Women according to scriptures

[Avinash]

In another thread, some of us started discussing what is said about women in scriptures. Some were saying that women are of lower brith and some were saying that it is not so. Before we start any discussion, we must state the topic of the discussion very precisely. Otherwise, different people will interprete the topic differently and we will keep on going in circles.

 

So, how to state the topic of the discussion? Suppose that the topic is

"Are women of lower birth than men?".

 

This topic does not not mention what and/or who should be considered as authorities to decide if women are of lower birth. As we saw in saw in the other thread, some posters were using Gita, some as Puranas, some were just making assertions without citing any source, and some were citing a source but not making clear where their point of view is reported in that source.

 

So, let us decide that we will consider the four Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Puranas as authorities.

 

We have still not defined what we mean by the word "lower" when we ask if women are of lower birth. Here, by lower I mean what the sciptures I have cited above consider as sinner.

 

So, now we can state the topic precisely. The topic is: -

 

"According to the four Vedas, upanishads, puranas and Bhagavad Gita, are women worse sinners than men?"

 

The possible answers are:-

1. Yes, women are worse sinners.

2. No, men are worse sinners.

3. No, the gender does not matter.

4. The scriptures mentioned are silent on this topic.

 

All your arguments must be based on the scriptures mentioned in the topic. When you present an argument, please state the name of the scripture and also state the verse no. Please do not have your own definition of the word "sinful". We have to consider what these scriptures consider as sinful.

 

Some of you may feel that the topic needs some modification. As an example, you may feel that some other scriptures should also be considered as authorities. Or, you may feel that some of the scriptures I have mentioned here should not be considered as authorities at all. Or, you may like to change the meaning of the word "lower".

 

If this is so, then before discussing based on what modified topic is there in your mind, please post here what the modified topic should be.

There is no point in discussing if we do not agree on the topic.

[Pritesh01]

Prabhupada's Views on Women

By Urmila devi dasi

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Over the past months, several devotees-some of a very high devotional caliber-have directly or indirectly stated that Prabhupada's comments and instructions about women were erroneous, irrelevant to our spiritual life, or out-of-date, etc.

 

It is certainly true that all of varnasrama, which includes the position of women in society, is external to our spiritual life and is not important in the sense that chanting Hare Krishna, worshipping the Deity, preaching, hearing Bhagavatam, and so forth, are important. It is also true that spiritual life isn't dependent on any material situation.

 

However, some material situations are more favorable to spiritual life than are others. In particular, a stable society with functional families, are helpful to, as Prabhupada said, "make the mind peaceful" for spiritual life. If both men and women play their respective roles in this world, then the truly important things, such as always remembering Krishna and serving Him favorably, become so much easier.

 

If we throw out the "external,” instructions that Prabhupada gave us regarding society-especially instructions that he repeated very often in his purports, lectures, letters, and conversations-we risk making our advancement so much more slow and difficult. And we risk developing the mentality that we can disregard anything Prabhupada said that we can't immediately understand or apply. The fact that we may not feel able to apply something doesn't mean that we should "resent the principle,” but rather we should go on trying "without consideration of defeat or hopelessness. " (gita 3. 31 purport)

 

Prabhupada was preaching only 20-30 years ago. Society hasn't changed all that much. And certainly, hormones haven't changed since the creation, what to speak of in the last 20 years. The different psychology of men and women haven't changed since the creation. The psychological needs of men, women, and children remain as they were. If we truly believe, even theoretically, that we "are not this body,” then why do we care whether our bodily duties are "higher" or "lower" than someone else's? Such things are temporary, external, and don't touch the real self. If doing a "lower" duty will please Krishna and Prabhupada and help us fix our minds on the glorious holy name, why for the sake of pride will we reject it?

 

 

Urmila devi dasi is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada and frequent contributor to Back to Godhead Magazine.

 

In any case, most difficulties with understanding the position of women can be solved if we understand that all of us have two duties-material and spiritual. The spiritual duties, the nine processes of devotional service, are equally available to every human being regardless of age, gender, race, intelligence, health, etc. etc. There should be full equality of doing these nine processes in our movement. The duties according to the body and mind, which should be dovetailed in the Lord's service, will, indeed, vary according to age, gender, inclination, intelligence, talent, cultural situation, and so forth. If we deny these before the stage of liberation, we will do them anyway, but in a way that will cause our bondage. (BG, chapters 3 and 18)

 

Also, in terms of the external duties, women have varna. When comparing men and women, one must only compare a brahmana man to a brahmana woman. For example, a brahmana woman is certainly superior to a sudra man in terms of intelligence, freedom from lust, etc. I've written a lengthy article on this subject, with full scriptural references, if one wants more details.

 

The "less intelligence" of women doesn't refer to IQ or talent, but the facts that women are more inclined to mundane enjoyment and are more under the control of passion and ignorance. Our logical abilities are more prone to be over-ridden by our emotions and sentimentality.

 

If we wish to discuss areas in which Prabhupada was mistaken about women, we could bring up where he quoted some scientist as saying that women have 32 ounces less brain substance than men. The actual statistics are that women have 4 ounces less brain substance than men; when adjusted for body size, we have 1 ounce less. (One has to compare within race as certain races have larger brains). In any case, there is ample statistical evidence that men excel women in certain types of thinking; women excel in others.

 

Each type of body has its material and spiritual advantages and disadvantages. While it would be scripturally correct to say that males have an overall advantage for spiritual advancement, women have some advantages, too, such as being softhearted and inclined to follow authority. We could also say that overall, human have more advantages than demigods to become Krishna consciousness. But demigods have some advantages that humans lack, and many demigods become pure devotees.

 

Why not just accept the body we have for this life, and work with it so as to please Krishna and make our life peaceful, so that we can concentrate our time and energy on what's truly important-loving and remembering Krishna.

 

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

"According to the four Vedas, upanishads, puranas and Bhagavad Gita, are women worse sinners than men?"

 

 

I think one distinction we need to make is that "sinful" would be referring to past life activities, not the present life. Thus it would be incorrect to say "women [or men] are more sinful than...".

 

For example, if I get a disease in this life, it was because of past sinful activity, but it does not mean I was a sinful person this life.

 

The scriptures use the word papa-yoni, or sinful birth, to describe such situations. The birth was brought about by sinful activities in the previous life, but it does not mean the person is now more sinful than anyone else.

 

If we were to look at it further, we would actually conclude that men are more sinful than women. One attains what one meditates and thinks of. Generally the man will become a women in their next birth, as they are always thinking of women and are attached to them. As such, if it is considered a papa-yoni, then the previous life from which they engaged in sinful activity would be the body of a man.

 

Another aspect that few people bring up is that men are also papa-yoni according to the Gita. Vaishyas and shudras are considered sinful birth. According to Chanakya (and dharma-shastras) there are 10 kshatriyas for every brahmana, ten vaishyas for every kshatriya, and ten shudras for every vaishya. Thus we have a ratio of 1-10-100-1000, or 11 non-sinful births for every 1100 sinful births. This creates a ratio of 100 to 1 for sinful births verses nonsinful births. Thus according to the Gita 99% of men are sinful births, as are women. [ref. Gita 9.32]

 

What does this mean? It means there is no discrimination against anyone based on sex. Both male and female are equally sinful births.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Having read most of Srila Prabhupada's books I don't see anywhere where he is saying women are worse sinners than men. The essence I got out of what he was saying is that due to thier mild nature and childlike mentality women are hardly even intelligent enough to be responsible for the sinful activity they participate in. That is why women must be protected at all stages of life. When a woman engages in sinful activity its almost like a child. They just don't know any better.A man is endowed with the mental facilities to know better than to participate in certain activities. In the First Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam the purport to Canto 1 Chapter 7 text 42 Srila Prabhupada says " A good man or woman accepts anything very easily, but a man of average intelligence does not do so. But anyway we should not give up our reason and discrimantory power just to be gentle. One must have good discriminatory power to judge a thing on its merit. We should not follow the mild nature of a woman and thereby accept that which is not genuine."

[Avinash]

I think one distinction we need to make is that "sinful" would be referring to past life activities, not the present life. Thus it would be incorrect to say "women [or men] are more sinful than...".

 

For example, if I get a disease in this life, it was because of past sinful activity, but it does not mean I was a sinful person this life.

 

In that case, I must make a correction.

 

According to the four Vedas, upanishads, puranas and Bhagavad Gita, are women more likely to have been worse sinners than men in past lives?

[Avinash]

Generally the man will become a women in their next birth, as they are always thinking of women and are attached to them.

 

One can also say that women are always thinking of men and are attached to them? Any women here? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[gHari]

"past life" not lives.

 

Who knows what degradation has preceded each of us in this eternity of floundering.

[Bhaktavasya]

 

Your work does not equate with your devotional merits.

 

A man or woman born sudra can and has shown to have the highest love for God in our scriptures. So-called low birth does not indicate sinfulness. Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis and Hari das thakhur were all born in muslim, meat-eating families yet they are our acharyas for entering into Vraja lila.

 

Inferior and superior have no place in Vrndavan. Who loves Krishna the most is the hallmark of devotion be it male or female embodied.

 

 

[Avinash]

I first thought of using "past life", but I felt that many of past lives may matter.

[brajamandala]

I once sat in front of an acharyya while a female aspirant made queries regarding "description of women in the scriptures." She wanted to know if according to the acharyya's religion, "were women considered equal to men." His immediate reply,

"No, for that, the women will have to come down." It depends on one's consciousness and what you are seeing from where you are seeing it.

[karthik_v]

 

Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis and Hari das thakhur were all born in muslim, meat-eating families yet they are our acharyas for entering into Vraja lila.

 

 

I know Hari Das Thakur was born a Muslim, but I thought Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis had only assumed Muslim names [probably practised Islam outwardly], while they worked for the Nawab, but as such weren't born Muslims. What is the real picture?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Yes, that is correct. They belonged to a brahmana family from Karnataka.

 

[Bhaktavasya]

 

All this time I'd assumed Rupa and Sanatana were born Muslim. Thanks for correcting that.

 

Back to women in scripture, prayers by Queen Kunti are an example of a devotee in a female body whose mind is fixed on Krishna in love "As the Ganges flows to the sea without hindrance may my mind be constantly drawn towards you without being diverted to anyone else" and humility "How can we women know you perfectly".

 

The gopis of Vrndavan were simple, uneducated 'women' who practised austerites in male bodies (some of them) during the time of Lord Ramacandra to be able to love Krishna in the most pure and perfect way, so much so that both males and females in our tradition are encouraged to try to follow in their footsteps.

 

When the scriptures say that women are 'like children' and should be protected it harkens back at a time when women were completely dependent on the men to defend them and provide for them. The times have changed and with it women's roles in society. Many women today work outside the home to 'bring home the prasadam', pay the rent and in many cases raise the children on their own. If we ever were 'like children' we have had to grow up and become mature adults, having to make decisions that were formerly the domain of the men.

 

Ultimately, both men and women need to depend on the Lord alone and it is only He who can give protection and not the 'fallible soldiers' in the form of husbands, fathers and sons.

[debbie]

Avinash,

I just wanted you, and all the regular posters to know, even though, I may not post on this thread, unless I have questions, I am still here reading your replys.At this time, I am not knowledgeable in the scriptures of any book,because I am still learning.I admit that, but believe me, if I have questions, I will surely post, and ask. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gifJust wanted you to know,I was still hanging around. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Debbie

[karthik_v]

 

Yes, that is correct. They belonged to a brahmana family from Karnataka.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. If I am correct Raghunatha Goswami was also a Karnataka Brahmin by birth, right? Also, I recall CC describing how Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis had not only taken Muslim names before renunciation, but also had to abandon everything the moment they decided to follow Caitanya Mahaprabhu [thus becoming sannyasis], as there was a certainty that the Muslim ruler would execute them. Those were very sad days for Hinduism, as even saints were killed by scores. It was amidst such persecutions that Bhakti survived.

[karthik_v]

Dear Bhaktavasya,

 

 

Back to women in scripture, prayers by Queen Kunti are an example of a devotee in a female body whose mind is fixed on Krishna in love "As the Ganges flows to the sea without hindrance may my mind be constantly drawn towards you without being diverted to anyone else" and humility "How can we women know you perfectly".

 

 

Of course, I understood your point.

 

Not only women, even male saints while expressing their bhakti had lamented their being born in male or even human form. For example, Thirumazhisai Azhwar, a male saint, sang that the wretched human form is so inadequate to sing the praises of Narayana. Another wonderful devotee, though not a saint, Oothukkaadu Venkata Subba Aiyar who lived over 200 years ago sang that he would rather be born as a blade of grass in Brindavan, so that Krishna walks on "him" all the time.

 

So, the words of great saints have more meaning than what the literal words convey. When they say that a certain form, be it male or female, is inadequate for devotion, it is not a judgement they are passing on a certain birth. Rather, no matter what form they are presently in, it is inadequate to express their devotion.

[dhaa]

text 19

My dear Lord, You are certainly the fully independent master of all the senses. Therefore all women who worship You by strictly observing vows because they wish to acquire a husband to satisfy their senses are surely under illusion. They do not know that such a husband cannot actually give protection to them or their children. Nor can he protect their wealth or duration of life, for he himself is dependent on time, fruitive results and the modes of nature, which are all subordinate to You

 

PURPORT

 

In this verse, Laksmidevi (Rama) shows compassion toward women who worship the Lord for the benediction of possessing a good husband. Although such women desire to be happy with children, wealth, a long duration of life and everything dear to them, they cannot possibly do so. In the material world, a so-called husband is dependent on the control of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many examples of a woman whose husband, being dependent on the result of his own fruitive actions, cannot maintain his wife, her children, her wealth or her duration of life. Therefore, factually the only real husband of all women is Krsna, the supreme husband. Because the gopis were liberated souls, they understood this fact. Therefore they rejected their material husbands and accepted Krsna as their real husband. Krsna is the real husband not only of the gopis, but of every living entity. Everyone should perfectly understand that Krsna is the real husband of all living entities, who are described in the Bhagavad-gita as prakrti (female), not purusa (male). In Bhagavad-gita (10.12), only Krsna is addressed as purusa:

 

param brahma param dhama

pavitram paramam bhavan

purusam sasvatam divyam

adi-devam ajam vibhum

 

"You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God, transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty."

Krsna is the original purusa, and the living entities are prakrti. Thus Krsna is the enjoyer, and all living entities are meant to be enjoyed by Him. Therefore any woman who seeks a material husband for her protection, or any man who desires to become the husband of a woman, is under illusion. To become a husband means to maintain a wife and children nicely by supplying wealth and security. However, a material husband cannot possibly do this, for he is dependent on his karma. Karmana-daiva-netrena: his circumstances are determined by his past fruitive activities. Therefore if one proudly thinks he can protect his wife, he is under illusion. Krsna is the only husband, and therefore the relationship between a husband and wife in this material world cannot be absolute. Because we have the desire to marry, Krsna mercifully allows the so-called husband to possess a wife, and the wife to possess a so-called husband, for mutual satisfaction. In the Isopanisad it is said, tena tyaktena bhunjitha: the Lord provides everyone with his quota. Actually, however, every living entity is prakrti, or female, and Krsna is the only husband.

 

ekale isvara krsna, ara saba bhrtya

yare yaiche nacaya, se taiche kare nrtya

 

(Cc. Adi 5.142)

 

Krsna is the original master or husband of everyone, and all other living entities, having taken the form of so-called husbands, or wives, are dancing according to His desire. A so-called husband may unite with his wife for sense gratification, but his senses are conducted by Hrsikesa, the master of the senses, who is therefore the actual husband

 

text 20

He alone who is never afraid but who, on the contrary, gives complete shelter to all fearful persons can actually become a husband and protector. Therefore, my Lord, you are the only husband, and no one else can claim this position. If you were not the only husband, You would be afraid of others. Therefore persons learned in all Vedic literature accept only Your Lordship as everyone's master, and they think no one else a better husband and protector than You.

 

PURPORT

 

Here the meaning of husband or guardian is clearly explained. people want to become a husband, a guardian, a governor or a political leader without knowing the actual meaning of such a superior position. There are many people all over the world--indeed, throughout the universe--who claim for some time that they are husbands, political leaders or guardians, but in due course of time the Supreme Lord desires their removal from their posts, and their careers are immediately finished. Therefore those who are actually learned and advanced in spiritual life do not accept any leader, husband or maintainer other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Lord Krsna personally states in Bhagavad-gita (18.66), aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami: "I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions." Krsna is not afraid of anyone. On the contrary, everyone is afraid of Krsna. Therefore He can actually give protection to a subordinate living entity. Since so-called leaders or dictators are completely under the control of material nature, they can never give complete protection to others, although they claim this ability due to false prestige. Na te viduh svartha-gatim hi visnum: people do not know that real advancement in life consists of accepting the Supreme Personality of Godhead as one's master. Instead of deceiving themselves and others by pretending to be all-powerful, all political leaders, husbands and guardians should spread the Krsna consciousness movement so that everyone can learn how to surrender to Krsna, the supreme husband

__

and i think theres a story about mira bhai going to vrindavana and saying krsna is the only male, i forget the story

 

[Bhaktavasya]

 

I remain reeling from the impact of your strong reminder that it is Krishna and no-one else who is the protects and (hopefully) controls us.

 

Yes, who was it Mirabai went to see in Vrndavan, and (the way I heard it) Rupa or Sanatana refused (externally)to see her at first because of their vow prohibiting association with women. When she sent back the message that Krishna is the only male in Vrndavan, he gave granted her a personal darshan.

 

[AncientMariner]

 

 

When Srila Prabhupada talks about men's and women's roles in society isn't he talking about what functions best in order for people to become Krishna conscious? Once you are on the spiritual platform you no longer associate the self with the physical body anyways and you are completely dependent on the will of Krishna. Even my own mother admits that generally women are more emotional and prone to irrationality and she is a woman that was forced to raise children with little assistance from my father.

[Bhaktavasya]

 

You quote your Mother as saying this after she was left alone to raise the children without your father; it would be hard to make a 'rational' comparison to the male figure in this equation if your father was absent. Maybe your father would have been more emotional if he had been left to raise the children alone.

 

Besides, being emotional isn't a defect or a sign of inferiority, is it? Mother Yasoda got very emotional when Krishna seemed to be caught in Kaliya serpent's coils.

 

[karthik_v]

I don't think that you implied that being emotional is inferior. There could be some truth in the claim that women, by nature, are more emotional than men. I wouldn't know if it due to hormones, upbringing, social mores or a combination of the three. It is also my observation that women tend to be more holistic, while men are more focussed; not that either is inferior. Rather they compliment.

[Guest guest]

the reason being emotional is cited, by the Guru,

is becuse emotions can influence the intelligence

causing one to make a bad decision.

 

The story that Srila prabhupada gives is the emotion that

(I think it was )draupadi felt for asvathama, not being a good decision.

[Guest guest]

http://chakra.org/articles/pre/women/old/980120chastity.htm

 

here is the story

[Guest guest]

 

 

In the Kali-yuga the human population is full of sudras and women. There is not a Brahmin class. The decision my father made leaving the family for material sense gratification put him into the class of a sudra even though he could have been a Brahmin. Sudras are highly emotional and irrational because they are tied up in thier fruitive activities.

[AncientMariner]

 

 

I am sorry that last post was me AncientMariner. I keep forgetting to log in.