The Woman in the core texts..

[DeepForest]

Read the bold text if you prefer the shorter version.

Some people say you judge a true religion by two criteria. One being to look if the text comes from the true god, the other being to examine the texts to see they are free from contradictions.

I have another way of judging if religions are true or not. Look on how the source-texts regard and define the woman. No religion can claim to be ethically and morally correct if they degrade the woman. It just signifies the primitive mind of mankind instead of something sacred.

In my question I am interested only in the source-texts that can be isolated from the rest of the cultural application and the other not-so-good texts (but other answers are welcome too of course). I am interested in spiritual advancement and not in culture.

My question is about what the source-texts in Hinduism says about woman. Are there any problems? It is better to be honest with me because I will find out sooner or later. I have experiences of people trying to cover up all the bad things in their religions and neglect and deny the problems. To them the degrading of the woman is not found in significant amount in their religion, but I have a much higher standard then the (often) male-dominated crowd trying to trivialize everything (and followers denying, neglecting and trivializing are even worse then badly written texts). To some degree they say the degrading of the woman in the source-texts was because of “bad” monks. However, if the source-texts are that full of errors I rather walk my own path then trying to fix and use a distorted map.

I know much have developed in Hinduism that can not be regarded as the true Hinduism. I want to focus on the parts that can be isolated from our human societal implementation (maybe it is erroneous from an academic standpoint as culture and the texts can not be easily separated, but you get my point i guess). A true path must somehow raise above the society. I do not know the texts in this religion but the Bhagavad Gita seems to be one of the core texts.

And what are the core texts? Is it sufficient with the Bhagavad Gita?

(I have tried to research the topic and I have found out that the feminine is highly regarded.. But of course, I do not know much)

(In this question I am interested in examining the text in isolation, away from how groups/societies do apply it. While groups can support, I always move (think, act, reflect, experience) my in own way. (and no self-proclaimed group can be defined as a group if it is to accept the wide variety of movements possible, and that a variety is the core of my approach). Therefore it is rational for me to examine the nature of only the core texts, to determine the usage).

[peteyzen]

All religions are man made, and most are quiet old, this means that as man has dominated society for most of the past, women have generally been given a secondary role in all of them. Thankfully this is changing now. This status is nothing to do with god, it is simply a reflection of the unbalanced nature of our societies.

[DeepForest]

do you know of problematic areas in the Bhagavad Gita in regard to this context.. ? i have only read a fraction..

edit: i found "woman" under the index.. i would have looked it up directly if it was not for initially being "flattered" by this book.. i return with a report about how and if this book survives my mind..

[DeepForest]

I am impressed, because I am not horrified. This book may actually continue to be interesting and relevant to me. I think it does survive...

In the next reply I post some other interesting favorable reflections.

The quotes and summaries are from and on the Bhagavad Gita As It Is. Second Edition. S.Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada

Quotes are from the commentaries unless stated otherwise.

1.4 ”According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy” And when women become free to mix with men adultery is indulged."

Canakya Pandita was a politician, ruler, or something, and was a man of his time. His words are probably not of much importance to the very core of this philosophy. I am interesting in extracting exactly and only the core for my own ends.

14.7 describes men and woman have attraction to each other

This is interesting as the commentator equally describes men and woman being attracted to each other. Not that woman tries to seduce the "innocent" man, or that the woman can’t control herself..

16.1-5 They discuss strict rules for not associating with woman. “This is not a sign of hatred for woman as a class, but it is stricture imposed on the sannyasi not to have close connections with woman.”

This is not a big problem. Some people – excluding me – believe they develop better being isolated from woman. They are free to do so.

16.7 “As for behavior, there are many rules and regulations guiding human behavior, such as the Manu-samhita, which is the law of the human race. Even up to today, those who are Hindu follow the Manu-samhita […] Now, in the Manu-samhita it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that woman are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. [but instead woman have been given freedom, and;] this has not improved the social condition of the world. "

(emphasis mine)
The Manu-samhita can probably be ignored as it seems to be more about other things then liberation.

The Manu-samhita probably force the woman to mentally stagnate and be like a child by denying woman the same educational possibilities etc.

How do they determine society has not changed and in whose interest. This text is too unclear to know the conclusion is correct.

2.60 “A practical example is given by Sri Yamunacarya, a great saint and devotee, who says: “Since my mind has been engaged in the service of the lotus feet of lord Krsna, and I have been enjoying an ever new transcendental humor, whenever I think of sex life with a woman, my face at once turns from it, and I spit at the thought [do he turn back his face again then, just to spit?]””

The mind having reached the supreme naturally turn away from worldly passions. It is also possible to take an aggressive stance towards thoughts of passion, and this aggression is born out of desire to be free from passion, but it is very far away from actually being free from passion in the way that the mind just drops it. Judging by his choice of expression, I doubt what position Sri Yamunacarya actually hold in this.

I am also uneasy with his way of expressing the point. Probably he is not important to the minimal core of the philosophy.

3.34 describes a man wants to have sex with other woman, even if having a wife

Here actually the commentaries portray the man as prone to errors.

9.32 Of “lower birth” are the following: women vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers] (described in the actual verse) (it speaks about that even these kinds of people can reach the highest goal)

Of course. We can not have a religion without saying woman are of lower [quality/ability/insight/capability/whatever]. Is this an universal statement? Are women of all times in all places and in all life-forms of lower birth (then men)? Or is it just that they where of lower birth at the time because of how society was organized.

It is interesting how religions speak about all the important things, and somehow always manages to state the difference between man and woman, as if that would really matter. This just signifies the bond the religion has to the collective cultural mind of the time.

Is it that the female body is inferior, or is it all of the femininity in some abstract spiritual way that is inferior?

General thoughts
Vishnu – a force of such magnitude should be far beyond gender, and still men tries to to assign a gender – their own gender; how arrogant! Why do we degrade Vishnu by giving it a male gender? Everywhere Vishnu is referred to as “Him”, “He” etc. (Is that a correct observation? on Wikipedia Vishnu is portrayed as a “him”, and I think I read it in the bhagavad gita too.

[DeepForest]

To my surprise I learned Vishnu is the highest god, and Krsna was/is an incarnation, but Vishnu also incarnated as Mohini – an female avatar. The female avatar is therefore capable enough of containing Vishnu as much as the male Krsna is able too.

It is not as easy as just saying "everything - every atom and the whole universe - contains Vishnu and is contained within Vishnu and Vishnu is even in woman too". That is not a way to say woman are acknowledged by saying Vishnu is in every atom. The real way to aknowledge is to give Vishnu a female avatar, just like the there is a (many) male avatar representing Vishnu. Luckily there is a female avatar for Vishnu. (and I hope it is a fair representation (even if the only one))

Sorry if i am wrong on some things. All this is new to me and I try to figure things out.

[DeepForest]

yes.. this book seems to hold practically usable things. the reason for me being harsh was this book called for my attention. it came to me and showed me part of its essence.. i had no intention to engage with yet another holy book.. it awoke a deep hope in me to actually find my path and this book was promising something.. it better be fully honest with me now..

now.. i can take any holy book, learn its content.. master its discource and gain "insights".. i can "surender" to all the "truths" in the books.. and only my degree of blindness, wishful thinking, my "respectful" non-criticism and inability to detect ambiguity will determine my "success".. but i prefer not wasting my time striving for and gaining recognition from some deluded movement thinking their social extacy within their group is enlightenment. i rather waste my time on something else then.

however.. this book may be another story.. i seem to draw true inspiration from it..

the introduction state that the student should accept all of the content as it is and not pick parts of it.. i really dont know what is truly intended but one thing is for sure. i do not addapt to the book (dont asume im not humble to the ideas).. i will let the book addapt to me - let it do the work and have it structure the content of my mind and i will critically see how it manages to bring something genuine.. the reason i am willing to let it in is because it has already show good effort within me..

on my part i can not be blamed for not not having surendered enough or do not "believe" enough. i can only be blamed for not being critically inclined enough to judge its true effect..

Its all about how to approach the content and as i chose to walk alone my approach must be different..

(i am talking to myself now as a way of clarifying my position to ensure i learn from past mistakes with holy books)

anyone thinking i am not serious about the content does not know the nuances of seriousness and does not know my intended path. this engagement of mine is a compliment no other book has got from my side even though i have not fully mastered my own approach.. (if mastering can ever be complete in any skill)

[peteyzen]

I am glad you are enjoying exploring the gita, it is a wonderful book, and explains a great deal about the truth of the world we live in.
I look forward to hearing how you get on applying it in your life and spiritual practices.
God bless

[DeepForest]

thank you.. :-) i will return to tell about it some day.. i actually find it blend much easier into the daily life in the modern world then i would think.. and overall it seems to have a very positive outlook.. (im guessing out of my very limited knowledge)