sarvadevanamaskāraḥ keśavaṃ pratigacchati" which means that the obeiscances paid towards all the gods eventually goes to keśava (Śrīkṛṣṇa), so to argue that an individual praying is not going to the "correct temple" would be adhārmika. According to Christianity, however, non-Christian gods are false and worshipping any other god will get you sent to hellfire, so again your comparion is ill-founded and frankly quite rude.

 

[Vinayaka]

i but it may well differ from place to place ,

Could well be. Each of our experiences are relatively small samples.

 

[Vinayaka]

Again, could you provide pramāṇa to support your view that this is somhow representative of Vaiṣṇavism?

I'm sorry to have offended you. As I said, I was only speaking from my own very limited experience. The sect in question (ISKCON, BTW) most likely isn't representative of mainstream Vaishnavism. I really have no idea, as I'm no scholar, or student of Vaishnavism nor Hinduism in general for that matter. I was merely relating my observations from a few conversations I had with them. You obviously know far more than I do. So I will withdraw my comments to your greater wisdom. In fact I have no idea what pramana refers to, cannot read Sanskrit, and am just some old fool who may have just been hallucinating it all.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I'm sorry to have offended you. As I said, I was only speaking from my own very limited experience. The sect in question (ISKCON, BTW) most likely isn't representative of mainstream Vaishnavism. I really have no idea, as I'm no scholar, or student of Vaishnavism nor Hinduism in general for that matter. I was merely relating my observations from a few conversations I had with them. You obviously know far more than I do. So I will withdraw my comments to your greater wisdom.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said that you were being a bit rude, I was just slightly offended that you seemed to be basing Vaiṣṇavism in general on your experience with a couple Vaiṣṇava-s.

In fact I have no idea what pramana refers to, cannot read Sanskrit, and am just some old fool who may have just been hallucinating it all.

Nonsense, didn't you say on HDF that you once filled in for a pujārī (I can't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure it was you). You also said that you think of the meaning of mantras when you recite them, here, which would be odd if you didn't know Saṃskṛtam.

 

[Poeticus]

I just found out why women love Krishna-Vaishnavism!!!!!

YouTube[youtube]5R1vsrGrRgs[/youtube]

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

what about sri rama ? ......

Oh, Rama is included in my thoughts, he is less well known to westerners though. (Although with recent films and stories he is gaining in popularity). I used Krishna as an example because most westerners know of him. And many westerners who convert to Hinduism or Vaishnavism find ISKCON appealing. (the debate about whether Hari Krishnas are Hindus is for another thread. There is no doubt about Hindu influence though.)

Sri Rama and the other avatars of Vishnu are not as well known in the west. Yes, I would agree with you that Rama is equaliy heroic, but that's not in dispute. I'm simply saying that Krishna - of all of Vishnu's forms appears to be the most popular here in the west among converts and non-western Hindus alike.

Maa Sita is absolutely important to both Vaishnavas and Shaktas - my comments are about westerners first discovering Hinduism, not those who are members of any of the various groups.

:camp:

 

[Vinayaka]

We are experiencing, I believe, another disparity between what happens in India versus what happens in the west. It's difficult for both sides to understand the other.

In the west, for the most part ISKCON was all the Vaishnavism we saw. There may have been some smaller temples here and there that had reflections of Vaishnavism in there, but the visible one was ISKCON. So many of us westerners, I figure, more or less jumped to the wrong conclusion, a natural process of generalising. There were also the Sanatan style temples from Guyana, but that was about it. Now things have changed somewhat, and ISKCON itself is much more 'Indian' than it used to be, and with greater immigration we've gotten to see a much wider picture.

in India, OTOH, ISKCON was and is a relatively minor component.

But it's all good.