Women's Dharma

[Satsangi]

Santdasji and Wannabeyogi,

I think I can add my 2 cents here. The Smritis are a part of Hinduism and no one can denies this. There are many subjects which are contradictory appearing in the Vedas itself- like from versus formless God. It appears contradictory as we do not understand the concept. By the same token, the Smriti cannot be said to be wrong if the appears contradictory to the Veda to YOU.

My understanding- there are two types of Dharma- one is the lower one which regulates the society and conduct of people in routine life- they are Smritis . The other and higher Dharma is that of God realization- that is the Upanshads/Vedas. Both of these should not be confused with each other. The dharmas of Smritis are subject to time, place, person and other variables , and their basic purpose is to reinforce a certain conduct in the population to enhance their spiritual growth as well as material growth- as a person and as a society. The dharma of God realization is eternal and unchanging and not subject to any variables. But this does not make the smritis wrong.

For a moment, I will be a "bad apple" here and say that only reason people feels compelled to condemn the Smritis is because their religion would look "backward" and "against females" to "other people"- especially the "advanced societies of the West." I do not feel compelled to believe that women = men equation in all fields. I believe that the almighty has given both different physique, different type of reproductive tracts, different minds, different hormones, different breasts etc, etc.... and I believe that is for a reason- both are supposed to have different roles in the society. If this cardinal rule of nature is broken then only problems arise from it. I do not in any way see a working woman who cannot raise children properly superior to a successful housewife who is able to nurture a family with tender love and care. A man can work, but cannot nurture a family like a woman can. Women will be doing themselves a great disservice if they try to ape men in everything.

In the spiritual path too, women have a dfferent approach than men; this does not make them inferior. Regarding menstruation- this has been said in almost all Smritis by all Rishis across the board. Maybe they are not wrong and may be I AM MISSING SOMETHING!!

Regards

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Accept that have no knowledge of scriptures.
However rgds superiority of either males/females.
Personal view is that each being is male or female depending on the aspect that is prominent in that being due to karma.
Superiority/inferiority is only a perception.
Perception is based on *thoughts*.
When the mind is *STILL*.
No thoughts.
No differentiation.
All is the same.

Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

Then the whole world is a perception; which in a way is true too. But that is for few, not the mass.

 

[zenzero]

Friend satsangi,

Then the whole world is a perception; which in a way is true too. But that is for few, not the mass.

When one is in UNITY there is no differentiation between few and mass. It is only a question of time and space when each one will discover the consciousness and be in harmony with existence.

Love & rgds

 

[santdasji]

Once there was a Brahmin who used to go around saying all is Brahm. evrything is illusion. He was sitting in a large assembley with many followers and people who came to see him. He was teaching everyone that all is Brahm. At that point a great big elephant came and started interupting and treading over people. He started coming towards the front where this brahmin teacher was sitting. Everyone started to flee. So the brahmin said please remain seated. All is Brahm, the assembley is brahm and the elephant is brahm. So if Brahm merges with Brahm there is nothing wrong in this. At that point the elepant came charging towards the brahmin and the brahmin feared for his body and ran clenching his fist. At that point one of his stronger disciple who remained seated, called his guru and said "a minute ago you were saying all is Brahm. So why do you run?" At that point the brahimn did not reply.

The disciple had become more brahmanised/brahmrup than his so called guru had. So yes becomming brahmrup is for the few not the masses. Its a level in perfection/spiritual advancement which one most achieve. One cannot simply go round stating "all is brahm, all is brahm." and then expect to become brahmanised. One must become it to actually 'discover,' realise it or even experience it.

 

[K.Venugopal]

Once there was a Brahmin who used to go around saying all is Brahm. evrything is illusion. He was sitting in a large assembley with many followers and people who came to see him. He was teaching everyone that all is Brahm. At that point a great big elephant came and started interupting and treading over people. He started coming towards the front where this brahmin teacher was sitting. Everyone started to flee. So the brahmin said please remain seated. All is Brahm, the assembley is brahm and the elephant is brahm. So if Brahm merges with Brahm there is nothing wrong in this. At that point the elepant came charging towards the brahmin and the brahmin feared for his body and ran clenching his fist. At that point one of his stronger disciple who remained seated, called his guru and said "a minute ago you were saying all is Brahm. So why do you run?" At that point the brahimn did not reply.

The disciple had become more brahmanised/brahmrup than his so called guru had. So yes becomming brahmrup is for the few not the masses. Its a level in perfection/spiritual advancement which one most achieve. One cannot simply go round stating "all is brahm, all is brahm." and then expect to become brahmanised. One must become it to actually 'discover,' realise it or even experience it.

I am reminded of a story similiar to this, where Adi Shankara was seen running away from a charging elephant. Later, he was asked why he had run when he was expounding that everything was "Maya", to which he replied, "My running was also Maya"!

 

[Metempsychosis]

Manusmiriti is just a smriti .It is completely outdated and totalled edited scripture in Hinduism.I have lost the respect on Manusmriti.Its rubbish.:sorry1:.Even if is right ,it is completely inapplicable.Hindus have the oppressed certain section of society for a long period.Any justification of this stupid inhuman act merely serves as a self portrait of their own nature.


Whenever religion interferes with society---disaster occurs.Let religion concern itself with mysticism alone.

 

[santdasji]

Yes manu smriti is not for the Kaliyug. The Yagnavalkya Smriti is.

 

[santdasji]

I am reminded of a story similiar to this, where Adi Shankara was seen running away from a charging elephant. Later, he was asked why he had run when he was expounding that everything was "Maya", to which he replied, "My running was also Maya"!

Yes that is also another event which took place. Adi Shakaracharya was also a great avtaar Himself who has becoem Brahmrp. Yet He never stopped worship. He even stated "Bhaj Govindam, bhaj Govindam, bhaj Govindam. Moodh Matti!"

Its a process which we as the souls must attain to become brahmrup. By discarding Maya...attaining oneness with Brahm by going beyond the three bodies and three times.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I remember a story when Shankara who defeated many philosophers ,was himself defeated by a simple man.I just copied this from a website.


Shankaracharya was in Varanasi. One day, early in the morning -- it was still dark because traditionally the Hindu monks take a bath before sunrise -- he took a bath. And as he was coming up the steps, a man touched him on purpose, not accidentally, and told him, "Please forgive me. I am a sudra, I am untouchable. I am sorry, but you will have to take another bath to clean yourself."

Shankaracharya was very angry. He said, "It was not accidental, the way you did that; you did it on purpose. You should be punished in hell."
The man said, "When all is illusory, it seems only hell remains real." That took Shankaracharya aback.

The man said, "Before you go for your bath, you have to answer my few questions. If you don't answer me, each time you come up after your bath, I will touch you."
It was lonely and nobody else was there, so Shankaracharya said, "You seem to be a very strange person. What are your questions?"

He said, "My first question is: Is my body illusory? Is your body illusory? And if two illusions touch each other, what is the problem? Why are you going to take another bath? You are not practicing what you are preaching. How, in an illusory world, can there be a distinction between the untouchable and the brahmin? -- the pure and the impure? -- when both are illusory, when both are made of the same stuff as dreams are made of? What is the fuss?"

Shankaracharya, who had been conquering great philosophers, could not answer this simple man because any answer was going to be against his philosophy. If he says they are illusory, then there is no point in being angry about it. If he says they are real, then at least he accepts the reality of bodies... but then there is a problem. If human bodies are real, then animal bodies, the bodies of the trees, the bodies of the planets, the stars... then everything is real.

And the man said, "I know you cannot answer this -- it will finish your whole philosophy. I'll ask you another question: I am a sudra, untouchable, impure, but where is my impurity -- in my body or in my soul? I have heard you declaring that the soul is absolutely and forever pure, and there is no way to make it impure; so how can there be a distinction between souls? Both are pure, absolutely pure, and there are no degrees of impurity -- that somebody is more pure and somebody is less pure. So perhaps it is my soul that has made you impure and you have to take another bath?"

That was even more difficult. But he had never been in such trouble -- actual, practical, in a way scientific. Rather than arguing about words, the sudra had created a situation in which the great Adi Shankaracharya accepted his defeat. And the sudra said, "Then don't go take another bath. Anyway there is no river, no me, no you; all is a dream. Just go in the temple -- that too is a dream -- and pray to God. He too is a dream, because he is a projection of a mind which is illusory, and an illusory mind cannot project anything real.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Just to be HERE-NOW, the OP is on Women's dharma!

Believe few do not appreciate when to explain a point someone uses a diversion towards another point which in reality may still be relevant to the OP but appears illusive to the those readers and mindlessly may mention IT.

Personally it is all ONE. There is no difference that while discussing dharma which is all about ONENESS not only about individuals but between other religions about humans about the universe and everything therein] one uses different pointers from other religions or another aspect from the same religion to reach to that ONENESS in spirit.

Those with eyes can see those without [could/should/must] learn. Silence is the key here.

Love & rgds

 

[andys]

In answer to the question, "Are women really lower than men? Do their periods really make them impure? Do widows really have some sort of power to contaminate? If you are a woman do you see any issues that are religious based that you disagree or agree with?"

I can only reply that any woman who asks this stupid question honestly, thinks so little of herself that she deserves the repercussions.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

any woman who asks this stupid question honestly, thinks so little of herself that she deserves the repercussions.

There we go again!
*thoughts*
Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

Was the Adi Shankaracharya following rules of a "Smriti" when he refused to touch "untouchable "? Why would an enlightened master like him do that"

 

[Satsangi]

Can anyone explain exactly what part of Manusmriti they do not like?

 

[bp789]

Can anyone explain exactly what part of Manusmriti they do not like?

I remember seeing that there was this one rule about how if Shudras listen to Vedas, then molten lead has to be poured in his ears.

 

[Andal]

In answer to the question, "Are women really lower than men? Do their periods really make them impure? Do widows really have some sort of power to contaminate? If you are a woman do you see any issues that are religious based that you disagree or agree with?"

I can only reply that any woman who asks this stupid question honestly, thinks so little of herself that she deserves the repercussions.

Wow your comments show a complete lack of respect toward myself and the other posters. The point of this thread was to challenge some of the conceptions and stereotypes I've come across. No where do I say I believe such things and in fact as a highly educated and self assured person who happens to be Hindu, I do not accept those things. This is more of a challenge to some of the laws of Manu.

 

[Andal]

Can anyone explain exactly what part of Manusmriti they do not like?

There is a story too about a devotee of Chaitanya who was a convert from Islam. His name was Haridas. Because he was an out caste he was not allowed into Jagannath Temple in Puri. Chaitanya could have tried to over turn this but he didn't.

My understanding is that the laws of Manu were for a certain period in history when a Shuddra wasn't so by birth but by action. When caste is determined by actions and inclination then the rules regarding them make sense. When caste is birth based then the rules are problematic and cause difficulties in society.

 

[GURSIKH]

SORRY for poping in , i do not know much abt Snatan /Hindu Dharma position on Women !

GURU NANAK SAYS ABT WOMEN

ਮਃ ੧ ॥
First Mehl:

ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥
From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.

ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.

ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥
So why call her inferior? From her, kings are born.

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.

ਨਾਨਕ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਏਕੋ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥
O Nanak, only the True Lord is without a woman.


sat nam

 

[Andal]

SORRY for poping in , i do not know much abt Snatan /Hindu Dharma position on Women !

GURU NANAK SAYS ABT WOMEN

ਮਃ ੧ ॥
First Mehl:

ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥
From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.

ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.

ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥
So why call her inferior? From her, kings are born.

ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.

ਨਾਨਕ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਏਕੋ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥
O Nanak, only the True Lord is without a woman.


sat nam

That is a beautiful quote. It shows the true nature of the Dharma traditions. Thank you so much for posting it

Aum Hari Aum