PDA

View Full Version : Spousal Abuse and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.



Baobobtree
27 May 2008, 12:25 PM
Namaste all.

I have been reading a bit of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as of late, and I came across this rather disturbing verses-

6
Now, if a man sees himself (his reflection) in water, he should recite the following mantra:
"May the gods bestow on me vigour, manhood, fame, wealth and merit."
In praise of the wife who will bear him a son:
She (his wife) has put on the soiled clothes of impurity; she is, verily, loveliness among women. Therefore when she has removed the clothes of impurity and appears beautiful, he should approach her and speak to her.

7
If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra:
"With power and glory I take away your glory."
Thus she becomes discredited.
This must be some sort of mistranslation, right? If not, how can this be considered moral?

Baobobtree
30 May 2008, 07:27 PM
I know it might be a bit early to bump this thread, but I'm rather anxious for any replies to this thread.

devotee
30 May 2008, 11:28 PM
I have been reading a bit of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as of late, and I came across this rather disturbing verses-
This must be some sort of mistranslation, right? If not, how can this be considered moral?

Namaste Baobtree,

There is no mistranslation or error. Actually, when we study scriptures we get blinded with the idea that every word of the scripture must be correct & true irrespective of time & occasion. This expectation is not correct.

The scriptures are not written in a day & there are chances of entry of contamination when they are carried through a period ranging over thousands of years. Brihdaranyaka Upanishad is no exception. There have been some additions/alterations in the original text over a period of time. The part you are referring to is added much later on & is contaminated by social environment at that time. You can easily notice the difference here ... the deep & profound discussion on Advait suddenly changes to "how to get a good son or daughter, how to approach one's wife for sexual intercourse, what to do against paramour of one's wife etc.". This section obviously doesn't match with the earlier major part of Brihdaranyaka Upanishad which discusses Non-duality in depth.

My advice is that please look for the grains & not for the chaff. :)

OM

Baobobtree
30 May 2008, 11:59 PM
Namaste Baobtree,

There is no mistranslation or error. Actually, when we study scriptures we get blinded with the idea that every word of the scripture must be correct & true irrespective of time & occasion. This expectation is not correct.

The scriptures are not written in a day & there are chances of entry of contamination when they are carried through a period ranging over thousands of years. Brihdaranyaka Upanishad is no exception. There have been some additions/alterations in the original text over a period of time. The part you are referring to is added much later on & is contaminated by social environment at that time. You can easily notice the difference here ... the deep & profound discussion on Advait suddenly changes to "how to get a good son or daughter, how to approach one's wife for sexual intercourse, what to do against paramour of one's wife etc.". This section obviously doesn't match with the earlier major part of Brihdaranyaka Upanishad which discusses Non-duality in depth.

My advice is that please look for the grains & not for the chaff. :)

OM Namaste Devotee.

I never really looked at it like this before. Thanks, you've really helped me clear some doubts.


My humble thanks and dandavats to you.

indianx
31 May 2008, 01:45 PM
The scriptures are not written in a day & there are chances of entry of contamination when they are carried through a period ranging over thousands of years. Brihdaranyaka Upanishad is no exception. There have been some additions/alterations in the original text over a period of time. The part you are referring to is added much later on & is contaminated by social environment at that time. You can easily notice the difference here ... the deep & profound discussion on Advait suddenly changes to "how to get a good son or daughter, how to approach one's wife for sexual intercourse, what to do against paramour of one's wife etc.". This section obviously doesn't match with the earlier major part of Brihdaranyaka Upanishad which discusses Non-duality in depth.
That is interesting. The Upanishad mainly deals with creation, Brahman, mediation, etc. and then suddenly, in the last part, there is a section concerning seemingly rudimentary religious rites. I looked through the section that contains the verses that Baobobtree posted and it's pretty crude.

I wonder if what you've said is why Swami Krishnananda's translation only covers the first five chapters: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brhad_00.html

atanu
01 June 2008, 02:22 AM
Namaste Baobtree,

There is no mistranslation or error. Actually, when we study scriptures we get blinded with the idea that every word of the scripture must be correct & true irrespective of time & occasion. This expectation is not correct.

The scriptures are not written in a day & there are chances of entry of contamination when they are carried through a period ranging over thousands of years. Brihdaranyaka Upanishad is no exception. There have been some additions/alterations in the original text over a period of time. The part you are referring to is added much later on & is contaminated by social environment at that time. You can easily notice the difference here ... the deep & profound discussion on Advait suddenly changes to "how to get a good son or daughter, how to approach one's wife for sexual intercourse, what to do against paramour of one's wife etc.". This section obviously doesn't match with the earlier major part of Brihdaranyaka Upanishad which discusses Non-duality in depth.

My advice is that please look for the grains & not for the chaff. :)

OM

Namaste Devotee,

Your view is logical and most plausible. Shankara has clearly marked certain passages,which deal with non-vedic rituals, of Brihadarayanaka as smriti that is reflected in shruti. And this passage pertaining to wooing a female partner is cetainly not a vedic ritual. Yet, it presents a problem or two for us. Either follow Guru/Teacher or check what is Vedic and what is not. For me Guru vakya holds pradhanya.


There is another view. Soma (Prajapati-Brahmanspati, Vachapati) is the primordial husband and Surya the wife. But in common parlance, it is forgotten that the shinier one is actually the product, the daughter. If one forgets this Mastership over Maya, one will suffer like Dasaratha. I am not very sure, since I have not seen any commentary on the passages cited, yet I feel that not everything is illogical in those set of passages of Brihadarayanaka. Why should a wife deny her husband an embrace if the husband first employs normal methods and even gifts her presents?

-------------

But it seems sure that some verses of Brihadaraynaka may be of different genre and being un-vedic may be smriti rather than shruti. This, as per Shankaracharya.

Regards

Om

yajvan
01 June 2008, 11:35 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

For those looking for these slokas mentioned they appear in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Khila-kanda, Putramantha Brahmana.
Some may write this as chapter 6 section 4, sloka 6,7 & 8. This section outlines the putramantha rite. When preformed ( correctly) the native will be gifted with a worthy son with good qualities, a heroic child.

This is considered a vajapeya rite. I cannot speak knowledgeably on this matter. Perhaps someone else with more information can discuss this for us?

pranams

devotee
01 June 2008, 07:58 PM
Namaste Atanu,


Shankara has clearly marked certain passages,which deal with non-vedic rituals, of Brihadarayanaka as smriti that is reflected in shruti. And this passage pertaining to wooing a female partner is cetainly not a vedic ritual. Either follow Guru/Teacher or check what is Vedic and what is not. For me Guru vakya holds pradhanya.

I agree.


I feel that not everything is illogical in those set of passages of Brihadarayanaka. Why should a wife deny her husband an embrace if the husband first employs normal methods and even gifts her presents?

Seeing perfection where there is seemingly imperfection ? :)

I don't see right or wrong (logical or illogical) per se here. What we see "right" from one angle may be perceived "wrong" from another angle. It changes depending upon our social, spiritual & psychological biases. And because "it changes", it can't be the Truth & that is contamination.

Regards

OM

Avazjan
01 June 2010, 08:19 PM
Namaste Baobtree,

There is no mistranslation or error. Actually, when we study scriptures we get blinded with the idea that every word of the scripture must be correct & true irrespective of time & occasion. This expectation is not correct.

The scriptures are not written in a day & there are chances of entry of contamination when they are carried through a period ranging over thousands of years. Brihdaranyaka Upanishad is no exception. There have been some additions/alterations in the original text over a period of time. The part you are referring to is added much later on & is contaminated by social environment at that time. You can easily notice the difference here ... the deep & profound discussion on Advait suddenly changes to "how to get a good son or daughter, how to approach one's wife for sexual intercourse, what to do against paramour of one's wife etc.". This section obviously doesn't match with the earlier major part of Brihdaranyaka Upanishad which discusses Non-duality in depth.

My advice is that please look for the grains & not for the chaff. :)

OM


It is for this reason that I pray that the "chaff" as you have named it is destroyed in the future, so that the dharma is stainless, both in the time that it is implemented, and eternally.

We don't need adharma muddying the waters.

Visvamitra
01 September 2010, 10:40 PM
Is there a Vedic injunction where the husband is obliged to have sex with his wife when she is fertile?

purnapragya
02 September 2010, 08:46 AM
Namaste all.

I have been reading a bit of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad as of late, and I came across this rather disturbing verses-


This must be some sort of mistranslation, right? If not, how can this be considered moral?
When u said some comment from scripture it need authentication,So u firt give me the vedic form of that scripture"Now, if a man sees himself (his reflection) in water, he should recite the following mantra:
"May the gods bestow on me vigour, manhood, fame, wealth and merit."
In praise of the wife who will bear him a son:
She (his wife) has put on the soiled clothes of impurity; she is, verily, loveliness among women. Therefore when she has removed the clothes of impurity and appears beautiful, he should approach her and speak to her".or "If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra:
"With power and glory I take away your glory."
Thus she becomes discredited. "The word manhood,or prophethood or etchood not exist in vedic language.First give me the proof other wise shut ur mouth.U from firstline erroful translation.When translet remebber the following Sloka
Atma va are drastavyah srotavyo mantavyo nididhydsitavyo: O, Maitreyi, it is the Atman that is to be beheld; it is the Atman that is to be known; it is the Atman that is to be searched for; it is the Atman which is to be heard about; it is the Atman which is to be thought in the mind; it is the Atman which is to be meditated upon. There is nothing else worthwhile thinking, nothing else worthwhile possessing, because nothing worthwhile exists, other than This.

Eastern Mind
02 September 2010, 11:52 AM
Vannakkam:

I don't care how many scriptures would say such things. Gut says spousal abuse is wrong. Whatever happened to belief in karma? This is why scriptures are a guide to your own conscience, and if there is any doubt, side on the common sense which a conscience provides.

Aum Namasivaya

Kumar_Das
02 September 2010, 12:56 PM
It is for this reason that I pray that the "chaff" as you have named it is destroyed in the future, so that the dharma is stainless, both in the time that it is implemented, and eternally.

We don't need adharma muddying the waters.

4:34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand

Kumar_Das
05 September 2010, 08:52 PM
- scriptures are the wife

- soiled clothes of impurities are commentaries produced by mlecchas

those who are interested in Sanatana Dharma please continue your study without bothering about this part.

pranam

Sudarshan
13 November 2010, 02:45 AM
Note that the scriptures are quite esoteric - Just because you note words like husband, wife etc does not make them necessarily connected with worldly things.

In general, the causal principle is considered to be the male ( puruSha), his power of producing an effect is the female ( prakRiti) and the effect is the child. This symbolism is present throught the scriptures.

Examples -

jnAna yogi [ husband] + jnAna yoga [wife] --produces---> jnAna (child)
karma yogi [ husband] + karma yoga [wife] --produces---> chitta shuddhi(child)

yogi ( husband) + ahiMsa ( wife) -> vaira-tyAga ( child)
adharma + niRRiti (calamity) --> mRtyu ( child)

The shAstra-s expounding polygamy ,polyandry, superiority of the male etc are quite symbolic and must be understood in its proper context.

The male denoting the doer must dominate over the process he uses to acheive an end. Else he would fail in his mission. The wife of the shAstra-s is a symbol of the shakti ( or sAdhana) of the male and is not separate from him.

Have you noted that almost every Rishi or yogi ( with very few exceptions) in the scriptures is a male? Does it mean women can't be Rishis or yogis? That is why the symbolism is important. If you stick with ritualistic interpretations and translations of the veda, you would have to come to absurd conclusions.


We do not gain much by rejecting the authority of the scriptures or avoiding its contents. Instead we must probe deeper to understand what they mean.

yajvan
13 November 2010, 08:29 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Sudarshan,



Note that the scriptures are quite esoteric - Just because you note words like husband, wife etc does not make them necessarily connected with worldly things.

In general, the causal principle is considered to be the male ( puruSha), his power of producing an effect is the female ( prakRiti) and the effect is the child. This symbolism is present throught the scriptures.

We do not gain much by rejecting the authority of the scriptures or avoiding its contents. Instead we must probe deeper to understand what they mean.

Often when the śāstra-s are read the significant meaning is lost or reduced to an action that is from our POV ( suggesting the paśu¹ POV). I see this often in the translation of the ṛg ved . Yet that said , your post points out there are several views in which a śloka, hymn or mantra can be considered... it is on 3 levels:

adhyatmika: the spiritual or psychological level
adhiyajñika: The ritualistic level: pertains to the performance or works,yajña
adhidaivika: The cosmological level & the laws of nature.It is the wise person who sees three forms in the śāstra-s.

praṇām

words
paśu - any tethered animal ; hence the human that is tethered to ignornace, or still tied to body-consciousness only. In the śāstra-s 5 are considered as paśu - men , kine , horses , goats and sheep; sometimes added mules arid asses , or camels and dogs.

vishnu
06 March 2011, 10:40 AM
Hi,

Can somebody clarify about the beef eating part as well written in the same upanishad.
I was completely astonished for somebody who follows a vegetarian diet.

thanks

Eastern Mind
06 March 2011, 05:28 PM
Vannakkam Vishnu: I think post 3 and others above it discuss this and explain it quite well. There is quite a bit of discussion on HDF regarding meat - eating as it relates (or doesn't relate) to dharma. I'm glad to hear you are a vegetarian which is supported by the vast majority of scriptures. But Hinduism is very vast. We have hundreds of scriptures and some 900 000 000 adherents, so its reasonable to and very probably expect variety. No one shoe fits all, as they say.

Aum Namasivaya

flabber
07 March 2011, 02:19 AM
Hi,

Can somebody clarify about the beef eating part as well written in the same upanishad.
I was completely astonished for somebody who follows a vegetarian diet.

thanks


There is no Beef in Vedas
http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/