What do they have against Women ?

[Guest guest]

I have a doubt :

 

Why is it that many ascetic and otherwordly sects look down on women

? Or, is my understanding faulty ?

 

Ramakrishna Paramahansa used the words KAMINI (as in kanchan-kamini)

in a not-very-flattering way to describe women. Kabir's hymns contain almost

a tirade against women. My understanding is that the same is true with some

christian and moslem mystics - though I may be wrong on this one. I am not

keen on knowing the reason why a * particular * saint said so-and-so but I

am more interested in the rationale that can prompt a man-of-god to speak in

such a fashion .

 

When these saints speak so much against women are they referring to

the females of the human species or are they referring to the enticing lures

of a "woman" called maya that keeps a seeker from experiencing oneness with

the divine ? If the latter, why not be direct and refer to "maya" rather

than use the word "women" ?

 

I can understand me as a "mere unenlightened mortal", succumbing to

making statements tinged with male-female differentiation, but is it not

true that the enlightened are above all that ?

 

My question is : Obviously these are all extremely god-aware people

we are talking of. WHY did they speak the language of a common, uneducated

and unenlightened intellect.

 

By any chance, was this the reasoning process :

 

1. Inspite of myself being enlightened, I cannot explain the falsity

behind Maya to a person steeped in Maya

2. Hence I have to couch my statements in a language the seeker

understands

3. What do the seeking masses like the most ?

4. The opposite sex, I guess...

5. So, maybe, I have to couch my warnings-about-maya in terms of the

opposite sex

6. The seeker sees me as a Male of his species

7. So, maybe I have to warn him about the opposite sex i.e. females

(or lusting after females)

 

Any thoughts ?

 

Ram

 

p.s. Dear Murthygaru, thanks for your reply on the above.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Thommandra, Rama K."

<Rama.Thommandra@a...> wrote:

>

>

>

> I have a doubt :

>

> Why is it that many ascetic and otherwordly sects look down

on women

> ? Or, is my understanding faulty ?

>

><snip?

>

> Any thoughts ?

>

> Ram

>

 

Ram,

 

If I may presume to reply, I cannot comment about the specific

individuals you mention, but as someone who has studied

women's issues for decades, as well as a special study of

history of human thought as it relates to women and their place

in society, (and as someone who considers himself a "feminist"

in the best and most progressive sense of that word,) I would

answer that cultural prejudices can run very deep, even in very

spiritually minded individuals. In my tradition, we would speak of

this as the "tares and wheat" being side by side in the human

consciousness, often in startling contrast.

 

Consider, St.. Paul, from my own tradition. At his best, and most

enlightened, he wrote that " There is neither Jew nor Greek,

there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:

for ye are all one in Christ..." That statement of the nature of the

Christ-consciousness speaks to the divine, which many yogis

and spiritual sages have recognized.

 

But this same Paul was also conditioned by the cultural beliefs

of his time, which did not really afford full humanhood to women,

and in some cases, even the same spiritual status. Thus the

very same Paul could write: "Let the woman learn in silence with

all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp

authority over the man, but to be in silence." Yikes!

 

Fundamentalists have taken these words of Paul the Jew, and

Paul the ex-Pharisee, and Paul the all-too-human male of the

first century A.D. to be literally the word of God, and so, in my

opinion, often afford women secondhand status, requiring that

they live "in submission" to their husbands and be unable in

some Christian sects to be clergy or give the sacrament.

 

To many Christians, including myself, this stance toward

women is utterly at odds with the first statement of Christ Jesus,

as well as the overall teaching of Christ, and so we reject it and

the Biblical literalism that would support it.

 

So, while I, as a Christian, find much to love in Paul's writings, I

also recognize his human frailties and limitations, which

certainly are contradictory to the best in him. And so it is for you

and I. The so-called human self is itself a living contradiction. If

we don't put spiritual guides and sages on a false pedestals, we

won't be surprised when they at times act all too human!

 

I would add, however, that I take how an individual, or a society,

treats women (and children) as a very telling litmus test of

spiritual advancement, or lack thereof. Any man who sees a

woman as less than equal in the "eyes of God," so to speak, just

doesn't get it -- hasn't really yet learned that in the

Christ-consciousness there is neither "male nor female," and

that this divine fact, must be "made flesh" or "incarnate" in the

way we treat women.

 

This is one man's point of view, but I think that if you look at the

history Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and even many Eastern

philosophies, you will find this problem of treating women as

second-class citizens rampant. Fortunately, it has been the

effect of the Christ-consciousness on humanity to bring about a

higher sense of womanhood as people see deeper into what is

the most true in their own traditions. But we have a long way to

go. I shudder in horror, for example, when I read what is going

on in Afghanistan right now. That surely is insanity, the worst of

the male mind gone made, thinking it is speaking in the name

and place of God. (And of course, my own Christian history is

also filled with such madness.)

 

So, yes, it is troubling when teachers and sages can evidence

so much enlightenment, and yet in some areas, exhibit the worst

of the unregenerate male mind. And frankly, if any teaching

incorporated within it unloving and disrespectful,unequal, and

hierarchical views of women, I would have to reject that teaching

as well -- or at least that aspect of the teaching. As spiritual

seekers, we must shift the chaff from the wheat, lovingly and

without condemnation, but with a firm sense of not giving

authority or validity to what is not true to the nature of divine Love.

 

Hope this perspective helps.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Steven,

 

 

You wrote : cultural prejudices can run very deep, even in very spiritually

minded individuals....So, yes, it is troubling when teachers and sages can

evidence so much enlightenment, and yet in some areas, exhibit the worst of

the unregenerate male mind... As spiritual seekers, we must shift the chaff

from the wheat, lovingly and without condemnation, but with a firm sense of

not giving authority or validity to what is not true to the nature of divine

Love.

 

"Ignore the chaff lovingly and without condemnation" is an attitude I

share...I am just trying to grope if there can be anything deeper than

coexistence of "chaff and wheat"

 

I agree saints have indeed given us so much more than a few "sexist" remarks

but it seems - at least to me - quite incongrous that a human who has been

blessed with a vision that sees beyond the temporal or sexual should be

limited by the beliefs of the times. Since it seems so quite

out-of-character, I was wondering...can there be anything deeper behind it ?

 

Ram

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Thommandra, Rama K."

<Rama.Thommandra@a...> wrote:

>

> Steven,

>

<SNIP>

> You wrote

> "Ignore the chaff lovingly and without condemnation" is an

attitude I

> share...I am just trying to grope if there can be anything deeper

than

> coexistence of "chaff and wheat"

>

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by deeper...could you

explain more?

 

As for what I called the chaff and the wheat that make up the

so-called, illusory human consciousness, they are never really at

peace, so any coexistence, so far as the individual is concerned,

is not a peaceful coexistence. The "monkey mind" is always at

war with itself, and whatever does not reflect the divine, the One,

suffers, until it lets go of the false.

 

As for whether a woman, or a society, or an individual must

simply suffer with, or "coexist" with the chaff of another, or of a

culture, or of a political system, that is hurting or subjugating

others, then that's a whole other issue. The effect of Truth or

Love understood must always be reform, change, must it not? In

all their individual ways, both activist and quietest, all the great

sages, teachers, and prophets have been reformers. But in this

I tend to agree with J. Krishnamurti that the only real way to effect

societal change is to change one's own thought by

self-knowledge that finds the "quiet" in which creative freedom

appears, and in that freedom, which is true energy and spiritual

power, the world is changed.

 

As for how men treat women, and vice versa, it seems to me that

the whole thing comes down to love, and this is one of the

things Krishnamurti says about love: "Love is not a thing of the

mind. It is only when the mind is really quiet, when it is no longer

expecting, asking, demanding, seeking, possessing, being

jealous, fearful, anxious -- when the mind is no longer projecting

itself, pursuing its particular sensations, demands, urges,

hidden fears, no longer seeking self-fulfillment or being held in

bondage to belief -- only then there is a possibility of love." Wow!

No wonder human relationships, especially the male/female

one, is so fraught with hurt and disappointment! No wonder

there are wars and nationalism and tribalism and genocide!

The great work of world reform lies *within* each one of us, and

only in this way can we truly liberate man and woman and

society.

 

> I agree saints have indeed given us so much more than a few

"sexist" remarks

> but it seems - at least to me - quite incongruous that a human

who has been

> blessed with a vision that sees beyond the temporal or sexual

should be

> limited by the beliefs of the times. Since it seems so quite

> out-of-character, I was wondering...can there be anything

deeper behind it ?

>

 

By deeper, do you mean, could such sexist views have any basis

in divine Love itself? I don't see how this would be possible,

although theologians and others have sometimes tried to give a

divine sanction for treating women as lesser beings or inferior.

 

If by deeper behind it, you mean,could some of these people

perhaps not be as "spiritual" as their teachings seem to be?

Yes, I think that is sometimes so, sad to say. And I have often

seen that sometimes a person's vision goes far beyond where

he or she is in terms of *living* or demonstrating what that vision

reveals of Truth. Again, as one would say from my Christian

tradition, the "Word must be made flesh." Truth not lived is truth

not understood, or else one is admitting a duality between

knowing and doing, and the divine, so far as I can ascertain,

admits no such duality. To do is to know; to know is to do. (I

smile as a write that last sentence, because whenever I say that,

I always here Frank Sinatra's voice singing, "Do be do be dooo..."

from his "Strangers in the Night" song...Oh well,sorry about that!)

 

If a man seems to gives genuine evidence of spirituality, and yet

is lecherous, or a sexual predator, or as a "principle" treats

women as less equal or less worthy than a man, then this is a

serious sign, in my estimation, that however "true" the man's

other words may be, much of his life and self is a lie. And I

would flee such a man (or woman) like the plague, for the error

of his thought and heart would tend to be conveyed, consciously

and unconsciously, to his students, adulterating their purity of

thought and heart if they were not alert.

 

I have no idea if this is what you meant by "deeper" issues, but I

gave it a try. Hope it's helpful.

 

With love,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Steven,

 

You wrote : I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by

deeper...could you explain more?...By deeper, do you mean, could such sexist

views have any basis in divine Love itself? I don't see how this would be

possible...If by deeper behind it, you mean,could some of these people

perhaps not be as "spiritual" as their teachings seem to be? Yes, I think

that is sometimes so, sad to say.

 

Sorry, I did not make my my doubts clearer. Like you, I too cannot

conceive of divine love having an iota of differentiation between man and

woman. No, that is not what I meant by "deeper". By "deeper", what I meant

is : What is it that would lead a man-of-god to pronounce "sexist"

statements - not habitually but even once ? Is it really possible that

EVERYONE - even the enlightened - are subject to prejudices of their time ?

But my understanding of enlightenment is where all sense of differentiation

is necessarily lost. I guess, the question becomes : What is enlightenment ?

Is enlightenment an uninteruppted nature of bliss ? If yes, then I cannot

understand how saints such as shankara (in Bhaja Govindam), ramakrishna

paramahamsa (in Gospel) and kabir (in dohe) can make "sexist" remarks. On

the other hand, is enlightenment something you "realize" (not achieve) but

which you HAVE to set aside in order to continue day-to-day activities. If

so, is it possible that during such times of "setting aside", EVERYONE -

including the enlightened - are subject to the prejudices of the time and

sexes. What do saints of various cultures say about nature of enlightenment

?

 

You wrote : Krishnamurti says about love: "Love is not a thing of

the mind. It is only when the mind is really quiet, when it is no longer

expecting, asking, demanding, seeking, possessing, being jealous, fearful,

anxious -- when the mind is no longer projecting itself, pursuing its

particular sensations, demands, urges, hidden fears, no longer seeking

self-fulfillment or being held in bondage to belief -- only then there is a

possibility of love." Wow!

 

Wow Indeed ! An unqualified WOW ! ...

 

Ram

[Guest guest]

Dear Steven, I enjoyed reading your passionate plea for equality of

what Is.

> Ram,

>

> If I may presume to reply, I cannot comment about the specific

> individuals you mention, but as someone who has studied

> women's issues for decades, as well as a special study of

> history of human thought as it relates to women and their place

> in society, (and as someone who considers himself a "feminist"

> in the best and most progressive sense of that word,) I would

> answer that cultural prejudices can run very deep, even in very

> spiritually minded individuals. In my tradition, we would speak of

> this as the "tares and wheat" being side by side in the human

> consciousness, often in startling contrast.

>

 

 

As spiritual

> seekers, we must shift the chaff from the wheat, lovingly and

> without condemnation, but with a firm sense of not giving

> authority or validity to what is not true to the nature of divine

Love.

 

 

I just want to express that the confused over emphasis on God being

just masculine (when the Witness is neither masculine nor feminine),

can be seen in the way humans treat Mother Earth.

 

Form is also GOD. Mother is also Father. Father is also Mother.

 

Let us embrace all aspects of God our Self!

 

May unity bless us with peace & harmony,

 

Love

 

Colette