trying to promote understanding

[Guest guest]

Dear Max,

Namaste.

 

Thank you for your kind message.

I understand your points.

 

The difference between our position is that I am a “Vedic fundamentalist”, so to

speak. I am not a “Hindu fundamentalist” in the sense that much of what is

considered today as Hinduism is not Vedic, and as I mentioned before, there is a

lively movement within Hinduism to identify and correct interpretations that are

not in accordance to the shastra but can be defined as laukika sraddha, general

ideas in the public not substantiated in scriptures. I would add that such

laukika sraddha interpretations are negative and detrimental both to Hinduism

and to society in general.

 

Therefore my idealized view of pativrata is based on VEDIC SCRIPTURES.

I have never found one passage in Vedic scriptures where it is said or enjoined

that a widow must perform sati out of social custom if she is not prepared to.

Therefore I stick to the Vedic version.

I am not prepared to bin the Vedas because the degradation of Indian society

misused, distorted or misinterpreted them.

I want to clarify THAT MY IDEALIZED VIEW OF PATIVRATA IS NOT BASED ON SOCIAL

INTERPRETATONS CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL VEDIC VIEW as you seem to imply.

I repeat, whenever such concept of voluntary sati was distorted by social

pressure, family pressure or even mistaken cultural concepts into forcing a

widow to kill herself or to be killed, the result was a crime, which I do not

approve at all, and I do not consider at all in an idealistic way.

Whenever it was not freely chosen IT WAS WRONG. I am talking about the Vedic

examples in shastra WHEN IT WAS FREELY CHOSEN. This is what I embrace in my

idealistic view.

 

I hope you can understand this point now

 

Regarding the ascetic life of women and the (mis)adventures of sadhvis, I

completely agree with you.

In recorded history during these last 5,000 years, they have indeed faced more

severe obstacles than men, but from what I know they were respected and

recognized when they showed their actual realization.

I know that among the Naga Babas there has never been any discrimination between

yogis and yoginis: if you have examples that demonstrate the contrary, I will

take them into due consideration.

I may quote the cases of Mirabai and Lalleswari who became very famous and

respected.

Both had to go extra miles to demonstrate that they were not just misfit women

but they had some realization.

When Mirabai went to see the famous Gaudiya Vaishnava scholar Jiva Gosvami, she

was told by his attendant that the Gosvami did not meet with women. She replied,

“I didn’t know that in this world there were any other male than God”. The

Gosvami immediately rushed out to beg forgiveness for his offence and recognized

Mirabai’s greatness.

However, I personally believe that in the patristic atmosphere of Kali yuga (the

last 5,000 years), women everywhere (not only in India) have had a very hard

time in being accepted on a par with men. Things are only starting to change

even in the West.

It is important to understand that the discrimination is not in the Vedic

shastras, but in the laukika sraddha or the general understanding of people.

 

Today things are changing, because we are entering a different astrological age

and therefore thanks to the much needed struggle for the rights of women, the

grip of patristic control is loosening everywhere, including India.

 

I also recognize that practically all the credit must go to non-Hindu forces. It

goes to western women and secular movements.

I have no problem in acknowledging this, because it is evident.

The point I want to make is that, the loosening of the patristic oppression

(everywhere) has brought us today to a blessed situation where we can start

reading the Vedic shastras in their true original light and wash away a lot of

misconceptions – such as the intrinsic social value of sati (a point on which I

totally agree with you).

However, I insist on the fact that Hinduism must be reformed from within, not

from outside, by rejecting it.

 

Regarding the association of widow with death and the obligation to a life of

renunciation that she has not chosen spontaneously, I completely agree with you.

My work is largely based on this point.

I will give you an example.

 

One of the greatest “austerities and renunciations” expected from widows in

India is following a vegetarian diet (which also excludes onion and garlic –

also avoided by yoga practitioners).

As you may have seen from my website, www.dharmaseva.net, in the sections about

vegetarianism and recipes, I am presenting such “austerity and renunciation” as

an objectively positive and pleasurable fact.

Which, as many in the West have discovered in these last 50 years, is also very

good for health.

Austerity and penance prescribed in Vedic scriptures do not amount to

deprivation or torturing one’s body and mind, but to restrict sense

gratification to a healthy level.

Another “austerity” is the assiduous practice of Sadhana. Whether they remain at

home or they move to a holy place, Hindu widows are generally expected to

dedicate their time to Sadhana.

While most materialistic Indian people consider this a botheration and a serious

restriction on their sense gratification, there are many in the West who are

happy to follow a religious Sadhana as prescribed in the Vedas. And nobody is

forcing them to do so.

Again, I am only talking of people WHO ARE INCLINED TO DO SO.

I am talking about the validity of the idea in itself, not about the validity of

COERCION OR PRESSURE.

I believe that coercion and pressure (from society, family, culture etc) has no

value: it is WRONG.

 

Other examples of austerities for widows are the cutting or shaving of hair

(which almost nobody is doing any more – generally hair is just cut shorter),

using plain clothes (the plain white sari is generally substituted with an

ordinarily modest sari after a period) and giving up ornaments (excluding malas

with religious significance and tilaka decorations that are always welcomed).

I do not see a great difficulty in these, as many women (including in the West)

already cut their hair, use plain clothes and choose not to use ornaments.

I am personally following all this, although I am not a widow.

Why I am doing this? The point is that I want to show that SUCH AUSTERITIES ARE

NOT A SOCIAL DISGRACE but they can be a positive choice.

What we need to do is removing the marginalizing of widows and women in general

in Indian society – something that is not prescribed in Vedic scriptures, in my

opinion.

 

The point I am trying to make is that whatever is expected from Hindu widows (I

mean, except extreme things like sati, which should not be EXPECTED) could be

reasonable IS THEY WERE INCLINED TO DO IT.

The problem is when a person is not inclined to do something: in this I

completely agree with you.

What is pleasurable and desirable for someone who likes it, can be hellish for

someone who doesn’t like it, or doesn’t want to do it. Like a sauna, for

example, or one hour of aerobics, or a colon wash.

 

Therefore my position is that – after having demonstrated with my personal

example and by providing a suitable environment and positive opportunity for

those who are INCLINED to follow such a life of austerity – those widowed women

who do not feel inclined to follow it should be free to remarry or to do

whatever they like with their life.

Unfortunately, social pressure is not yet allowing this choice – but things are

changing, THANKS TO THE SECULAR MOVEMENTS, including the “plenty of Indian

women”.

Regarding your objection that Indian women challenging these ideologies, and not

needing “Western” ideas in order to do so, I think you have misunderstood my

point. I was not referring to Western input as it is coming in today, or as

“external influence”.

I agree that Indian women who support social change within Hinduism or even

secularist views are doing that in their own right. They are not plagiarizing

anyone, and they are not brainwashed by anyone.

 

I was referring to the general Western influence on Indian culture and typically

western concepts like democracy, government subsidies, etc.

Please understand that I DO NOT INTEND TO SAY THAT THESE CONCEPTS ARE WRONG OR

BAD. I am just saying they are not traditionally Vedic.

The Vedic system is different, not “opposed” to these western concepts. They can

be reconciled.

In the Vedic social system, the king is responsible for everything that goes on

in the kingdom, and the assemblies (the brahmanas’ assembly and the general

people’s assembly) have no political powers, but work only as consultant bodies.

The “government subsidies” are the direct responsibility of the king, who has

the duty to give charity to all those who go ask him. This implies

decentralization, as a king cannot see too many people: for this reason in Vedic

times kingdoms were small. Large kingdoms were ruled by “emperors” who had

“kings” under them, paying tribute to “contribute” to maintain the main roads

etc, but were completely independent in the government of their own small

kingdoms.

 

I think that the influence of Western ideas on the general culture of India in

the last 200 years is being largely overestimated. Many things have come to be

considered “Indian” but they are not.

In this regard, I believe that the secular movements have a crucial role, and

thus they are extremely valuable as a challenge to the social prejudice in the

name of Hinduism.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not out to fight against the “western

ideas” or “secularism” just because I embrace the Vedic view. I am not a

dualistic person.

 

Regarding the persecution of women who really want to give up this life, I agree

that women who do not want to do so are being persecuted by their own kin and

not by you or me, or “us”.

I think you misunderstood me and you didn’t read my previous posting carefully

enough.

I DID SAY that family or social pressure and any kind of coercion is wrong.

Abandoning or kicking out widows from the family is also wrong.

The marginalized and miserable life to which widows are pushed is also wrong.

The teaching (during all their lives) that this is what they ought to do is also

wrong.

In my knowledge, none of these evil social habits are prescribed in the Vedas.

If you have any quote showing the contrary, I will be happy to examine it.

 

What I was saying, and I believe it has been sorely misunderstood, is that we

need to create positive alternatives in society.

What are these alternatives? Here are some examples:

- organizations and ashrams RUN BY WOMEN with a positive, empowering outlook on

female power

- positive reading and interpretation of Vedic scriptures, to highlight the true

ideal so that the wrong interpretations can be defeated

- schools where girls can be taught about their real power and how to use it

- a network of cooperation among secular and non-secular organizations to fight

mistreatment of women

The list could go on and on, and I invite everybody to add items.

 

Regarding the bad and biased translations of Vedic scriptural sources, I

acknowledge that you are not convinced by my point. So I believe we should

simply agree to disagree.

This includes your comments about the pativrata ideology.

 

Regarding your last point, only PATIVRATI women are expected to carry out

spousal suicides because this is the entire point of pativrata. But again, I

have to clarify that pativrati women are not EXPECTED to carry out suicide. They

are simply respected if they do so. I think there is a huge difference.

Anyway, I see that this discussion has come to a blind point, where I am the

“fundamentalist persecutor” and whatever I say is taken in the wrong way, or

disregarded completely.

I understand that this is a very touchy subject, and I appreciate and respect

your passion in defending the rights of women. I want to reassure you that I

actually share the same passion and the same goals.

But as I said before, I am doing that from a “fundamentalist Hindu” perspective,

particularly because I am working with “fundamentalist Hindus”.

 

If you have problems with Hinduism and Vedic scriptures, I respect your view but

I do not agree with it.

Let us remain friends and if possible cooperate on those things we both agree

on, and drop the rest.

 

Sincerely,

 

PKD

 

 

PS

For those who may be interested to know (or care), today is Savitri puja,

observed as a holiday in Orissa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Parama

>The difference between our position is that I am a “Vedic fundamentalist”

 

Yes, I got that, and that your view of pativrata

is idealistic. As before, I disagree with this

ideal with or without sati suicides, and also the

Vedic idealization of kings that you refer to. To

me they are unrealistic because they overlook the

human tendency to tyranny, contain no

protections against systemic injustice, and

induce people to believe that these hierarchies

are somehow divinely ordained. In the case of

pativrata, it also fosters masculine arrogance

and egotism. In so many cases, the more loving

and generous partner is subordinated to the

spendthrift, the drunkard, batterer, libertine,

gambler or molester. This cannot serve Dharma.

>In recorded history during these last 5,000

>years, they have indeed faced more severe

>obstacles than men, but from what I know they

>were respected and recognized when they showed

>their actual realization.

 

Sometimes, sometimes not. Any truly realized

being would recognize them, of course, but

society often did not. Many died young. Few got

any formal support. This was also true of the

Buddhist nuns, who often starved because so many

people did not see it as meritorious for women to

take up this path and so did not feed them, did

not endow them with monasteries even to 1/100th

of what was given to the men.

>I also recognize that practically all the credit

>must go to non-Hindu forces. It goes to western

>women and secular movements.

 

Hmmm, I don't agree with this. Indian, African,

Japanese, Mexican, all kinds of women have been

involved in overturning these oppressions, and

their efforts predate the present-day movements.

It's just that those who fought the injustices

were crushed, their protests buried and

forgotten. They existed, nevertheless. As for

reforming Hinduism, that is not my task. It

belongs to the women and men of India to

determine its direction.

 

Yes, your ideas about

>- organizations and ashrams RUN BY WOMEN with a

>positive, empowering outlook on female power

 

make sense to me. As for the rest, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

jai Ma

 

Max

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net