Tattva-viveka
Brahma gayatri - to be given to women or not?
Yamuna Dasi - August 10, 2008 10:03 pm
Maharaj, as I know Shridhara Maharaj when giving mantra diksha to his disciples was not giving brahma gayatri to his female disciples, while Shrila Prabhupad did. What would a person like you being disciple of both of them follow? Do you know why Shridhara Maharaj was not giving brahma gayatri to women and why Shrila Prabhupad did?
I suppose that Shrila Prabhupad had to do so because if preaching to his disciples that they are all souls and in this aspect males and females are equal, it would be disturbing for them if not treated equally by him. Westerners are more emancipated than Indians. That is maybe also the reason why he permitted his female disciples to do the services which are usually not permitted to ladies in India. But still he did not give sannyas to women. So he had crossed many socio-religious borders, but not all. Did you give sannyas to a lady or if not would you?
And last question in the line - if you were a woman devotee and you have been given gayatri mantras without brahma gayatri, would you ask for it from your Guru or you would accept the mercy at it comes?
Citta Hari Dasa - August 11, 2008 5:01 am
Maharaj, as I know Shridhara Maharaj when giving mantra diksha to his disciples was not giving brahma gayatri to his female disciples, while Shrila Prabhupad did. What would a person like you being disciple of both of them follow? Do you know why Shridhara Maharaj was not giving brahma gayatri to women and why Shrila Prabhupad did?
I suppose that Shrila Prabhupad had to do so because if preaching to his disciples that they are all souls and in this aspect males and females are equal, it would be disturbing for them if not treated equally by him. Westerners are more emancipated than Indians. That is maybe also the reason why he permitted his female disciples to do the services which are usually not permitted to ladies in India. But still he did not give sannyas to women. So he had crossed many socio-religious borders, but not all. Did you give sannyas to a lady or if not would you?
And last question in the line - if you were a woman devotee and you have been given gayatri mantras without brahma gayatri, would you ask for it from your Guru or you would accept the mercy at it comes?
Until Guru Maharaja posts an answer I'd like to point out that the Brahma gayatri is not essential for going back to Godhead. Gopa-kumara in the Brhad-bhagavatamrta realized his svarupa through chanting the Gopala-mantra alone. Guru Maharaja has mentioned that the most important mantras we receive from the guru are the Gopala mantra and its corresponding gayatri, the Kama-gayatri.
Yamuna Dasi - August 11, 2008 7:41 am
Thank you, Chitta Hari prabhu for... you know for what.
I am trying to not be neither rebellious nor ungrateful, but today was reading the beautiful and deep explanation of Shridhara Maharaj of brahma gayatri and felt sad again that it was not given to me... feeling like someone who puts her nose into a room, where has not been invited, but wishes so much to had been invited...
Heavy task... not to wish something that you just wish.
Swami - August 11, 2008 1:15 pm
Maharaj, as I know Shridhara Maharaj when giving mantra diksha to his disciples was not giving brahma gayatri to his female disciples, while Shrila Prabhupad did. What would a person like you being disciple of both of them follow? Do you know why Shridhara Maharaj was not giving brahma gayatri to women and why Shrila Prabhupad did?
I suppose that Shrila Prabhupad had to do so because if preaching to his disciples that they are all souls and in this aspect males and females are equal, it would be disturbing for them if not treated equally by him. Westerners are more emancipated than Indians. That is maybe also the reason why he permitted his female disciples to do the services which are usually not permitted to ladies in India. But still he did not give sannyas to women. So he had crossed many socio-religious borders, but not all. Did you give sannyas to a lady or if not would you?
And last question in the line - if you were a woman devotee and you have been given gayatri mantras without brahma gayatri, would you ask for it from your Guru or you would accept the mercy at it comes?
1. I usually give it
2. I do not know why other than that BSST did not give it and SM followed that example. Prabhupada may not have been privy to that or he mayhave dismissed it as a detail relevant to socioreligious concerns in India. Narayana Maharaja has said that this mantra creates purusa bhava in women, but he has not been able to substantiate this claim, not have this seen that to be the case. In fact I have seen the opposite.
3. I have not given sannyasa to a woman, but I wold not hesitate to if I thought one was qualified and that giving it to her it would help her advance spiritually as well as advance the cause of the mission.
4. I would accept the mercy, but given the controversy I might later ask about it submissively. Note that everything in the Brahma gayatri is there in more specific language in kama gayatri. It is said that kama gayatri is an incarnation of brahma gayatri in search of madhurya.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 11, 2008 1:25 pm
1. I usually give it2. I do not know why other than that BSST did not give it and SM followed that example. Prabhupada may not have been privy to that or he mayhave dismissed it as a detail relevant to socioreligious concerns in India. Narayana Maharaja has said that this mantra creates purusa bhava in women, but he has not been able to substantiate this claim, not have this seen that to be the case. In fact I have seen the opposite.
3. I have not given sannyasa to a woman, but I wold not hesitate to if I thought one was qualified and that giving it to her it would help her advance spiritually as well as advance the cause of the mission.
4. I would accept the mercy, but given the controversy I might later ask about it submissively. Note that everything in the Brahma gayatri is there in more specific language in kama gayatri. It is said that kama gayatri is an incarnation of brahma gayatri in search of madhurya.
Prabhupada's giving brahma gayatri to women is still a matter of hue and cry in India as they take it as a violation of sruti texts. I wanted to check if female sages like Gargi and others could not chant the brahma gayatri. I don't know why they want to make eveyrthing irrelevant for today's times. Kirtananda Swami has in the past already given sanyasa to women but I am sure the way he handled it that time will not be repeated again.
Swami - August 11, 2008 1:52 pm
Prabhupada's giving brahma gayatri to women is still a matter of hue and cry in India as they take it as a violation of sruti texts. I wanted to check if female sages like Gargi and others could not chant the brahma gayatri. I don't know why they want to make eveyrthing irrelevant for today's times. Kirtananda Swami has in the past already given sanyasa to women but I am sure the way he handled it that time will not be repeated again.
What sruti texts? There was also a hue and cry when BSST gave it and the thread to those not born in Brahmin families. Even some Gadudiya Vaisnavas objected. And there was more objection when SP gave to to Westerners.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 11, 2008 2:44 pm
Narayana Maharaja has said that this mantra creates purusa bhava in women, but he has not been able to substantiate this claim, not have this seen that to be the case. In fact I have seen the opposite.
I would also question why it would be given to (so-called) men if this were the case.
Swami - August 11, 2008 3:21 pm
Narayana Maharaja has said that this mantra creates purusa bhava in women
What about gay men and gay women?
Vamsidhari Dasa - August 11, 2008 3:30 pm
What about gay men and gay women?
We need all the Purusa we can get!
Syamasundara - August 11, 2008 9:39 pm
No we don't! It's like Vrndaranya says, is it ok, then, for men to develop the sensation that they are enjoyers and controllers?
Syamasundara - August 11, 2008 9:41 pm
I can't believe that. The very word gaya-tri should cause someone like Narayana Maharaja to check himself before he even says something like that. Oh well...
Swami - August 11, 2008 11:40 pm
No we don't! It's like Vrndaranya says, is it ok, then, for men to develop the sensation that they are enjoyers and controllers?
I think his idea was that while it promotes purusa bhava in women, it does not do so in men. At any rate we do not know exactly what he thinks and I think we should leave it at that. Otherwise I think you other comment, Syamasundara dasa, (gaya-tri) is lacking taste and is an inappropriate way to talk about some like NM.
Syamasundara - August 12, 2008 12:33 am
As a matter of fact, it is. My apologies.
Babhru Das - August 12, 2008 2:38 am
I think his idea was that while it promotes purusa bhava in women, it does not do so in men.
That's exactly how it was explained to me by one of NM's sannyasis, and also by Gopavrindapala. This brahma-gayatri business was the breaking-point issue between Turiya das and one of his disciples, whose husband was a siksa disciple of NM. She had been preached to heavily by women in that mission, stopped chanting that mantra, and when she spoke with Turiya about it, he was adamant that, since Prabhupada gave his female disciples that mantra, including Turiya's wife, this lady should keep chanting it. The tension was something she couldn't bear, so she ended up re-initiated by Narayana Maharaja.
I like the idea that it's given in more detail in kama-gayatri. It seems to me that if gurus feel they have a reason not to give that mantra, so be it. It shouldn't be a source of trouble among missions, or between disciples and their gurus.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 12, 2008 3:53 am
That is even more hard to understand. Why would a spiritual mantra discriminate on the bodily platform when the souls are equal? I suppose this brings up an interesting question: what specifically is being transformed by the mantra?
Prahlad Das - August 12, 2008 5:27 am
This theme seems to keep coming up.
Whether it is the need to follow Srila Prabhupada's precedence in providing women with the Gayatri Mantra or whether Gaudiya Vaishnavas should not be allowed to wear saffron and carry the danda, the license to interpret seems to be strong in some aspects. At least under Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's Mission. There seems to be a (Gaudiya Vaishnav) cultural dichotomy in which there is a strong pull for orthodoxy and also a strong pull for improvisation.
I feel that it would be the initiating spiritual masters prerogative. Since it is not traditionally given to women in the roots of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is becoming a more known subject, the newly initiated will likely be more understanding if it were to pick up again. The current, under the auspices of Bhaktivinod Thakur, is that of daivi or pure. He seemed to be adamant (along with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) that there should be more than just "orthodox tradition" involved in spirituality. If it sets in that things become automated they have shaken it up. Srila Prabhupada also did like this. Gaudiya is not an automated theism but a dynamic one.
Society is to be considered in decisions. This is exemplified in the Life of Mahaprabhu and that of His Associates. Sri Baladev Vidyabhusan composed the Gaudiya Vedanta. Did he have to in order to make Gaudiya Vaishnavism legitimate? No, it is constitutionally so. He did it to allow society to feel comfortable and access it without doubting it.
Yamuna Dasi - August 12, 2008 6:50 am
Kirtananda Swami has in the past already given sanyasa to women but I am sure the way he handled it that time will not be repeated again.
What do you mean? What happened?
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 3:04 am
I feel that it would be the initiating spiritual masters prerogative. Since it is not traditionally given to women in the roots of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is becoming a more known subject, the newly initiated will likely be more understanding if it were to pick up again.
And to men either, for that matter. Those who had already received the Brahma Gayatri would stop chanting it.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 3:18 am
What do you mean? What happened?
I'm not sure exactly what Gaura-vijaya meant, but perhaps he was speaking in general about how Kirtananda Swami's mission ended (more or less, as I guess it is still somewhat continuing) in scandal.
As a side point, I have heard many devotees refer to how the proof that Kirtananda Swami's innovations were "un-bona fide" is that the mission ended in scandal. But the logic seems faulty to me. When someone who follows Srila Prabhupada by the letter falls down, you don't hear people say that the reason is that such a devotee should have followed less closely. And devotees who seem balanced fall too.
So I don't find the instance of Kirtananda Swami to be strong evidence against innovation. The innovation and the fall down seem to be separate issues.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 13, 2008 2:28 pm
I'm not sure exactly what Gaura-vijaya meant, but perhaps he was speaking in general about how Kirtananda Swami's mission ended (more or less, as I guess it is still somewhat continuing) in scandal.
As a side point, I have heard many devotees refer to how the proof that Kirtananda Swami's innovations were "un-bona fide" is that the mission ended in scandal. But the logic seems faulty to me. When someone who follows Srila Prabhupada by the letter falls down, you don't hear people say that the reason is that such a devotee should have followed less closely. And devotees who seem balanced fall too.
So I don't find the instance of Kirtananda Swami to be strong evidence against innovation. The innovation and the fall down seem to be separate issues.
I never intended to say that Kirtananda Swami's innovations were un-bonafide because the mission ended in scandal. But the way he handled the whole thing- wearing the golden crown and giving people sanyas even when they didn't want it- was certainly a recipe for falldown. But I think at that time he was just the most powerful person in ISKCON so it was not possible to even question anything and his success clouded everything. He was not open to discussion because he was confident about his correctness at all times. I think people like a guru to be correct all the time and confident about his correctness even in matters he does not have handle on. This encourages less than honest answers from leaders who are giving classes sometimes: even if they know nothing of the subject they have to give some answer to show that they know everything or they will say only prabhupada knew everything and they are directing everyone there.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 3:55 pm
Kirtanananda Swami didn't wear a crown, the controversy is that he put a crown on the murti of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Sridhara Maharaja commented something to the effect that it was a nice sentiment but that a king is lower than a brahmana.
I'm not sure that the charge that he gave sannyasa to those who didn't want it is so solid either.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 13, 2008 4:30 pm
Kirtanananda Swami didn't wear a crown, the controversy is that he put a crown on the murti of Srila Prabhupada. Srila Sridhara Maharaja commented something to the effect that it was a nice sentiment but that a king is lower than a brahmana.
I'm not sure that the charge that he gave sannyasa to those who didn't want it is so solid either.
He did wear a crown on his Vyasa Puja(see attached pic or on http://www.henrydoktorski.com/nv/krishnachorale.html). Some people took sanyasa and fell down did substantiate that charge about his forcing them to take sanyasa. Obviously everything they say is open to interpretation and after all there is krsna's hand behind whatever happened. It is beyond my understanding that whatever he was doing in NV would have attracted many thoughtful intelligent people to participate.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 13, 2008 4:37 pm
Obviously he has done a lot more devotional service than me so I cannot really say too much about him. It is easy to see everything in the hindsight which I am doing now.
Swami - August 13, 2008 4:58 pm
He did wear a crown on his Vyasa Puja(see attached pic or on http://www.henrydoktorski.com/nv/krishnachorale.html). Some people took sanyasa and fell down did substantiate that charge about his forcing them to take sanyasa. Obviously everything they say is open to interpretation and after all there is krsna's hand behind whatever happened. It is beyond my understanding that whatever he was doing in NV would have attracted many thoughtful intelligent people to participate.
Wow! Never saw that before (the pic Gaura Vijaya posted of KS). I remember how he wanted to crown Prabhupada's murti and the subject came to SM's attention. However, SM tried hard but could not harmonize the idea. In the end he suggested as Vrindaranya mentioned that brahmana is higher than king. Still KS went ahead with crowning the murti of Prabhupada, which offended the sensibilities of many of SP's disciples, what to speak of those who had regard for the opinion of SM. Again, I am quite surprised to find that he also crowned himself while still in this world.
I remember seeing devotees crown a mutri of the well known Carandasa babaji in Puri once. It struck me as peculiar, but this picture of KS takes it to another level. Different.
Bhrigu - August 13, 2008 6:20 pm
In all fairness, at least as I have understood it, Kirtanananda Maharaj and the crown was a single occurance at a Vyasa-puja. He was given the stuff by disciples and probably wanted to please them by trying it on. It really isn't all that different than much of the other aishvarya that goes on/ went on at ISKCON Vyasa-pujas. Though I must say he does look pretty pleased himself in the picture! 
Swami - August 13, 2008 6:35 pm
Looks uncomfortable to wear in more ways than one.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 9:32 pm
I stand corrected!
Syamasundara - August 13, 2008 9:51 pm
probably wanted to please them by trying it on. It really isn't all that different than much of the other aishvarya that goes on/ went on at ISKCON Vyasa-pujas.
Ditto, or than a simple foot bathing that has always gone on everywhere. That crown sure is something, though.
Braja-sundari Dasi - August 13, 2008 10:24 pm
I'm not sure that the charge that he gave sannyasa to those who didn't want it is so solid either.
Nityodita das, said that he was given a choice: "take sannyasa or leave New Vrindavan" so he took sannyasa
Swami - August 13, 2008 11:45 pm
Nityodita das, said that he was given a choice: "take sannyasa or leave New Vrindavan" so he took sannyasa
Do you have a reference for that?
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 14, 2008 12:20 am
According to Nityodita's letter when he left the sannyasa asrama, Kirtananda Swami said, "Take sannyasa or get married." Nityodita had been a brahmacari for 12 years and was Kirtananda's part-time personal secretary. Even though he didn't feel qualified to take sannyasa, it isn't hard to understand why Kirtananda Swami and others would think he was.
Personally, he was one of my favorite devotees for the brief time I lived at New Vrindavana, quite an inspiration. While it is sad that he was pressured into sannyasa, I guess I find it hard to believe that he didn't also want to be a sannyasi on some level too (and I don't say this out of a desire to defend Kirtananda Swami). I mean a person doesn't go for 12 years as a brahmacari and then 15 years as a sannyasi without some substantial samskara for renunciation. He was really balanced too, not one of these neurotic nut cases.
Kirtananda Swami had some really nice devotees. It's a shame that he wasn't able to live up to the position.
Prema-bhakti - August 14, 2008 12:44 am
According to Nityodita's letter when he left the sannyasa asrama, Kirtananda Swami said, "Take sannyasa or get married." Nityodita had been a brahmacari for 12 years and was Kirtananda's part-time personal secretary. Even though he didn't feel qualified to take sannyasa, it isn't hard to understand why Kirtananda Swami and others would think he was.
Personally, he was one of my favorite devotees for the brief time I lived at New Vrindavana, quite an inspiration. While it is sad that he was pressured into sannyasa, I guess I find it hard to believe that he didn't also want to be a sannyasi on some level too. I mean a person doesn't go for 12 years as a brahmacari and then 15 years as a sannyasi without some substantial samskara for renunciation. He was really balanced too, not one of these neurotic nut cases.
Kirtananda Swami had some really nice devotees. It's a shame that he let them down.
I agree with you Vrindaranya and yes Nityodita is a really nice devotee. I believe he is still around practicing as a grhasta. I met Sumati at New Vrndavan in the late 80's as well as Varsana Swami, Radhanatha Swami and Hladini dasi. I really liked some of the women there. They were strong preachers and gave really good CC classses. I found most of the women I met in ISKCON to be uninspired. 
BTW, I also think Kirtananda had some decent progressive ideas and he did empower women yet his character was faulty as you say. :Shame On You:
Swami - August 14, 2008 2:13 am
Yes Radhanath swami is one of the reasons I started practicing GV and he came from NV. I will always owe a lot to him. As I said I am saying all these things in hindsight.But I have personally met people who have really been abused severely in NV ( even raped) and could not get to forgive KS even after 20 years as they know about
about his power abuse tendancy. he did
some horrendous things according to her( a disciple of KS) and my heart was too moved by that devotee's personal experience which she narrated first hand to two of us.
Let's drift back to the main topic. Any sruti verses?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 14, 2008 2:56 am
Let's drift back to the main topic. Any sruti verses?
Sorry I didn't know about the emotional reactions my small comment on KS will bring and drift the topic.
I have asked for the sruti verse from the person who had challenged me on this issue and he will send it tomorrow.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 14, 2008 6:14 pm
He gave me references to sudras but I found them pretty weak and he said that without the thread nobody can chant the brahma
gayatri. Hence women cannot chant brahma gayatri. Sankara was pretty rigid about all these things and even Madhva is.
Apamsthamba sturas from the Sri Krishna Yajurveda
1.3.9.9.-Compares the sudra with burial grounds, considers it a grave sin for Brahmanas to recite the holy vedas in the presence of sudras.
2. 12.4.6-Sri Gautama rsi rules filling the ears of sudras with molten zinc/lead and cutting their tongues if they deliberately listen or chant the holy vedas respectively.
3. Purusha suktam of the Rg veda says that sudras are born from the feet of Brahman and hence makes them ineligible for vedic initiation.
Further by Sri Adi Sankara
Adi Sankar answers (Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.34):
The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecent the upamayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of the dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.
Brahma Sutra i.3.38:
The sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:
'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with [molten] lead and lac', and
'For a sudra is like a cemetry, therefore, the Veda is not not to be read in the vicinity of a sudra.'
From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how could he study scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, and express prohibition [of the sudra studying the Veda]:
'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'
The prohibition of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as:
'He is not to impart knowledge to the sudra', and
'To the twice born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'
Swami - August 14, 2008 7:35 pm
He gave me references to sudras but I found them pretty weak and he said that without the thread nobody can chant the brahmagayatri. Hence women cannot chant brahma gayatri. Sankara was pretty rigid about all these things and even Madhva is.
Apamsthamba sturas from the Sri Krishna Yajurveda
1.3.9.9.-Compares the sudra with burial grounds, considers it a grave sin for Brahmanas to recite the holy vedas in the presence of sudras.
2. 12.4.6-Sri Gautama rsi rules filling the ears of sudras with molten zinc/lead and cutting their tongues if they deliberately listen or chant the holy vedas respectively.
3. Purusha suktam of the Rg veda says that sudras are born from the feet of Brahman and hence makes them ineligible for vedic initiation.
Further by Sri Adi Sankara
Adi Sankar answers (Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.34):
The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecent the upamayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of the dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.
Brahma Sutra i.3.38:
The sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:
'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with [molten] lead and lac', and
'For a sudra is like a cemetry, therefore, the Veda is not not to be read in the vicinity of a sudra.'
From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how could he study scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, and express prohibition [of the sudra studying the Veda]:
'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'
The prohibition of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as:
'He is not to impart knowledge to the sudra', and
'To the twice born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'
If one follows the above standards, then they would have to join the criticism leveled at BSST for giving the sacred thread and mantra to sudras and less, at least by birth. Nothing here about women, nor anything about the thread other than his opinion. Very weak at best.
Offer him this one for Tattva-sagara cited in HBV 2.12,
yatha kancanatam yati
kansyam rasa-vidhanatah
tatha diksa-vidhanena
dvijatvam jayate nrnam
"As bell metal, when mixed with mercury, is transformed to gold, a person, even though not pure, can be transformed into a brahmana, or dvija, simply by the initiation process."
This refers to Vaisnava diksa. There is no restriction for giving this diksa other than that the candidate must have the requisite sraddha in Krsna-bhakti. Upon receiving this diksa, the initiate is no longer to be considered as a member of any of the four castes. Indeed to think of a Vaisnava as such is spiritually detrimental, as mentioned in Padma Purana . . .nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhir . . . If after giving this diksa we give them brahama gayatri, we are not giving it to sudras but to Vaisnavas, who are more dear to Bhagavan that Bhagavan himself. This of course includes women.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 14, 2008 9:19 pm
He gave me references to sudras but I found them pretty weak and he said that without the thread nobody can chant the brahmagayatri. Hence women cannot chant brahma gayatri.
Another reason to give women the thread too!
Swami - August 14, 2008 9:48 pm
Another reason to give women the thread too!
As far as I know, no one else chants "on the thread" as we do in our line.
Babhru Das - August 14, 2008 9:53 pm
As far as I know, no one else chants "on the thread" as we do in our line.
Gaura Keshava has often pointed out that it's not common to chant "on the thread" and that it's only Bengalis who do so.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 14, 2008 9:55 pm
As far as I know, no one else chants "on the thread" as we do in our line.
I don't know how it is chanted in GV but in our tradition(Kashmir Brahmin) we do use the thread to chant on. I obviously didn't want to really follow the tradition once I took up GV because of conflicts in goals of two paths. Anyway Vishwamitra muni is supposed to be the invoker of the Gayatri mantra in this kalpa and I don't think he has a clear Vaisnava conception.
Babhru Das - August 14, 2008 10:10 pm
I don't know how it is chanted in GV but in our tradition(Kashmir Brahmin) we do use the thread to chant on.
Well, that pretty much takes care of Gaura Keshava's argument.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 14, 2008 10:33 pm
Upanayanam is the ritual of passing on the sacred thread which was to be performed by a certain age and I feel it is hard to really get too much knowledge about whether it was denied in the past to women. Some people believe that even women like Gargi could go through Upanayanam before but later girls were almost completely denied this opportunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanayanam was one reference I had.
bhrigu may know more about it but I will have a more rigorous discussion on Indian orthodox forums to see their strongest references. I always found them mostly from manu smriti and some other texts which are almost certain to have been interpolated. And Ramayana reference to the sudra story is the greatest defence they have. But the intention of his penance was questionable and it was done not with a view of advancing spiritually but out of pride according to me.
Actually this one looks like a very good vedic references to establish how women and sudras could perform duties of a brahmana if qualified.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 14, 2008 10:49 pm
If one follows the above standards, then they would have to join the criticism leveled at BSST for giving the sacred thread and mantra to sudras and less, at least by birth. Nothing here about women, nor anything about the thread other than his opinion. Very weak at best.
Offer him this one for Tattva-sagara cited in HBV 2.12,
yatha kancanatam yati
kansyam rasa-vidhanatah
tatha diksa-vidhanena
dvijatvam jayate nrnam
"As bell metal, when mixed with mercury, is transformed to gold, a person, even though not pure, can be transformed into a brahmana, or dvija, simply by the initiation process."
This refers to Vaisnava diksa. There is no restriction for giving this diksa other than that the candidate must have the requisite sraddha in Krsna-bhakti. Upon receiving this diksa, the initiate is no longer to be considered as a member of any of the four castes. Indeed to think of a Vaisnava as such is spiritually detrimental, as mentioned in Padma Purana . . .nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhir . . . If after giving this diksa we give them brahama gayatri, we are not giving it to sudras but to Vaisnavas, who are more dear to Bhagavan that Bhagavan himself. This of course includes women.
I could smash his sudra argument also by the stroy from the Chandogya Upanishad ("sruti text")
The following story (Channdogaya Upnishad, 4.1.4) reveals that Brahminhood does not depend
on birth but on character and Gunas.
“Satyakama, the son of Jabala, addressed his mother
and said “I wish to become a brahmacarin, mother.
Of what family am I?” She said to him: I donot
know, my child, of what family thou art. In my
youth, when I had to move about much as a servant,
I conceived thee. So I donot know of what family
thou art. I am Jabala by name. Thou art Satyakama.
Say that thouart Satyakama Jabala.”
He going to Gautama, the son of Haridrumat, said
to him: I wish to become a brahmacarin with thee,
Sire. May I come to you?”
He said to him, “Of what family art thou, my
friend?”
He replied: “I donot know, Sire, of what family I
am. I asked my mother, and she answered: “In my
youth, when I had to move about much as a servant,
I conceived thee. So I donot know of what family
thou art. I am Jabala by name. Thou art Satyakama.’
I am therefore Satyakama Jabala, Sire.”
He said to him” “No one but a true Brahmin would
speak out. Go and fetch fuel, I shall initiate thee.
Thou has not swerved from the truth.”
the uploaded file here also shows enough references to put sufficient references to support the contention that everyone if qualified( even women or sudras) could perform duty of a brahman
The names of Ghosha, Apala, and Lopamudra illumine our Vedas; Gargi and Maitreyi have been renowned in the Upanishads.(these are all women)
It is so strange that rishis who are women will be mentioned in the upanishads and women could not read them themselves.
All orthodox sects in hinduism today cannot even answer any reasonable person. Even the fact about not crossing oceans cannot be an eternal injunction if krsna is the proprietor of all the universes not just of some land called India.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 15, 2008 12:15 am
One more important point is that Arya Samaj which follows only the srutis gives the brahman thread to everybody if they are qualified. If there was a pressing sruti reference against it they won't have done it.
There were some pics of RNS during south India yatra where the orthodox sri Vaishanava priests did offer him respects. Maybe the orthodoxy may finally bend.
http://pragnesh.stomping.net/images/SouthI...os/photo66.html
http://pragnesh.stomping.net/images/SouthI...os/photo67.html
Syamasundara - August 15, 2008 12:53 am
It's not sruti, but in Bengali they say (and SP used to quote it a lot):
suci hoye, muci hoy, jodi krsna tyaje
muci hoye, suci hoy, jodi krsna bhaje
A brahmana (clean one) becomes a sudra (unclean) if he abandons Krsna.
A sudra becomes a brahmana if he worships Krsna.
As far as women, I knew they probably didn't have to undergo the samskaras, but... uneducated? I have a hard time believing that girls in highly qualified brahmana families were just conceived as brahamana wife material.
Premanandini - August 15, 2008 1:18 am
by the way: i made my yoga-diploma at Yoga Vidya school - which is a split of the shivananda line - and there it is practise to sing kirtan of brahma -gayatri!!!!!!!!!!!! 
first i nearly fell over - did not know what to do - cover my ears????????? more than 100 people chanting ecstaticly (our secret) brahma gayatri????????????
well i surrendered - as i was there for my education and had no other chance anyway - and we chanted it every day at least for an hour in an extremely beautiful capturing melodie - after the first shock - i have to admitt - it was really beautiful -
interstingly people had strongh attraction to this singing of brahma gayatri- nearly more than to any other mantra - also complete newcomers......
my diksa guru, swami paramadvaiti also uses to not give it to ladies - most of our ladies did not bother about this -
myself and some of my godsisters were not so happy about it - so Gurudeva resolved it by not telling it to me in the ear - but giving me a paper with all gayatris including brahma gayatri - telling me that it is a beautiful, powerful mantra, that i am not forbidden to chant and giving some lesson in spiritual greed by one of his favorite phrases: " Who does not cry out loud - wont get to (spiritually) eat"
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 15, 2008 1:25 am
by the way: i made my yoga-diploma at Yoga Vidya school - which is a split of the shivananda line - and there it is practise to sing kirtan of brahma -gayatri!!!!!!!!!!!!
first i nearly fell over - did not know what to do - cover my ears????????? more than 100 people chanting ecstaticly (our secret) brahma gayatri????????????
well i surrendered - as i was there for my education and had no other chance anyway - and we chanted it every day at least for an hour in an extremely beautiful capturing melodie - after the first shock - i have to admitt - it was really beautiful -
interstingly people had strongh attraction to this singing of brahma gayatri- nearly more than to any other mantra - also complete newcomers......
my diksa guru, swami paramadvaiti also uses to not give it to ladies - most of our ladies did not bother about this -
myself and some of my godsisters were not so happy about it - so Gurudeva resolved it by not telling it to me in the ear - but giving me a paper with all gayatris including brahma gayatri - telling me that it is a beautiful, powerful mantra, that i am not forbidden to chant and giving some lesson in spiritual greed by one of his favorite phrases: " Who does not cry out loud - wont get to (spiritually) eat"
It is amazing that on one hand sankara is the most rigid of all acaryas in caste and neo-advaitins are most liberal.
But certainly the instruction that gayatri should not be given to people who don't have the qualifications of a brahmana should be certainly followed. This everybody agrees on.
Bhrigu - August 15, 2008 12:26 pm
Gaura-vijaya, it is not only Shankara who says that shudras and women are not eligible for Vedic study -- all the acharyas up to perhaps the end of the 19th century do so. This includes Baladeva, who follows Shankara's commentary to that adhikarana of the Brahma-sutras (by the way, Shankara has answered the objection of the Satyakama Jabala story as well -- though not very convincingly, in my opinion). Even Jiva Goswami says in his commentary to BRS that even though Krishna's name purifies one of all sins, so that a shudra would be eligible for Vedic sacrifices, no shudra should still perform them in this life. Vishvanatha Cakravarti takes a more liberal view, but I don't think any Gaudiya teachers gave upanayana and Brahma Gayatri to persons not born in the three upper varnas before Saraswati Thakur. What he did was revolutionary. But since he gave Brahmagayatri to persons born as shudras, and at least his followers have even given it to persons born as mlecchas (such as me), to me it seems to make little sense not to give it to women.
The Arya Samaj-argument is not strong; they are hardly orthodox, and their understanding of Sruti is very much their own. The interpolation argument works well in the case of the Brahma-sutras -- that adhikarana really looks like an interpolation -- but on the whole, there is a very strong tradition behind the idea of forbidding shudras and women Vedic study. We are fortunate to come in the footsteps of persons who broke that tradition.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 15, 2008 1:37 pm
Yes I agree but there is sufficient evidence in the vedas itself that there is no axiomatic truth about women being forbidden to read the vedas. According to their interpretation even Vyasa will be a sudra and they should not accept what he has written. So sudra cannot be disqualified by birth according to a lot of vedic evidence.
Regarding women also when so many women are referred in the Upanishads and they are having vedic discussions, the question of them not studying the vedas doesn't arise. Anyway before it was an oral tradition so study means just receiving the knowledge when they are qualified. Jiva Gosvami wanted to defer to socio-religious climate of that time but it does not mean that there was any axiom forbidding women to study the vedas in all previous times. In fact evidence to the contrary is also there and it is inconclusive.
I have already shown evidence to back my stand. I know that there is counter evidence. But I request bhrigu to show me solid vedic evidence which says that women should not read the vedas. Also show me evidence that sudra is rigidly defined by birth and there is no question about his change into a brahmin. When evidence to the contrary is available I don't see any reason to just stick to a view of acaryas which certainly is not absolute truth, it falls under relative truth. Then only tradition remains dynamic.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 15, 2008 2:22 pm
Gaura-vijaya, it is not only Shankara who says that shudras and women are not eligible for Vedic study -- all the acharyas up to perhaps the end of the 19th century do so. This includes Baladeva, who follows Shankara's commentary to that adhikarana of the Brahma-sutras (by the way, Shankara has answered the objection of the Satyakama Jabala story as well -- though not very convincingly, in my opinion). Even Jiva Goswami says in his commentary to BRS that even though Krishna's name purifies one of all sins, so that a shudra would be eligible for Vedic sacrifices, no shudra should still perform them in this life. Vishvanatha Cakravarti takes a more liberal view, but I don't think any Gaudiya teachers gave upanayana and Brahma Gayatri to persons not born in the three upper varnas before Saraswati Thakur. What he did was revolutionary. But since he gave Brahmagayatri to persons born as shudras, and at least his followers have even given it to persons born as mlecchas (such as me), to me it seems to make little sense not to give it to women.
The Arya Samaj-argument is not strong; they are hardly orthodox, and their understanding of Sruti is very much their own. The interpolation argument works well in the case of the Brahma-sutras -- that adhikarana really looks like an interpolation -- but on the whole, there is a very strong tradition behind the idea of forbidding shudras and women Vedic study. We are fortunate to come in the footsteps of persons who broke that tradition.
Sankara arguments are very difficult to really follow completely if his philosophy of mayavada is to be taken. In the falsity of the world any tampering will be just playing with falsity. And it is vyavaharika reality which is just practical reality not absolute so why any rigidity about it?
Bhrigu - August 15, 2008 4:00 pm
Gauravijaya, I certainly don't disagree with you on the point that (brahminically qualified) women and shudras should be given Vedic teaching. Who in our Sanga is more attached to brahmanism than me? I'm just trying to say that there is a strong, ortodox tradition behind this custom, backed up by very strong (male!) authorities.
Actually, there are some ancient lawgivers who do say that women could be taught the Vedas. Hârita-dharma-sûtra (at present only available in quotations) explicitly say that there are two kinds of women, brahmavâdinis and those that marry straight away, and that the first group would study the Veda, get upanayana and everything. Their samâvartana had to be before the appearance of menses. In Gobhila-g.rhya-sûtra 2.1.19 the bride during the wedding ceremony is described as wearing a yajnopavita. Asvalâyana-g.hya-sûtra 3.8 also knows of women doing the samâvartana ceremony (conclusion of studies). However, by the time of Manu (ca 150 CE?) this custom had fallen out of practice, and later authors (whenever they note these statements) say that they pertain to earlier yugas.
That at least some women were allowed to study the Vedas seems obvious from the Veda itself; some hymns even have women as their r.si, but later this changed. I think that the best argument would be to show this change and indicate by good contemporary examples that it is time for yet another change.
But no public chanting of Brahmagayatri for me, thanks! 
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 15, 2008 4:24 pm
Gauravijaya, I certainly don't disagree with you on the point that (brahminically qualified) women and shudras should be given Vedic teaching. Who in our Sanga is more attached to brahmanism than me?
Actually, there are some ancient lawgivers who do say that women could be taught the Vedas. Hârita-dharma-sûtra (at present only available in quotations) explicitly say that there are two kinds of women, brahmavâdinis and those that marry straight away, and that the first group would study the Veda, get upanayana and everything. Their samâvartana had to be before the appearance of menses. In Gobhila-g.rhya-sûtra 2.1.19 the bride during the wedding ceremony is described as wearing a yajnopavita. Asvalâyana-g.hya-sûtra 3.8 also knows of women doing the samâvartana ceremony (conclusion of studies). However, by the time of Manu (ca 150 CE?) this custom had fallen out of practice, and later authors (whenever they note these statements) say that they pertain to earlier yugas.
That at least some women were allowed to study the Vedas seems obvious from the Veda itself; some hymns even have women as their r.si, but later this changed. I think that the best argument would be to show this change and indicate by good contemporary examples that it is time for yet another change.
But no public chanting of Brahmagayatri for me, thanks!
Yes thanks bhrigu. When I present these arguments, I have something more in my favour. I am born as a "pure" Brahmin(pun intended) male as both my parents are brahmins. I cannot be debarred on any account from Vedic Study or privileges . So why would I not want to support orthodox traditions which will give me exclusive rights to some things. But I see that Bhrigu, who is not born as a brahmin, is actually
more qualified to be a brahmin than me. Then how can I deny this evidence on the face?
Also many orthodox brahmins come from gotra of Vishwamitra muni who was not a brahmin by birth. How do they claim that they are brahmins now?
Yamuna Dasi - August 15, 2008 5:29 pm
1.3.9.9.-Compares the sudra with burial grounds, considers it a grave sin for Brahmanas to recite the holy vedas in the presence of sudras.
2. 12.4.6-Sri Gautama rsi rules filling the ears of sudras with molten zinc/lead and cutting their tongues if they deliberately listen or chant the holy vedas respectively.
3. Purusha suktam of the Rg veda says that sudras are born from the feet of Brahman and hence makes them ineligible for vedic initiation.
Adi Sankar answers (Sankar on Brahma Sutra i.3.34):
The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecent the upamayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of the dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.
Brahma Sutra i.3.38:
The sudras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages:
'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with [molten] lead and lac', and
'For a sudra is like a cemetry, therefore, the Veda is not not to be read in the vicinity of a sudra.'
From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how could he study scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, and express prohibition [of the sudra studying the Veda]:
'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.'
My God! Is this all part of true hinduism and true hindu Scriptures? The Devil from "Devil's Advocate" is right then! "Ignorance is bliss!" in my case...
If the shudras are not allowed to study Vedic knowledge and advance in order to receive higher birth then what kind of an uplifting literature the Vedas are? (I thought their purpose was to uplift people!) Just for those who already have reached some level of uplifting to go further? Also why is it considered that a shudra cannot serve God by performing his/her perscribed duty since that is the idea of Krisha in BG?
Also isn't it that we have different than the traditional hindu understanding about the varna-ashrama dharma?
For example I thought that BG 4.13 actually says that what determines to which caste one belongs is not janma (birth) but guna and karma (qualifications he/she has and activities which he/she performs). Isn't it so? At least my Gurudeva explained it like this and I loved his explanation. The view that people can be divided into 4 different kinds depending on qualities they have and work they perform is something that anybody can agree with and accept. So I thought that GV understanding about the casts (varnas) is like this one, not like the traditional hindu one, who takes the form and bounds one to his birth position with chains from which he is not permitted to escape.
Also if so why then a chance for uplifting should be given for the other 3 varnas? If a shudra has to be kept ingorant and to stay where he/she is, then this does not seem at all a real path for uplifting to me, because it is neither just nor merciful. The shudra has a soul and this soul deserves chance to go out from the prison of material boundage... in which by the way are also the other 3 "higher" casts. Same jail to share.
Actually Maharaj, I have one more question. Because I see that in this forum it is usually required and accepted a shastric quote as an evidence, do we GVs accept as a "proof" something like these quotes given above? Actually do we accept as an evidense a Shastra which sais something like this? Where do we draw our border line of acceptance?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 15, 2008 5:46 pm
My God! Is this all part of true hinduism and true hindu Scriptures? The Devil from "Devil's Advocate" is right then! "Ignorance is bliss!" in my case...
If the shudras are not allowed to study Vedic knowledge and advance in order to receive higher birth then what kind of an uplifting literature the Vedas are? (I thought their purpose was to uplift people!) Just for those who already have reached some level of uplifting to go further? Also why is it considered that a shudra cannot serve God by performing his/her perscribed duty since that is the idea of Krisha in BG?
Also isn't it that we have different than the traditional hindu understanding about the varna-ashrama dharma?
For example I thought that BG 4.13 actually says that what determines to which caste one belongs is not janma (birth) but guna and karma (qualifications he/she has and activities which he/she performs). Isn't it so? At least my Gurudeva explained it like this and I loved his explanation. The view that people can be divided into 4 different kinds depending on qualities they have and work they perform is something that anybody can agree with and accept. So I thought that GV understanding about the casts (varnas) is like this one, not like the traditional hindu one, who takes the form and bounds one to his birth position with chains from which he is not permitted to escape.
Also if so why then a chance for uplifting should be given for the other 3 varnas? If a shudra has to be kept ingorant and to stay where he/she is, then this does not seem at all a real path for uplifting to me, because it is neither just nor merciful. The shudra has a soul and this soul deserves chance to go out from the prison of material boundage... in which by the way are also the other 3 "higher" casts. Same jail to share.
Actually Maharaj, I have one more question. Because I see that in this forum it is usually required and accepted a shastric quote as an evidence, do we GVs accept as a "proof" something like these quotes given above? Actually do we accept as an evidense a Shastra which sais something like this? Where do we draw our border line of acceptance?
Even jiva gosvami said that those who offend a Vaisnava there tongues must be slit. Such quotes are frequent.
Swami - August 15, 2008 6:46 pm
But I see that Bhrigu, who is not born as a brahmin, is actuallymore qualified to be a brahmin than me. Then how can I deny this evidence on the face?
Ah, but here you have just proved you brahmanhood! satyam eva jayate!
Swami - August 15, 2008 6:59 pm
If the shudras are not allowed to study Vedic knowledge and advance in order to receive higher birth then what kind of an uplifting literature the Vedas are? (I thought their purpose was to uplift people!) Just for those who already have reached some level of uplifting to go further? Also why is it considered that a shudra cannot serve God by performing his/her perscribed duty since that is the idea of Krisha in BG?
They are to learn the Vedic truth relative to their own karmic circumstances from those who are qualified to understand it and thereby advance themselves. Not everyone is to be admitted into Phd studies, but everyone benefits from the studies of those who are. Even today we find unqualified people reading the Bhagavata, people with impure motives, who then go out and make a women hating version of GV.
Swami - August 15, 2008 7:38 pm
Also isn't it that we have different than the traditional hindu understanding about the varna-ashrama dharma?
For example I thought that BG 4.13 actually says that what determines to which caste one belongs is not janma (birth) but guna and karma (qualifications he/she has and activities which he/she performs). Isn't it so? At least my Gurudeva explained it like this and I loved his explanation. The view that people can be divided into 4 different kinds depending on qualities they have and work they perform is something that anybody can agree with and accept. So I thought that GV understanding about the casts (varnas) is like this one, not like the traditional hindu one, who takes the form and bounds one to his birth position with chains from which he is not permitted to escape.
Also if so why then a chance for uplifting should be given for the other 3 varnas? If a shudra has to be kept ingorant and to stay where he/she is, then this does not seem at all a real path for uplifting to me, because it is neither just nor merciful. The shudra has a soul and this soul deserves chance to go out from the prison of material boundage... in which by the way are also the other 3 "higher" casts. Same jail to share.
Yes, caste is determined by guna and karma, but because guna and karma also dictate birth the essential understadningis sometimes lost on some people.
Actually Maharaj, I have one more question. Because I see that in this forum it is usually required and accepted a shastric quote as an evidence, do we GVs accept as a "proof" something like these quotes given above? Actually do we accept as an evidense a Shastra which sais something like this? Where do we draw our border line of acceptance?
Yes, it is sastra but it must be understood in context. And Srimad Bhagavatam is the New Testament of Vedic literature, Mahaprabhu our savior. Embrace him and transcend the law. Faith in bhakti alone, sarva dharman parityaja.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 16, 2008 3:18 pm
One Scholar came up with these arguments to defend his position about women being denied access to Vedas. Here is his reply below( I have inlcuded some comments there). Again the evidence he has is so sparse. Only Manu Smriti has some weak evidence. He just tries to prove that the text which cite women as studying vedas are corrupt or they are mythological figures and he doesn't not even consider that there is some evidence for interpolation in Manu Smriti.
First Shruti.
Upanayana is discussed in Shatapathabrahmana 11.3.6. The description is
consistently in the masculine gender. Perhaps it could be argued that the
use of the masculine is inclusive of feminine too? Not so because the
shruti does specifically mention some karmas to be performed by women
(i.e. the tying of the mekhala by the yajamana patni) and there the
feminine is employed as per grammar. Also some karmas are to performed by
both the yajamana and his wife (i.e. the pradakshina of the agnichayana.)
Again the proper gender is used. The conclusion is the feminine is not
used in this context because girls are not eligible.
My Take: This is certainly not even a reasonable argument that male gender is used so the female gender is
not allowed. The constitution in India has addressed the masculine gender(He) to address duties of a citizen, can we conclude that they are not applicable to females.
Second smrti.
The material on upanayana in shruti is not enough to actually perform the
vidhi; we have to supplement it with the vedanga kalpa. The details of
sanskaras are given in the gR^ihyasUtraNI. pAraskaragr^ihyasUtra
describes upanayana at 2.5. Again only the male gender is used. One of
the duties of a brahmachAri is to avoid "strIgamanam" If there were
female brahmachAris why wouldn't puruShagamanam be mentioned also?
My Take: Yet again he uses the same logical fallacy of the female gender not
being mentioned.
After describing the 16 sanskaras, Manusmrti 2.66 says:
amantrikA tu kAryeyaM strINAmAvR^idasheShata.h |
saMskArArtha.m sharIrasya yathAkAla.m yathAkramam || 66 ||
"But this series of rites should be performed for women _without_mantras_
to purify the body at the proper time in the proper order."
Now how can the upanayana samskara whose very focus is the Gayatri mantra
be performed without mantras? Indeed the next shloka says:
vaivAhiko vidhi.h strINA.m saMskAro vaidika.h smR^ita.h |
patisevA gurau vAso gR^ihArtho.agniparikriya || 67 ||
"Marriage is [equivalent to] the samskara of [learning] Veda ,
fidelity to husband is the equivalent of living with the guru, tending to
the home equivalent of tending Agni."
Similiar statements can be found in the dharmashastras of Yajnavalkya,
Parashara, Ashvalayana etc.
An interesting anomaly is the hArItasmR^iti. It should be noted that this
only exists as one mutilated and corrupt manuscript. Hardly a popular or
influential work is it? In fact if P.V. Kane hadn't written about it in
his "History of Dharmashastra" very few would even be aware of its
existence. Anyway it is said to include the following:
dvividhAH striyaH | brahmavAdinyaH sadyovadhvashcha |
tatra brahmavAdinInAmupanayanamagnIndhanaM vedAdhyayanaM svagrhe cha
bhikshAcharyA |
"There are two type of women, Brahmavadinis [knowers of Brahman] and
Sadhyovadhus [virtuous wives]. Of these, the Brahmavadinis have upanayana
and tend Agni. They learn Veda in their homes and live on alms.
Some observations.
1. Kane says hArIta is quoted in dharmashastras such as manvArthamuktAvalI
on manusmR^iti by kullUka bhaTTa, brahmachArikAnDa of kR^ityakalpataru of
lakShmidharAcharyA, smR^itichandrikA of devANNa bhaTTa etc. Yet none of
these these sources quote the text above even in contexts where it would
be highly relevant. (Devanna bhatta actually quotes Manus verse on the
subject of stri sanskaras) We can come to two conclusions. Either there
was an anti-women conspiracy so vast that in all of the country (the
authors mentioned above are a Bengali living in Kashi, a minister of the
last Hindu king of Delhi, and a native of Andhra Pradesh respectively.)
only one manuscript survived. Or the manuscript is a forgery. Which do
you think is more plausible?
2. An epitome of the hArItasmR^iti is given in adhyAyas 65-67 of the
nR^isiMha UpapurANa. Yet this text is not included in the treatment of
the subject of upanayana. Why not? More evidence of forgery IMO.
3. Even if accepted as genuine, this text is strange. It presents Vedic
studentship and wifehood as two seperate paths. But for men, upanayana
and vedadhyayana is not an alternative to marriage. On the contrary we
are expected to enter gr^ihasthAshrama after brahmachAryAshrama. It says
the brahmavadinis learn in their own house. But a brahmachAri is supposed
to go to the gurus house. So I think it is depicting some kind of
naiShTika brahmachArya rather than the vedic study that boys do. But even
if that were so, the procedure has been lost so it is a moot point.
For interpretation of the shastras we follow the canons of pUrva mImAMsA.
The mImAMsasUtra in 6.1 takes up the case of whether women are allowed to
take part in Vedic karma. They say yes _but_also_ confirm women cannot
learn the mantras. If they were misogynists why would they allow the
former? If they were egalitarians why would they deny the latter?
Third Shishtachara. This is an open and shut case. North, South, East,
West we have no historical (and I mean historical not mythological) record
during any time in the thousands of years of Sanatana dharmas existence of
women learning the Vedas.None whatsoever. And of course no one believes
in such a thing today. There are no literary references, no foreign
traveller has noted any such practice and no archaeological remains of
such a thing have been found.
My Take: Historical references cannot be found for any rishis even Vyasa or Krsna so
I don't know how he uses this evidence
Prahlad Das - August 16, 2008 4:05 pm
Yes, caste is determined by guna and karma, but because guna and karma also dictate birth the essential understadningis sometimes lost on some people.Yes, it is sastra but it must be understood in context. And Srimad Bhagavatam is the New Testament of Vedic literature, Mahaprabhu our savior. Embrace him and transcend the law. Faith in bhakti alone, sarva dharman parityaja.
*Edited. My first post seemed off. I find the last sentence of most important interest. It is through faith...
And Krsna Himself said
yam yam vapi smaran bhavam
tyajaty ante kalevaram
tam tam evaiti kaunteya
sada tad-bhava-bhavitah
We are fortunate that we have now so many ways to assist in rememberance of Sri Hari. Due to the constant efforts by the glorious Vaishnava saints there are more and more ways for persons afflicted by ahankar to take up Bhakti Yoga.
Bhrigu - August 16, 2008 5:18 pm
Gauravijaya -- read the relevant passages in Kane's History of Dharmashastra (vol II.1), he gives some other quotations apart from Harita that you will find useful. The scholar here confuses Haritadharmasutra with Haritasm.rti, which is a metrical, much later work. That is why this portion is not in the Narasimha Purana. I don't think Haritadharmasutra is available in more than scattered references. Also, Harita does not rule out marriage for brahmavadinis -- that is why he specifies that they must complete their studies before puberty. See also the other quotes (taken from Kane) that I gave you.
At any rate, I still think your best argument will be to say that in Vedic times, there is evidence that some women seem to have been given upanayana, studied the Vedas. The upakramaniya even mentions women as rishis of Vedic hymns: (Rigveda 5.28, 8.91 and 10.39–40, Viśvavārā, Apālā Ᾱtreyī and Ghoṣā Kākṣīvatī). Then things clearly changed, as shown explicitly by Manu and other later lawgivers. Now it is time for another change.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 17, 2008 1:47 am
Gauravijaya -- read the relevant passages in Kane's History of Dharmashastra (vol II.1), he gives some other quotations apart from Harita that you will find useful. The scholar here confuses Haritadharmasutra with Haritasm.rti, which is a metrical, much later work. That is why this portion is not in the Narasimha Purana. I don't think Haritadharmasutra is available in more than scattered references. Also, Harita does not rule out marriage for brahmavadinis -- that is why he specifies that they must complete their studies before puberty. See also the other quotes (taken from Kane) that I gave you.
At any rate, I still think your best argument will be to say that in Vedic times, there is evidence that some women seem to have been given upanayana, studied the Vedas. The upakramaniya even mentions women as rishis of Vedic hymns: (Rigveda 5.28, 8.91 and 10.39–40, Viśvavārā, Apālā Ᾱtreyī and Ghoṣā Kākṣīvatī). Then things clearly changed, as shown explicitly by Manu and other later lawgivers. Now it is time for another change.
Thank you Bhrigu. I did give the arguments which you stated in the second paragraph and he has not responded since.
Yamuna Dasi - August 31, 2008 12:24 pm
Yes, it is sastra but it must be understood in context. And Srimad Bhagavatam is the New Testament of Vedic literature, Mahaprabhu our savior. Embrace him and transcend the law. Faith in bhakti alone, sarva dharman parityaja.
Thank you, Maharaj, for pacing me in my appreciation of Christianity and talking to me in Christian terms in order to let me get the point. Very kind of you!
Here some very learned devotees have given quotes from Shastra proving that women were allowed before to study Vedas or at least that it has not been forbidden. I would like to give completely different kind of evidence why women should be given all the spiritual opportunities to study and grow spiritually – my arguments will be emotional and such of common sense. I don’t know if they will be accepted, it will be seen by the response of the devotees here.
As an evidence of common sense I would give the following one – if we are preaching that we are not this body but a spirit soul and this is one of the pillars of our preaching, the very basis, then if we fail to show real understanding of it by treating equally regarding spiritual truths and growth men and women, then we shall not be very convincing preachers to the more intelligent public. People can see and feel if someone is really doing and following in depth what he/she is preaching. So if we don’t show such impartiality regarding the sex of the people, we shall fail in our attempt to preach well “we are not this body but a spirit soul”. The same way we shall fail in preaching “simple life and high thinking” if we live extra opulently or if we pay more attention in preaching to rich people than to poor.
We shall be as the lady in the following real story (it’s not a joke!) who was glorifying to a friend of her the great weekend seminar “Karma and Reincarnation” which she visited telling her friend: “It was a kind of expensive this seminar, but I’ve learned so many valuable things about karma and reincarnation, so I don’t worry so much that the seminar was so expensive, finally we live once and we should take the chance!” Even though on the surface she was preaching the glory of the seminar, she did not get a very deep understanding about the main message to which it was dedicated.
If we fail in our attempt to REALLY treat equally men and women while preaching “we are not this body”, we shall be just like this lady – sweet in her attempt to praise, but funny in her shortness in understanding.
Another common sense evidence is that women are the mothers of all of us. They are the first guru the baby takes and plays this role in the life of the kids for many years, sometimes for lifetime. If she has to play the role of guru, isn’t it better and even necessary that she is given the BEST POSSIBLE spiritual education and chance to learn and advance both through Shastra or mantras given to her? If she is given this chance then it is sure that such a society will grow and advance spiritually much faster and much better than a society in which women are deprived from this privilege… or chance.
I’ve heard many arguments (given always by men of course) that women are much less intelligent then men and this is the mail reason actually why they were restricted to study shastra. They give the “proof” for this that nearly no women into the great discoveries of the science… or that nearly no women on the high positions into the politics etc. etc. For me this is only showing the lack of appreciation from these men of the simple truth that behind every “great” man are at least two GREAT (and humble!) women – his mother and his wife, who were taking care of his pampers, washing his clothes, ironing his shirts, cleaning his house, cooking for him and raising his kids while he was doing his “great” career or making his “great” inventions. They were his backup team and without it he would not be able to achieve what he did, so he has to be grateful to them for doing the back-up job.
Also regarding the argument that men are just “by nature” more intelligent then women, I would like to say that at least in Bulgaria in the Universities it is in practice still the rule of 50/50 % - which means that 50 % of the admitted students are men and 50 % are women. This only on the surface seems fair, because on a deeper level it is absolutely not. Women get into the University with around 2-4 points higher score than men! This practically means that if 30 is the maximum possible score for entering the University, the score with which women enter is between 30 and 28.50. But the score with which men enter is around 28.50 to 25.50. This means that if they were be let entrance to study into the University without considering their sex, on a really EQUAL basis, there would be like 95 % women and only 5 % men students and graduates respectively! Do you imagine what does that mean and what does that show? If the modern society would only follow such really just and impartial regarding sexuality practice for only 10 years, the complete outlook of the modern society would be drastically changed. Women would be the majority of the highly educated people and respectively they would be the managers and leaders in the society while the majority of men would just remain with school education and no University degrees. This is the reality and the simple statistics.
Also we have to consider the biological position of the woman. There is certain timing for her for becoming a mother and this timing is exactly when socially seen is the best time for her to study and build a career. A man can be a father till he is 65 let’s say, but a woman can become a mother usually no later than 38-40. So you can see that she has to choose and this is a limitation given by the nature, not as the 50/50 “fair” opportunity given by the modern human society. So men who are not able to appreciate the voluntary sacrifice which a woman takes when choosing to be a mother and a house lady supporting her husband into his “great achievements” and later consider her a creature of lower intelligence, definitely lack gratitude, vision and objectivity.
I kept the emotional argument for the last, since I wanted to plead first for common sense before pleading for… love, since having love is much higher than having common sense.
If a man really loves a woman and wants her to be the mother of his kids, not just an object for his sense gratification or adorer of his false masculine ego, then how could he be able to treat her unequally from spiritual point of view? How could he not want for her to get all the chances for spiritual knowledge and spiritual growth he has? She will be the most close friend, partner and… lover for him… during this lifetime. If he would not wish her to have all the spiritual chances he has and even more (since love pleads more for the object of love then for oneself), I would seriously doubt his “love” for her.
These are my evidences to why women should be given equal chances for spiritual study and growth. If we want Gaudiya Vaishnavism to be a progressive spiritual line, it seems to me that this is the line to follow in order to please Krishna, Mahaprabhu and our spiritual guides and build a better society with God in the center.