Women In Hinduism

[Satyamavejayanti]

Being on this forum for just a couple of days I have noticed that many who call them selves Hindu are actually unaware of Sanatana Dharma, so I have been trying to put things strait, and i have already posted some content which are relevant to Hinduism, and I will continue to do so. I would appreciate any additions and comments from people especially Hindus.

Women in Manu Smriti (Manu was the fist Indian Law Giver)

There are allegation on Manu Smriti – that Manu Smriti is grossly anti-women and denigrates the Matri Shakti (motherly force).

If we review this original Manu Smriti, one can proudly assert that there is perhaps no other text in world (except Vedas of course!) that accords so much of respect and rights to women. Even the modern feminist books would have to seek further amendments to match up to Manu Smriti.

Manu 3.56. The society that provides respect and dignity to women flourishes with nobility and prosperity. And a society that does not put women on such a high pedestal has to face miseries and failures regardless of howsomuch noble deeds they perform otherwise.

3.55. A father, brother, husband or brother-in-law should keep their daughter, sister, wife or sister-in-law happy and pleased through gentle words, respectful behavior, gifts etc. Those who desire prosperity should ensure that women in their family are always happy and do not face miseries.

3.57. A family where women remain unhappy due to misdeeds of their men is bound to be destroyed. And a family where women are always happy is bound to prosper forever.

3.58. A family- where women feel insulted or discriminated against and curse their menfolk- is destroyed in same manner as poison kills all those who eat it.

9.90-91. A woman can choose her own husband after attaining maturity. If her parents are unable to choose a deserving groom, she can herself choose her husband.

9.130. A daughter is equivalent to a son. In her presence, how can any one snatch away her right over the property.

3.52. Those relatives who rob away or thrive on wealth, property, vehicles or dresses of a woman or her family are wiliest of people.

2.138. A man in a vehicle should give way to the following – aged person, diseased person, one carrying burden, groom, king, student and a woman.

So its clear that the current situation in India of Women is due to a lack of adherence to our own culture ad religion.

 

[Me Myself]

I found it really interestig the role of women in the mahabharat (I saw the series in youtube-tv )

Though the other day friend showed me somewhere in wiki that talked about historical woman rights and said that india had around the worst rights for women until 16 century.

I found it really weird comparing to mahabharat source o.o. I mean I know (or have been lead to believe?) that things for women are not that great there in most places of india today, but for what I saw of Mahabharat I would have thought in the past they would have been of the best cultures in ancietn times for women to be in.

I´ll look forward to input on this thread.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

but for what I saw of Mahabharat I would have thought in the past they would have been of the best cultures in ancietn times for women to be in.

It was, as I have given references from Manu Smriti, although Manu may be from a different era then the Mahabharat, the Mahabharat has may referances about women which coroborate manu smriti ad vise versa , its clear that women were more respected during these earlier time of Indian history, And for some time post Mahabharat, i think most of the problems started when India was invaded by the Moghul empire some 8-9 hundred years ago.

 

[Madhuri]

I mostly agree, except that during the time of the Mahabharata, women were required to perform sati. That was one downer...

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I mostly agree, except that during the time of the Mahabharata, women were required to perform sati. That was one downer...

I beg to differ, I have read somewhere and been told by my Guru that the "Sati" tradition was not part of the original Mahabharata, the Sati tradition may have been added in later prints of the Mahabharata, The Sati tradition took more prominence during the Mogul rule, I'm told even the Ramayana where Mata Sita is tested by fire may be a later interpolation. But if people want to believe in these things and claim it from our scriptures, i think they are just trying to justify these acts. I personally don't believe its part of our culture and tradition.

 

[Madhuri]

I beg to differ, I have read somewhere and been told by my Guru that the "Sati" tradition was not part of the original Mahabharata, the Sati tradition may have been added in later prints of the Mahabharata, The Sati tradition took more prominence during the Mogul rule, I'm told even the Ramayana where Mata Sita is tested by fire may be a later interpolation. But if people want to believe in these things and claim it from our scriptures, i think they are just trying to justify these acts. I personally don't believe its part of our culture and tradition.

I also agree that Sati is not part of the religion but became incorporated into the culture at some time in history. I have never heard before that it was put into the story of Mahabharata at some later point. I guess I don't like to think about the scriptures being modified, because that begs the question of what else has been changed. I have always been familiar with the version of Pandu's wife being placed in the flames. Whether this was part of the original story or not is not something I can know. It would be nice to know that it did not exist as a practice at that time.

 

[Vinayaka]

Being on this forum for just a couple of days I have noticed that many who call them selves Hindu are actually unaware of Sanatana Dharma, so I have been trying to put things strait, and i have already posted some content which are relevant to Hinduism, and I will continue to do so. I would appreciate any additions and comments from people especially Hindus.

Women in Manu Smriti (Manu was the fist Indian Law Giver)

Most Hindus I know take the Laws of Manu with a large grain of salt. So do I. Having said that, you certainly selected some of the better verses.

 

[Storm]

Sati is the tradition of throwing herself on the husband's pyre?

 

[Madhuri]

Sati is the tradition of throwing herself on the husband's pyre?

Correct. Do you know what the tradition is based on?

 

[Storm]

No, but I can see how it might have come about....

 

[Madhuri]

No, but I can see how it might have come about....

It is based on the ancient story of Sati, Shiva's wife, who set herself on fire in front of her father as punishment for his treatment of her husband.

As for how the ancient people of India decided that it would be a good idea to force wives to enter the fire of their dead husband's funeral pyre, I have no idea.

 

[Storm]

May I speculate?

 

[Madhuri]

May I speculate?

Sure, although all the current theories are speculations only.

 

[Storm]

Well, I can see how, thousands of years ago, one woman might have done it spontaneously and been greatly honored for her display of devotion. Over time, it becomes a model of virtue, then a standard of behavior, then a requirement.

The whole thing is tragic, don't get me wrong.... But it does make sense to me.

 

[Madhuri]

Well, I can see how, thousands of years ago, one woman might have done it spontaneously and been greatly honored for her display of devotion. Over time, it becomes a model of virtue, then a standard of behavior, then a requirement.

The whole thing is tragic, don't get me wrong.... But it does make sense to me.

Oh, yes that would be my guess as well.

I just read on Wiki that the Greeks thought it was based on the idea that wives would be less likely to poison their husbands if they could expect to be burned I guess poisoning ones husband was rampant back then!

 

[Vinayaka]

My take is that it is one of those things that has been highlighted in some 'histories' as for the drama and the openness to criticism it creates.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Being on this forum for just a couple of days I have noticed that many who call them selves Hindu are actually unaware of Sanatana Dharma,

Or maybe they just have a different opinion or view of Sanatana Dharma then you do. From my point of view at times you are misunderstanding what others are saying.

 

[Vinayaka]

Or maybe they just have a different opinion or view of Sanatana Dharma then you do. From my point of view at times you are misunderstanding what others are saying.

I totally agree. Within Hinduism, there are some who just don't get around enough. So some attempt to unify Hindus based on insisting everyone think a certain way about tolerance, or beliefs, inevitably leads to intolerance, the very thing the individual was opposing. Quite the irony.

I think it should be 'mandatory' for each Hindu to visit a different sect's temple, or read a bit of scripture from something other than their own tradition, just to build tolerance, at least once a year.

I've seen too much of this, yet I can understand it too. If you've never heard anything else, that's what happens.

Tolerance my way! isn't tolerance at all.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I totally agree. Within Hinduism, there are some who just don't get around enough. So some attempt to unify Hindus based on insisting everyone think a certain way about tolerance, or beliefs, inevitably leads to intolerance, the very thing the individual was opposing. Quite the irony.

I think it should be 'mandatory' for each Hindu to visit a different sect's temple, or read a bit of scripture from something other than their own tradition, just to build tolerance, at least once a year.

I've seen too much of this, yet I can understand it too. If you've never heard anything else, that's what happens.

Tolerance my way! isn't tolerance at all.

I don't think that Hinduism is that complicated if you look at the core beliefs, and if we live by the teachings of our Gurus, achariyas (but not giving them Ishvara status) ect, and if we try to live like Yog Raj Shri Krishna or Aryaveer Shri Rama Chandra ji for example and follow their teachings then these different "Sects" (which are not part of original Sanatana Dhama), will automatically disappear, to me if you just take the part that's amusing to you then you miss the hole picture. and division of Sanatana Dharma is the main reason that most (non Hindus) don't take the Hindu religion seriously, I have said it before that I don't discriminate between sects, that's because I don't view them as separate sects but just Sanatana Dharma. its the sects themselves who think they are in some new-age religion, most don't know if Hinduism are Polytheistic or Monotheistic or any "istic' at all. those sects are destroying the core of Sanatana Dharma, division is never good for any ideology. devotion to Shri Krishna for example is no problems its part of being Hindu (Sanatani), but dividing the Bhakti into "isms" in the name of Shri krishna or Shri Ram ji, or any sage/achariya ect is not Sanatani. But that's what I think.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think that Hinduism is that complicated if you look at the core beliefs, and if we live by the teachings of our Gurus, achariyas (but not giving them Ishvara status) ect, and if we try to live like Yog Raj Shri Krishna or Aryaveer Shri Rama Chandra ji for example and follow their teachings then these different "Sects" (which are not part of original Sanatana Dhama), will automatically disappear, to me if you just take the part that's amusing to you then you miss the hole picture. and division of Sanatana Dharma is the main reason that most (non Hindus) don't take the Hindu religion seriously, I have said it before that I don't discriminate between sects, that's because I don't view them as separate sects but just Sanatana Dharma. its the sects themselves who think they are in some new-age religion, most don't know if Hinduism are Polytheistic or Monotheistic or any "istic' at all. those sects are destroying the core of Sanatana Dharma, division is never good for any ideology. devotion to Shri Krishna for example is no problems its part of being Hindu (Sanatani), but dividing the Bhakti into "isms" in the name of Shri krishna or Shri Ram ji, or any sage/achariya ect is not Sanatani. But that's what I think.

We're way off topic, co if the moderators want to close this thread or delete some, please go ahead. But..

According to you, just who are these 'gurus'? Dayananada Saraswati and who else?