PDA

View Full Version : Feminism and Hinduism



Divine Kala
09 April 2011, 05:53 AM
Do you believe the two are incompatible? I believe Western feminism possibly is (as it is quite an adversarial -ism) but does that mean women cannot fight for their rights, as women, in Hindu organisations and India?

I ask this because something I said in another topic caused a few ripples.

Adhvagat
09 April 2011, 12:10 PM
Do you see any incompatibilities? Do you see anything that you disagree with in Hinduism in the light of feminism?

And I think feminism became such a broad term that I'd have to ask: What part/fashion of feminism are you referring to?

sunyata07
12 April 2011, 01:48 PM
Namaste DK,

I'm echoing Pietro on this one, is there a particular aspect of feminism you had in mind which led you to feel its ideals would clash with Hindu principles? Would just like to know some more before I go ahead and share my views.

Om namah Shivaya

Divine Kala
14 April 2011, 02:23 AM
Well, I'm not sure. I have encountered people vehemently against any form of female liberation and people all for it. I am off the opinion that feminism should be based on raisinb women to equality with men. We both have our strengths and weaknesses but I don't support the type of feminism that says women are better then men but neither do I support the idea that men are better than women.

BryonMorrigan
14 April 2011, 07:30 AM
Considering the fact that even Conservative Hinduism treats women's rights better than Christianity or Islam, I'd say yes.

...and then there are Shaktas (like me) who believe in treating every woman with great respect, as you would your mother. ;)

Striyah devah, Striyah pranah: "Women are Devas, women are life itself."

Kumar_Das
14 April 2011, 09:55 AM
Considering the fact that even Conservative Hinduism treats women's rights better than Christianity or Islam, I'd say yes.

...and then there are Shaktas (like me) who believe in treating every woman with great respect, as you would your mother. ;)

Striyah devah, Striyah pranah: "Women are Devas, women are life itself."

"Feminism" in Shaktism and nonsense such as the aforementioned where women are specifically venerated as being Divine is very peculiar to Bengal region.

Personally I feel quite emasculated having to put women as worthy of worship be it maternal or otherwise. I don't worship my own or human masculinity in general in the form of Lord Vishnu or Shiva.

I don't know what is it with people who think that Goddess worship automatically means Matriarchy and Feminism. Because in Vaishnavism, we are still taught to treat women well. For me the masculine gender of Lord Vishnu is not a matter of something anthropomorphic. It's nothing at all like that where Vishnu is a literal male - "Father". If you look upon Lord Vishnu as you would to your biological father then you will never understand Him. As is the case with Devi.

South Indians, especially their television is notorious for this sort of thing. They say "the womb that bears the burden of pregnancy and gives birth is synonymous to the Deva", "this bride is as beautiful and auspicious as Lakshmi".

No!

This is nothing but heresy.

Adhvagat
14 April 2011, 10:13 AM
Why heresy? Sounds like a strong word for this specifically.

So recognizing the importance of our mother's womb that brought us all to this world and using Lakshmi as a standard of divine beauty is heresy? :rolleyes:

Inherently there's nothing emasculating about paying the due respects to mothers considering they played a significant role in generating our oh-so-mighty masculinity in the first place.

BryonMorrigan
14 April 2011, 11:03 AM
This is nothing but heresy.

Heresy? In Sanatana Dharma? Surely you jest...

Besides, you just admitted that that kind of thinking is Bengali Shaktism. Are you saying they aren't "real" Hindus? And then you said it was also popular in South India, (...which makes me think of the Sri Vidya Temple in my area, where it is also commonplace...). Are they not "real" Hindus either?

And I might add, that I, a Gulf War Veteran, don't feel "emasculated" by worshiping Devi...nor do I feel that a woman should feel "oppressed" by praying to Vishnu or Shiva or whatever else form of God/Goddess that one prefers.

Leave the anti-woman rhetoric to the Christians and Muslims... I have no use for it.

sm78
14 April 2011, 11:49 AM
This is nothing but heresy.

I would have liked to think that only christians and muslims dig at this world and bask in burning the herectics. But I knew, it would be silly to think Hindus were more evolved in thinking.

But for your information, treating women as embodiment of God is not specific to Bengal region. Shaktas are same everywhere, in their understanding of divine feminine - only the acharas vary slightly.

mohanty
14 April 2011, 12:12 PM
"Feminism" in Shaktism and nonsense such as the aforementioned where women are specifically venerated as being Divine is very peculiar to Bengal region.

Personally I feel quite emasculated having to put women as worthy of worship be it maternal or otherwise. I don't worship my own or human masculinity in general in the form of Lord Vishnu or Shiva.

I don't know what is it with people who think that Goddess worship automatically means Matriarchy and Feminism. Because in Vaishnavism, we are still taught to treat women well. For me the masculine gender of Lord Vishnu is not a matter of something anthropomorphic. It's nothing at all like that where Vishnu is a literal male - "Father". If you look upon Lord Vishnu as you would to your biological father then you will never understand Him. As is the case with Devi.

South Indians, especially their television is notorious for this sort of thing. They say "the womb that bears the burden of pregnancy and gives birth is synonymous to the Deva", "this bride is as beautiful and auspicious as Lakshmi".

No!

This is nothing but heresy.

Sad to see the word "heresy" being used by someone claiming to be a Sanatani. :(

I think some of the opposition to relating feminism and Shakta tradition may stem from the perception that radical feminism is something western and Shakti is a patently Hindu idea. Myth-wise, father and mother are both equally important in the birthing process (individuals, worlds, universes, ideas etc).

I wrote a post called "In search of the father" in which I expressed some thoughts on the mythic ideals of fatherhood and motherhood.

http://www.vmohanty.com/2010/looking-for-the-father/

Choosing to acknowledge one does not mean the other is less important. Saying that that is so is dumb.

If there is any heresy in Hinduism, it is the idea of heresy.

charitra
14 April 2011, 12:13 PM
"Feminism" in Shaktism and nonsense such as the aforementioned where women are specifically venerated as being Divine is very peculiar to Bengal region.”

Namaste Kumar, Havent you ever heard of famous temples of :

Kanchi Kamakshi
Madhura Meenakshi and
Kashi Vishalaxmi ??

Not to mention various regional deities like, ellamma, mallamm, sunkeshulamma etc etc. Women are revered as deities by all hindus with temples built for female goddesses in many areas.Bengalis are no exception.

Kumar_Das
14 April 2011, 12:17 PM
And I might add, that I, a Gulf War Veteran, don't feel "emasculated" by worshiping Devi...nor do I feel that a woman should feel "oppressed" by praying to Vishnu or Shiva or whatever else form of God/Goddess that one prefers.

The Goddess is not a (human) woman. She is female. But Her feminity is not to be compared with or equal to human feminity. It is an insult to reduce Her to human females. I depise worshipping human-womanhood not the Goddess.

Same thing with Vaishnavism/Shaivism. Vishnu/Shiva is the "Supreme Father" in a sense that it is a term by which we adore. It does not mean there is something Divine about human males.


Leave the anti-woman rhetoric to the Christians and Muslims... I have no use for it.

Saying that I don't want to worship women is not being anti-woman.

mohanty
14 April 2011, 12:23 PM
KD:

Part of what is liberating about SD is that it treats the universe itself as God. God in Hinduism, unlike in Abrahamic faiths, is not a value detached from the creation. The universe is what we acknowledge when we "worship".

So even though the divinity of Shakti's femininity may not be the same as that of the femininity of an earthly human female, "worship" of the human female is not "heresy". Worship of nothing is heresy.

Having said that, I would like to know what is the difference between the divine feminine and the earthly feminine.

Kumar_Das
14 April 2011, 12:40 PM
I feel emasculate about worshipping a woman. Just as I feel inferior worshipping someone else for example a male boss. Worship means submission, helplessness and inferiority.

Worshipping anything apart from God/or anything that relates to God(Guru) always will mean that you will lose something. Always you will lose intelligence and dignity.

You will never be able to surpass anything that you (genuinely) worship even if you could.

Feminism due to Goddess worship is an absurdity and definitely heresy.

Do you see Vaishnavas and Shaivas claim "masculinity"? Do you ever hear them say "in my biological father I see Lord Vishnu/Lord Shiva"? or that "men who are fathers are a manifestation of Vishnu/Shiva"? Nope.

But you see some people claiming some type of a reflection of the Goddess in women.

mohanty
14 April 2011, 12:51 PM
Okay now you get to the core of the matter.

Yes, I have heard Vaishnavas and Shaivas compare their fathers to Vishnu and Shiva. Your assertion that they don't is simply wrong. People get compared to Rama and Krishna with great frequency.

This emasculated nonsense is of your own making. It does not reflect Hindu thought. And your opposition is to "worship" of women alone, not worship in general. So I assume there is at least some amount of sexism there.

Worship is just a word. To you it means accepting subjugation and inferiority. To me it means acknowledgment of value. Plenty of Vedic hymns just praise deities without saying that the person is inferior.

Your view is very Abrahamic. Try to be more Hindu.

Kumar_Das
14 April 2011, 01:29 PM
The same people who try to connect Feminism with Shaktism are the same people who not only denounce caste system (not even from just a practical pov - one could speak about the treatment of all devotees as equal yet believe in a form of a division of society for function of it by allocating occupation based on the inherent nature which qualifies them such as in Shri Vaishnavism where even Shudras are accepted to perform certain rituals) but a total denouncement and chastisement of it. Hence technically it opposes Vedic orthodoxy.

I was never saying anything about the Goddess Herself nor Shaktism. Shaktism is a Vedic religion.

People seem to be mixing my opposition to "Feminism" with Shaktism. What an irony!


Considering the fact that even Conservative Hinduism treats women's rights better than Christianity or Islam, I'd say yes.

...and then there are Shaktas (like me) who believe in treating every woman with great respect, as you would your mother. ;)

Striyah devah, Striyah pranah: "Women are Devas, women are life itself."

Females(human) are not the Goddess. Just as Jivas are not the Devas.

I follow the scriptures. Whatever they contain are on purpose for reasons.

The Devi Bhagavata Purana is a principle text of Shaktism. So shall we take a look at it?



It is said that upon initially encountering Durga, Mahishasura underestimated her, thinking: "How can a woman kill me, Mahishasur—the one who has defeated the trinity of gods?" However, Durga roared with laughter, which caused an earthequake which made Mahishasur aware of her powers.

And the terrible Mahishasura rampaged against her, changing forms many times. First he was a buffalo demon, and she defeated him with her sword. Then he changed forms and became an elephant that tied up the goddess's lion and began to pull it towards him. The goddess cut off his trunk with her sword. The demon Mahishasur continued his terrorizing, taking the form of a lion, and then the form of a man, but both of them were gracefully slain by Durga.


We see that Mahishasura (an asura is the most ignorant form of creature) undermines the Goddess and insults Her as a woman.

The Goddess laughs in response. And does something which shows Her powers to him. In other words she passes off what he says in a way that points his stupidity and proceeds to correct him by making him aware of Her true identity(i.e Her Supremacy).

AFAIK there is no such a story in any Vaishnava Purana or Shaiva Purana. Nothing that would suggest that Vishnu or Shiva are considered superior mistakenly based upon them being males for which a correction is made.

The understanding here is that the asura thinks that he having beaten the males Gods could defintely take the female because he relates the situation of creatures to the Gods (where males are physically superior to females). That is where his stupidity lies and is his fatal flaw.

mohanty
14 April 2011, 01:45 PM
You digress KD.

The questions are simple.

1) What is the distinction you are making between Shakta worship of the feminine?
2) Why does worship of the feminine makes you feel emasculated?

Do you realise that when people say a woman represents the Shakta feminine, they are referring to an ideal? Same way the goddess is an ideal?

Feminism is also am acknowledgment of the woman as an idea. Not of woman as an organism.

Sahasranama
14 April 2011, 03:01 PM
Feminism was necessary to develop in the west, since western culture was highly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking. The sole reason most Meditaranian people, both Jewish and Christian, are often very macho and chauvinistic is because the influence of the Bible. Feminism has brought a lot of good things, but like the early postsers in this thread mentioned, feminism can mean different things. It can mean standing for equal rights for women in education and the job market, but in can also stand for those bitter women who want all men to be castrated completely. That's why I think the word feminism is quite meaningless. I don't know why in the west everything has to be turned into an "-ism." Even something simple as consuming a meatless diet is turned into vegetarian-"ism." I believe that the male and female principles are both very important in this universe, a lot of Hindus have learned to always invoke the female counterpart of a god before worshipping the male. Sometimes men have a more feminin side and women have a more masculine side, so feminine and masculin principles are not as black and white as secundairy and primairy sex charesteristics. Many devoted saints would say that bhakti is a very feminine trait. I don't agree that the ideal is that everyone should become a hermaphrodite like some feminists would want or that all men should hand their balls over, but I do support a lot of the good work the feminist movement has brought here in the west.

karna
14 April 2011, 10:18 PM
Hinduism is perhaps the only religion to encourage feminism, since it believes in the feminine aspect of the divine. At least in theory, it should be compatible with feminism. Even in Vaishnavism, Vishnu has many forms, and Mohini avatar is actually feminine and is not any less than other avatars.

BryonMorrigan
15 April 2011, 08:01 AM
"Gender discrimination a cultural bias, not religious truth" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/gender-discriination-a-cultural-bias-not-religious-truth/2011/04/14/AFxeWMgD_blog.html) by Pooja Deopura, a recent graduate of the University of California, Davis, now a software professional living in Fremont, and an Executive Council member of the Hindu American Foundation.

PatrickMB
15 April 2011, 08:33 AM
I come from a religion where women are considered unworthy to serve as clergy, let alone have characteristics (physical or spiritual) in common with God. To discover in Hinduism a long tradition of recognizing and worshipping the feminie divine on par with the masculine divine is a breath of fresh air. I don't care what "ism" it is called, I celebrate it.

Sahasranama
15 April 2011, 09:44 AM
South Indians, especially their television is notorious for this sort of thing. They say "the womb that bears the burden of pregnancy and gives birth is synonymous to the Deva", "this bride is as beautiful and auspicious as Lakshmi".

No!

This is nothing but heresy.

यो यो जगति पुम्भावः सः विष्णुरिति निश्चय।
या या तु नारिभावस्ताः तत्र लक्ष्मीर्व्यवस्थिता

yo yo jagati pumbhāvaḥ saḥ viṣṇuriti niścaya|
yā yā tu nāribhāvastāḥ tatra lakṣmīrvyavasthitā

In this world, he whoever is in the state of manhood is certainly Vishnu and wherever someone is in the state of womanhood, there resides Lakshmi.

~Brahma Purana

mohanty
15 April 2011, 11:22 AM
यो यो जगति पुम्भावः सः विष्णुरिति निश्चय।
या या तु नारिभावस्ताः तत्र लक्ष्मीर्व्यवस्थिता

yo yo jagati pumbhāvaḥ saḥ viṣṇuriti niścaya|
yā yā tu nāribhāvastāḥ tatra lakṣmīrvyavasthitā

He whoever is in the state of manhood is certainly Vishnu and wherever someone is in the state of womanhood, there resides Lakshmi.

~Brahma Purana

You go Sahasranama!

sunyata07
15 April 2011, 01:27 PM
^ Agreed! I think Sahasranama has said it all with that post.

Om namah Shivaya

Water
15 April 2011, 01:50 PM
In my wanderings I have come to a very simple conclusion.

You cannot begin any journey into understanding when your heart is filled with knots created by the world. These knots (prejudgments, opinions, "knee-jerk reactions") stop the reflection of any religion/divinity from being reflected from your heart into the world.

For example, if I have decided that every remark ever made to me is ridiculous, I will never consider any opinion given to me because I am far too busy inflicting my own opinion upon it.

"All beings, great or small, are the manifestation of God."
http://www.ramakrishna.org/activities/message/weekly_message10.htm

... I could've probably found a better link for that. You can also find the exact passage it comes from in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda on Google Books. If you insist on thrusting the turmoil of māyā into your concept of religion... you might find that many of Vivekanandaswami's messages are pro-feminism. Or you could realize that his works, as well as many, many, many, many, many, many other works have a certain neutrality on specifically addressing genders.

This topic seems quite tacky, to be honest. I didn't want to get involved but then I decided to consider the opinions presented and figure out what decision I could make on my own. I had constructed a whole explanation of the conclusion I came to with the story of Shiva and Pārvatī and the many references to Shiva as pure consciousness and Shakti as a primordial creative energy. One is always a compliment to the other.

Here's an English resource that is very short-and-to-the-point with a beautiful picture that you can view to consider the equality inherent to my understanding:
http://people.tribe.net/genevashanti/photos/ab0ff68c-cb07-4b77-b3ab-7d152e0cd15b

Of course, it is also said that Lakṣmī lives in the heart of Vishnu after witnessing his compassion.

In our anthropomorphization (that is, giving "human" characteristics to abstract concepts) we have adorned the images we cherish as having male and female merits. In many ways, we use these merits to symbolize traits of the entity (for example, "Divine Mother" allows us to better relate mentally with the abstract concept).

In much the same way, Murthi are used to bring a physical aspect to abstract concepts. They are a point of focus and worship that we believe can become embodiments of that which we worship.

If you've followed along this far and able to make logical relationships with elementary concepts, then consider gender as a result of adapting concepts to our ability to understand them. Consider Murthi to be the same.

Now, Murthi exist in a variety of shapes and sizes. Let's say we have a 3" image of Krishna. Using our clouded mind, it is quite clear that Krishna is only 3" tall because that is the only physical characteristics we can appropriately relate with our current perception! In argument, consider murthi that are much larger - 3", 100 feet, 600 meters, 3,000 palms, 4 billion sheets of 8.5 x 11" paper - it doesn't matter which arbitrary measurement you decide to use. They are all simply too small (and simultaneously too large) to describe the immeasurable.

In the same clouded judgment, consider that a force/abstract concept/focus of worship can only be described on whether or not they have the physical attribute of boobies.........

There is a quote -
"What do you care of the face of God when you can barely see his feet?"

We can appropriately christen a new quote specifically for this thread:
"What do you care of the boobies of God when you can barely see the feet?"

I'm sure someone will be extremely offended by the above. Equally offended as I am by someone trying to judge the merit of an entity you cannot describe by their mammary glands, while equally attempting to simultaneously justify the inferiority/superiority of the indescribable reflected in every person.

charitra
15 April 2011, 02:03 PM
A day when men caved in and let women have their way, in a hindu mandir !! For 2 successive days a group of activist women barged in and entered the sanctum sanctorum of the mandir in mega polis of Mumbai literally brushing aside the protesting authorities and successfully performed puja, paving way for a new beginning. Sometimes females have to be little more assertive to get things done. Mandirs are run by local boards and a pope figure sitting thousand miles away has no role in hinduism whatsoever. This morning the authorities conducted a meeting and passed a resolution accommodating fairer sex to enter the sanctum sanctorum with immediate effect. The age old objection that menstruating women may attract asuras was upended. Victory to feminism!! :)
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/153819/after-2000-years-temple-allows.html

nitinsharma
16 April 2011, 03:14 AM
"From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races."

That's all I can say now.Unfortunately our children are raised to believe that men,women of all races,religions etc..are equal and have the right to purse anything they desire-because we all have RED blood.


So screw everything our culture taught us about women being divine or whatever.Hail Feminism!!!!In fact lets promote it by making dating on Valentine's Day mandatory for all teenage girls to make sure they aren't suppressed/repressed and have their bloody freedom.

Oh yes and at the same time they can stop referring to themselves as Hindu.

Kumar_Das
16 April 2011, 02:11 PM
यो यो जगति पुम्भावः सः विष्णुरिति निश्चय।
या या तु नारिभावस्ताः तत्र लक्ष्मीर्व्यवस्थिता

yo yo jagati pumbhāvaḥ saḥ viṣṇuriti niścaya|
yā yā tu nāribhāvastāḥ tatra lakṣmīrvyavasthitā



He who in this universe appears masculine, of vishnu's manner he is certainly

She who also appears feminine anywhere within her is Lakshmi

The question remains why does it only apply that masculinity in this universe is of style that is Vishnu.

Whereas anywhere anything that is feminine - its actual nature includes Lakshmi within itself?

Also why does it say of creatures in this universe that are masculine they are like Vishnu?

And not Vishnu's masculinity is that of male creatures?

There is no denying that Lord Vishnu is "Male". But that does not exclude the fact that His Masculinity is not that of anything else.

There is an actual theological-existential material understanding that is involved here.

And my position as mentioned still remains.

And any intelligent Hindu will actually be able to read between the lines.



Masculinity-male virility-male sexual endowment-the ability to succeed and outlast all others-being strong enough to defeat all others is characteristic of Lord Vishnu.

Evolution/natural selection/survival of the fittest is under the control of Lord Vishnu(as with just about anything) and is symbolically represented by Lord Vishnu's Avatara.

The creatures who succeed the rest and survive the longest are those closest to Lord Vishnu.

In other puranas we know that Lord Vishnu is the only true and foremost Male.

Of creations the pleasing of a female by a male through masculine sexual behaviour is a trait that is of relation to Vishnu. In other words the pleasing of a female by a male actually is a service to Lord Vishnu.

Which is why Sages have "powers" unbeknownst and absent to everyone else in this regard as well. They are closer to God/Vishnu. And because of that they are able to please more women and in a better manner. Which is why Sages are male and heterosexual.



The Goddess of Wealth, is She who grants us with things that are desirable. What we desire are objects that are attractive to us. We pray to the Goddess for material objects which we find of higher aesthetic quality. When we "want" something and seek to include it within our possession, it must be able to reach us, this involves the sanction of the Goddess.

The Goddess intervenes in realms only where there is a possibility for a person within it to not be able to immediately acquire whatever he wants.

The Goddess is immanent so long as aesthetically pleasing objects exist.

If anything at all this verse reinforces masculine dominance.

Females(and not males mind you) are said to contain the Goddess of Wealth because females are by nature objects of possession and rather a resource/wealth.

And femininity is of aesthetic appeal more so than masculinity is. In other words being "female" is more about looks than to being a male.

In any case it still does not say that men are exact and full equivalents of Lord Vishnu and that women are exact and full equivalents of Lakshmi. And that if you pray to a woman she can do whatever that the Goddess does.

If women are like the Goddess why do they prefer men with fat wallets? Shouldn't it be that they are the Goddess and can grant wealth on their own?:p

The Goddess is unlike any woman.

Prostitution is still a female dominated business. And its still mainly a male customer - female prostitute thing where sexual favours are exchanged for monetary transactions and gifts.:o

Adhvagat
16 April 2011, 02:19 PM
So you open the argument with the false premise Bryon was somehow advocating feminism in Shaktism and now you're talking about prostitutes.

Yeah, any Hindu would call you guru-ji in less than 2 seconds.

:laugh:

sunyata07
16 April 2011, 03:17 PM
Namaste KD,

I'm sorry, but your last post staggers me! How did this post degenerate from a topic about inherent feminism within SD to prostitutes? Has this thread become nothing but a battle of the sexes to you? Are you actually telling me that prostitution wouldn't exist were it not for the mercernary ways of women willing to trade their bodies for money? LOL. Please tell me you're joking!

Om namah Shivaya

Water
16 April 2011, 03:36 PM
Wow. This thread went from trying to constrain divinity into genetalia to using prostitution to make some bizarre conclusive point.

karna
16 April 2011, 10:50 PM
For God's sake (or Goddess' sake!), let's all calm down, shall we?

Women are not worshiped as goddesses, no, not even in Shaktism is this the case. The feminine principle is worshiped, which has nothing to do with the female gender. People must learn to separate the two - feminine principle is gentleness, sensitivity, compassion etc. These qualities are given a great value and adored. It doesn't mean Shaktas worship the feminine gender, since the a soul in a female body may not necessarily have feminine qualities.

I hope the whole thing is clear now - it is the principle that matters, not the gender.

Divine Kala
17 April 2011, 01:09 AM
I just want everyone to know that I did not start this thread with the thought that the divine should be this or that. I started this thread because there are many places in the world that, no matter how much they previously respected men and women and therefore themselves, have fallen and now view men as the most worthy.

If men and women were viewed equally we would not have infanticide of baby girls in so many parts of the world. If women were viewed equally there would not (I hope) be genital mutilation to stop them from 'straying'. If women were viewed as an equal of man, intellectually and - most importantly - spiritually we would not have so many injustices in the world.

Look at the scriptures, there are many which rate women as barely better than animals and those scriptures are not just Abrahamic but also in Sanatana Dharma. I have trouble reading the Gita because my very first encounter with it was the Hare Krishna 'As it Is' version and Prabhupada said some very not nice things about women in it and every time I go to read a different version I am reminded of what he said.

As for prostitution, Kumar Das, women resort to it because it is often a means of survival. Do you honestly thing prostitutes have any power? Many are ruled over by violent men who sell their bodies against their will, who beat them if they do not cooperate and in the worst cases even kill them.

When prostitution is entered into willingly it can be liberating for a woman but the vast majority of women selling their bodies do it out of desperation. They are mothers, sisters, daughters and wives who have been forced to do this thing because they have no other options. There is no power in it - not for the woman forced to sell her body and hurt her soul.

Water
17 April 2011, 01:41 AM
You cannot begin any journey into understanding when your heart is filled with knots created by the world. These knots (prejudgments, opinions, "knee-jerk reactions") stop the reflection of any religion/divinity from being reflected from your heart into the world.

For example, if I have decided that every remark ever made to me is ridiculous, I will never consider any opinion given to me because I am far too busy inflicting my own opinion upon it.

I'm still sticking with that.

The rest of this post is pretty disturbing. Be forewarned.

Edit - I almost forgot a great way to lead this. Did you know that a staple of Roman culture was to rape the young boys? Did you know it was "normal" to eunich (that is, remove their testicles with some pretty ancient and crude tools) the prettier ones in order to prevent them from developing into a "manly" shape? These disfigured and improperly matured males were constantly made to serve as objects of sexual gratification and lust. In the mean time, the women were given quite generous amounts of cash for their sexual favors.

Did you know there are parts of the world where men prostitute?.... for a bag of chips or a pack of smokes? Did you know they are also sometimes raped to the point that their intestines are literally falling out of their rectum? In particular, quite close to home, that would be your nearest penitentiary. Hi, I was a Corrections Officer, and I had to take an inmate to the hospital in that condition after wrapping his intestines in a wash cloth.

Do you know what I think about that atrocity?

I'm so sad a person had to have that happen to them.

From my own experience, did I walk away with the misconception that a male being raped is worse than a female being raped (at least her intestines aren't hanging out, right?) ?

Did I somehow decide that men are somehow less than women because they prostitute for the fair price of about $2.99USD? I bet that's far less, on average, than any female prostitute ever makes. Must make men expendable, right? Perhaps we should justify the experience by blaming it on survival, eh?

Of course not. That would all be ludicrous.

An atrocity is an atrocity regardless of the gender it happens against.

Perhaps you should be more concerned with the fair and equal treatment of people.

Perhaps you should be developing yourself spiritually to embrace and respect every aspect of God reflected in every being great and small.

sunyata07
17 April 2011, 04:13 AM
"From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races."

That's all I can say now.Unfortunately our children are raised to believe that men,women of all races,religions etc..are equal and have the right to purse anything they desire-because we all have RED blood.


So screw everything our culture taught us about women being divine or whatever.Hail Feminism!!!!In fact lets promote it by making dating on Valentine's Day mandatory for all teenage girls to make sure they aren't suppressed/repressed and have their bloody freedom.

Oh yes and at the same time they can stop referring to themselves as Hindu.


Wow. Your sarcasm was so subtle, I almost missed it! (Not. :rolleyes:) Nitinsharma, you're a new member here and with barely four posts you've already rubbed a few people up the wrong way here. Kindly tone down the aggression in your extremist views on race, caste and sex, because it is not welcome by anyone here.

Om namah Shivaya

Sahasranama
17 April 2011, 04:17 AM
..............


http://www.myspacegraphicsandanimations.net/images/rabbit_pancake.jpg

Kumar_Das
17 April 2011, 09:29 AM
Namaste KD,

I'm sorry, but your last post staggers me! How did this post degenerate from a topic about inherent feminism within SD to prostitutes?

There is no "inherent feminism" in any of Hinduism just as there is no "inherent masculinism". Genders are different and they have specific roles and responsibilities based upon their nature.

And if we want to be objective about the state of women in Hinduism. The fact of the matter is that women in Hinduism are certainly better of than in Christianity and Islam.



Has this thread become nothing but a battle of the sexes to you?


"Battle of the sexes"? :confused:

There was never -and still not- any "battle" between the sexes, to begin with.

Is stating that equating women with the Goddess as being wrong and unacceptable to mean that women are inferior or being antagonistic towards women?



Are you actually telling me that prostitution wouldn't exist were it not for the mercernary ways of women willing to trade their bodies for money?


Prostitution can take any form and include anyone going anyway. So long as there are customers and suppliers along with demands and willingness - there will be prostitution.

In humanity prostitution is largely a phenomenon involving females who perform sex with males in exchange for rewards.

I see it as an insult to equate the Goddess with (human)women. The Goddess can give any(material)thing to anyone. My example was to point out the irony, how can then women be compared to the Goddess?! When they turn to and depend on men for wealth?

Telling people off to stop denigrating my Mother makes me a bad person? So be it!

Kumar_Das
17 April 2011, 09:36 AM
http://www.myspacegraphicsandanimations.net/images/rabbit_pancake.jpg

Is this how you are going to treat a Hindu forum? You are going to post a meme picture? Is the presence of mlecchas on this forum corrupting you as well?

Please observe certain standards. You posted verses from the Puranas. And you posted them to counter what I had said. Which means it was upon me to deal with what you had cited and continue maintaining my stance. If you disagree with my points of view, then you like me are welcome to differ. However simply inserting memes... this is not some Christian/Muslim forum.

Also you must be aware of the topic about human sexuality with relation to Vishnu-Lakshmi in Vaishnava Agamas. So what is there for you to take objection to about?

Kumar_Das
17 April 2011, 09:55 AM
Yeah, any Hindu would call you guru-ji in less than 2 seconds.


What a filthy mleccha of a comment! Who said that I consider myself to be a guru?

God, I feel so disgusted. Yuck!

Kumar_Das
17 April 2011, 11:33 AM
Heresy? In Sanatana Dharma? Surely you jest...

Leave the anti-woman rhetoric to the Christians and Muslims... I have no use for it.

Btw Bryon. You are right heresy is quite a strong word. But I'm from Madhva background and its a common habit of us to declare certain practices/beliefs of other Hindus as being heretical and staunchly denounce them.

You are free to disagree with and hold the beliefs that you do already and I have no right to demand of you anything.:)

Kumar_Das
17 April 2011, 11:37 AM
Ishvara...

Like as if I don't have enough problems, I end up looking as if I'm some sort of a masochist/chauvanist by the people here...

I promise that I don't have any resentment towards women.

Adhvagat
17 April 2011, 12:25 PM
Is this how you are going to treat a Hindu forum? You are going to post a meme picture? Is the presence of mlecchas on this forum corrupting you as well?


What a filthy mleccha of a comment! Who said that I consider myself to be a guru?

God, I feel so disgusted. Yuck!

This is a warning for every non-born hindu or western that comes to this forum.

__

PS: Does going into a thread of a person curious about a cultural/religious manifestation from India and making snarky/sarcastic comments in it with no reason whatsoever fall into the standards you so highly demanded from Sahasranama earlier for example?


"[Mleccha is one] who eats meat or indulges in self-contradictory statements or is devoid of righteousness and purity of conduct"

Beware, double standards is a mleccha thing. ;)

sunyata07
17 April 2011, 02:24 PM
And if we want to be objective about the state of women in Hinduism. The fact of the matter is that women in Hinduism are certainly better of than in Christianity and Islam.


Ok. So where are your "objective" facts about women in Hinduism? You're not backing anything up you say, at all. I'm not going to take your words at face value. Yes, it's true: gender is meaningless in the ultimate scheme of things. I have never claimed the female sex is to be elevated to the status of Gods, but I echo Karna's statement on the feminine ideal. Maternal affection, gentleness, compassion, patience, tenderness, mercy, the complete selfless love of a mother for her children - these are the ideals that are venerated in the Mother. No one is saying worship females, they are the Divine Mother! This is where you have misunderstood, and hence our current discussion. Rather they advocate that the ideals so greatly valued by the Shaktas are very much apparent in womankind - the ability to grow new life in the womb is something that women do possess, a humbling and amazing miracle of nature - perpetuating Shakti itself. For this reason, one should treat mothers, wives and sisters with the highest respect as they would show the Goddess.


Females(and not males mind you) are said to contain the Goddess of Wealth because females are by nature objects of possession and rather a resource/wealth.


This is a quote from you earlier. How can you explain the bolded print and not tell me this is suggesting that women are inferior to the male sex? Females are a resource? Like viable land, or something?


So long as there are customers and suppliers along with demands and willingness - there will be prostitution... When they turn to and depend on men for wealth?


And who exactly are those customers? Have you asked yourself that yet, or did you forget that there can't be supply without demand? You talk about prostitution like most women engage in it for sport or pleasure. Believe me, this is far from the truth. Most women do not choose to be involved in prostitution, whereas buyers have free choice! It's completely illogical for you to brand the whole of the female sex as materialistic from the sex trade industry. As for the last part of your quote... again, please verify what you're saying. I certainly don't depend on men for wealth, and many working women out there are the same. Unless you're talking about parts of the world where women are still at a disadvantage regarding equal rights in the workplace. In which case, it is faulty to brand them as materialistic for a lack of improvement in basic human rights. Or even worse, are you talking about some parts of the world where it's considered improper for a woman to work at all? In which case, how else do you expect these individuals to live and take care of themselves and their children, if not to rely on their fathers and husbands?

Om namah Shivaya

BryonMorrigan
17 April 2011, 02:30 PM
Btw Bryon. You are right heresy is quite a strong word. But I'm from Madhva background and its a common habit of us to declare certain practices/beliefs of other Hindus as being heretical and staunchly denounce them.

You are free to disagree with and hold the beliefs that you do already and I have no right to demand of you anything.:)

At least we can be civil, right?

Besides, the quote that I posted (Striyo devah striyah pranah...) was from the Sarvollasa Tantra, something that is not necessarily the kind of thing your average Vaisnava, Madhva or not, is likely to be either reading or endorsing. To be honest, I really didn't think it all that controversial. One of the things that separates Sanatana Dharma from the Abrahamic faiths is the diversity of philosophies and religious concepts.

That's why I find the idea of "heresy" in Sanatana Dharma, at least as you used it...in reference to established Shakta doctrine, to be a bit odd. (I mean, I wouldn't use the word "heresy," but I'd certainly understand it a bit more if you were referring to the idea of "Jesus" or "Muhammad" as avatars, or something else outside of Hindu religious texts or something like that...)

Also, I think you misunderstand. I don't bow to my wife in submission or anything, nor do I think she should do the same to me. But I do recognize the importance of the feminine divinity of the Great Mother, and respect that in women.

The idea that Shaktism is related to Feminism is not a new one, and Western "scholars" have been deriding Shaktism for it for over a hundred years. As Sir John Woodroffe noted in Shakti and Shakta:


An American Orientalist critic, in speaking of "the worthlessness of Tantric philosophy", said that it was "Religious Feminism run mad," adding "What is all this but the feminisation of orthodox Vedanta? It is a doctrine for suffragette Monists: the dogma unsupported by any evidence that the female principle antedates and includes the male principle, and that this female principle is supreme Divinity." The "worthlessness" of the Tantrik philosophy is a personal opinion on which nothing need be said, the more particularly that Orientalists who, with insufficient knowledge, have already committed themselves to this view are not likely to easily abandon it. (1)
Of course, I'm always learning, and always perfectly willing to listen to arguments that I am incorrect. It would be quite foolish for me to think that I know everything there is to know about Sanatana Dharma!
______________________________________________________________

(1) Woodroffe, John. Shakti and Shakta. Chennai, India: Ganesh and Co.: 1929. p.119.

Water
17 April 2011, 02:58 PM
The idea that Shaktism is related to Feminism is not a new one, and Western "scholars" have been deriding Shaktism for it for over a hundred years. As Sir John Woodroffe noted in Shakti and Shakta:


An American Orientalist critic, in speaking of "the worthlessness of Tantric philosophy", said that it was "Religious Feminism run mad," adding "What is all this but the feminisation of orthodox Vedanta? It is a doctrine for suffragette Monists: the dogma unsupported by any evidence that the female principle antedates and includes the male principle, and that this female principle is supreme Divinity." The "worthlessness" of the Tantrik philosophy is a personal opinion on which nothing need be said, the more particularly that Orientalists who, with insufficient knowledge, have already committed themselves to this view are not likely to easily abandon it. (1)
Of course, I'm always learning, and always perfectly willing to listen to arguments that I am incorrect. It would be quite foolish for me to think that I know everything there is to know about Sanatana Dharma!
______________________________________________________________

(1) Woodroffe, John. Shakti and Shakta. Chennai, India: Ganesh and Co.: 1929. p.119.

There are a few ways to interpret the very passage you quoted. For example, "Religious Feminism run mad." Is the critiquing in regard to the unequal treatment of the genders or is the critiquing applying to the leveraging of one gender above the other? The passage you used can be quite ambiguous if you approach it with the purpose of attempting to create a confirmation-bias of some other information.

Shakti neither has a penis nor boobies (and simultaneously has both). The anthropomorphizing of Shakti is a female human. The reflection of someones personal socio-political motivation judges Shakti based on human female characteristics....

... which is itself pure ignorance. Recognizing this creates a "positive" ignorance, if you will, as you recognize there is a void that can be filled with knowledge. Discarding all opinions, scriptural resources and logic creates quite the negative ignorance.

Actually, as I see all followers in this thread are more hung up on weewees and boobies, I've decided to commit myself to a life of drawing BOTH penises and breasts upon every statue I can find of Jesus, Siddhaartha Gautama and even Hotei.

This thread has shown me the truth - the empowerment of the gender-trait can only be illustrated by genitals and mammary glands and therefore a new following calls me to vandalize and insult every religious figure with my own socio-political agenda.

Adhvagat
17 April 2011, 03:06 PM
Watery fellow... I completely miss your point.

BryonMorrigan
17 April 2011, 03:13 PM
There are a few ways to interpret the very passage you quoted. For example, "Religious Feminism run mad." Is the critiquing in regard to the unequal treatment of the genders or is the critiquing applying to the leveraging of one gender above the other? The passage you used can be quite ambiguous if you approach it with the purpose of attempting to create a confirmation-bias of some other information.

For the record: I was using the quote to show how sexist men in Western cultures viewed Shaktism. To the average Western man of 1910 (when the book was originally written), even sexual equality would be viewed as "bad." It all depends on your view of "Feminism," which to me simply means promoting civil equality between the sexes.

Water
17 April 2011, 03:24 PM
Watery fellow... I completely miss your point.

I will try to highlight it with relational thoughts to concepts handpicked throughout the thread.

Feminism is a cultural concept applied to prove the equality (and sometimes superiority) of those possessing the material traits of the female gender.

Gender is a physical human trait. The physical manifestations (that is, genitals, mammary glands, hair growth) are used to sexualize an individual.

It has been proven that gender characteristics can be recreated or nullified by the production or absence of certain hormones. If we fill a woman with a testosterone or a male with estrogen, the physiological characteristics will adapt to the observed gender characteristics. That is, men will become more maternal and nurturing. Women will become more aggressive and uninhibited.

Therefore, gender traits are a creation of physiological circumstances.

To apply human characteristics of gender traits to humans is actually a quality of physiology in itself.

The divine have no physiology.

Now we will return to feminism. The equality (or superiority) of a subgroup of people that possess specific gender traits as a result of physiology.

Does a soul have a physiology? We are told that souls can take many forms - female, male, animal, man, inanimate object...

Implying that Shakti has a physiology is quite silly. Therefore, implying the superiority or equality of Shakti because of physiological traits is completely ludicrous.

To return to the point of sexualization - how insulting is it to sexualize sacred images? Lust itself is an aspect we hope to overcome, is it not?

Love and service to the Lord of choosing is a reflection of our own human intellect.

The only explanation as to why someone would attempt to assign a physiology to an undefinable entity can only be a manifestation of our own intellect.

The whole thread is only trying to create a reflection of our socio-political agendas on to divinity. That is counter-active to our own search and realization of our genderless Self.

In summary, this entire thread is the application of our intellect and socio-political understandings to aspects of Sanatana Dharma and is not Sanatana Dharma, nor Buddhism, nor Jainism, nor an Abrahamic religion, etc.

Adhvagat
17 April 2011, 04:57 PM
So you're saying there's no divine in physiology and hormones? I thought Brahman were the very basis for material nature it to exist!

I think we should't be so dualistic regarding the material existence. The material world is not something disconnected from God, I don't even think hardcore Dvaitas would see it this way, that sounds more like an Abrahamic view.

And yes I'd say the soul has a physiology, just like the subtle mind has a certain physiology like observed by Carl Gustav Jung, for example: Conscious, Personal Unconscious and Collective Unconscious (to say it briefly without delving into cogntive functions and ecto/endopsyhic functions), but the subtler we go, the subtler these physiologies, these working principles are and the harder it is to observe them objectively.

For me, feminine and masculine are not physiologies, but principles, that in the gross material world manifest as sexes and its inclinations. Shiva and Shakti aren't just a boy and a girl, but existence itself and awareness of existence that follows.

As I said in a previous post some time ago in this thread: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=52436&postcount=19. In my opinion it isn't a sacrilage to relate spiritual things to sexuality, since sexuality comes from spirituality itself and serves to the perpetuation of life. It's only insulting when we try to fit the whole of spirituality into sexuality, but using it to see a higher meaning is not insulting at all.

And my point can be synthesized in this phrase:


It's not about the sexualization of an aniconic symbol, it's about the spiritualization of our own sexuality.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_36_tattvas
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6649

Water
17 April 2011, 05:36 PM
So you're saying there's no divine in physiology and hormones? I thought Brahman were the very basis for material nature it to exist!

I completely agree!

Actually, I was saying it the other way around. :)

To have a physiology, you must be manifest.


I think we should't be so dualistic regarding the material existence. The material world is not something disconnected from God, I don't even think hardcore Dvaitas would see it this way, that sounds more like an Abrahamic view.

I'm not sure what brought you to think that I was suggesting the material world in this manner. Either way, I'm not going to justify the above. :)


For me, feminine and masculine are not physiologies, but principles, that in the gross material world manifest as sexes and its inclinations. Shiva and Shakti aren't just a boy and a girl, but existence itself and awareness of existence that follows.

This has been my point the entire time. :)

Suggesting that Shiva and Shakti are merely human male/female is ridiculous, ludicrous and intolerable. To return to the first point of this post, the opposite is quite true - a human male/female is certainly the reflection of Shiva/Shakti.

In regards to the divine - The traits of each are complimentary in every way and absolutely unequal.

In regards to human genders - The traits of each are complimentary in every way and absolutely unequal.

To reflect again, there is the story of the dharma of the peasant and the dharma of the king. Neither can serve the other's dharma and synthesizing that is sure to gain nothing. Their dharma is unequal although an individual serving an assigned dharma is no less than another individual serving a different dharma.

Put a different way... A man is unable to be the vessel of children or sustain them with milk as well (if at all) as a female. A pregnant female is unable to protect herself as well as an unencumbered man. Attempting to reverse this dharma will surely lead to failure.

Edit -

From the thread you linked to -

Now connecting the dots with a new perspective: The Lingam wouldn't be related to sexuality or a phallic symbol, because that would be stating that the material existence is a cause for the supreme, and I'm sure it's quite the other way around. The male genital, having the symbolic responsibility of storing and preserving energy, so it perpetuates life through sexual congress, has a resemblance in shape and is inspired by this supreme and illimited form related to the storing and preservation of spiritual energy.

Thank you very, very much for that. I am quite sure we are saying the same thing.

From the context of that thread, if we view the Sivalinga as a pornographic symbol of the manifest man/woman.... that's quite inappropriate and vulgar.

As you have stated, though, "the material existence is a cause for the supreme and I'm sure it's quite the other way around."

In the same manner, Shaktism cannot be Feminism as that would mean the divine is a result of material existence (and we're quite sure that's the other way around :)).

Feminism is a result of socio-political transgression onto the divine.

SOV
18 April 2011, 02:44 AM
Divine kala, the best way to find out more about this topic is by reading some puranic stories and some scriptures. You understand that there are women in india who regard their husbands very highly right? and also these women have been succesful in their lives and are happy about the way things are?
Basically women represent prakriti and men purusha. While men can control their semen by practicing brahmacharya, women cannot do the same. That is why they have to resort to men for their own good. The laws of hindu dharma are governed by scriptures which was not written by any human, male or female.

And the feminist view is nothing but egoistic and narrow-mindedness. More aptly, ignorance.

anirvan
18 April 2011, 08:18 AM
The OP started with question of” place of feminism in sanatan dharma.and now where it is leading to ???

it has nothing to do with feminine aspect of god hood or looking feminine divinity in females.

does the modern feminism which started in western world ( question of equal rights like ---no subservient to husband or in laws, i will look after your parents as much you take care, i am earning as you,so why i will do household, meaningless words like husband is like god and to be respected.,thinking to be subservient to a male cause twitching in my body.....blah blah) is compatible and conducive to sanatan dharma ???

In my view of sanatan dharma, its not a religion,but a way of life,a culture well integrated into our gene even before birth so that whatever we do in life is directed only and only towards spirituality and self realization.should this way need to change to accommodate today”s feminism ?
Women has been respected not equal,but higher than male by heart and spirit by all humans .who can say with God”s Sake that he/she loves father more that the mother. ??? and this replies all the fighting between superiority male and female. Womens are always loved,worshipped and accepted as divine for their Love,compassion,self-sacrifices,affection.

Its not because mother does more hard work for us,but the quality of love,affection,sacrifice is much more inside her which is required for our inner growth.but if she will do the reverse, she will not be loved anymore as she is getting. there lies her greatness. Everybody has own duty and own place.but to taking other"s place to be equal will ruin the society.


But by becoming equal to male in earning, muscle strength, disgraced freedom and disbanding their inherited quality will never earn them the love,respect they deserves and certainly not help them in Spiritual journey as it was intended by SD code of conduct for women.

so if we starts integrating the modern feminism, where we will lead from now ?

does the bondage of husband-wife regarded in SD as GURU-SISYA and Siva-parvati has any validity or we can start living as equal partnership based upon mutual respect and mutual duty with or without concept of unconditional love and sacrifice ?

rainycity
18 May 2011, 04:23 AM
If it is female chauvinism and misandry, then it isn't compatible with hinduism at all.

There is also a belief in hindu culture that a wife should obey the wishes of her husband and that she should be chaste etc, and women are seen as mothers in hindu culture (as opposed to western culture where they are viewed as sexual icons or as the superior gender). Gender roles for women like marriage and motherhood are often frowned on and renounced by feminists. Although women being viewed as sex objects is frowned upon much more in feminism.

smaranam
18 May 2011, 01:16 PM
Namaste


Attraction and aversion are two sides of the same coin. Neither can bring spiritual elevation. So, first one has to distinguish : is it aversion to men ? Or is it Nivrutti that is making someone stay away from gruhastAshram ? This is one ashram which essentially runs on the wheels of pravrutti that take one towards nivrutti. If it is real nivrutti - possibly rare - then it cannot be classified as extreme chauvinistic feminism or misandry. Coercing someone like that into marriage just because shAstra says so can be detrimental to everyone involved - i would call that going backwards. The fuel of pravrutti so much needed to undertake the responsibility is either long gone or missing.

However, if it is aversion to men and serving men, then that is strong conditioning to be sorted out and overcome. However, just because it is conditioning to be overcome does not necessarily mean it would be wise to get married with that conditioning. Would it not be better instead to take to spirituality and overcome the anarthas ?

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

Shrimad BhAgvat Canto 7
chapter 11 - VarNAshram duties,
chapter 12 - spiritual duties of each ashram

SB 7.11.25: To render service to the husband, to be always favorably disposed toward the husband, to be equally well disposed toward the husband's relatives and friends, and to follow the vows of the husband — these are the four principles to be followed by women described as chaste.

SB 7.11.28 says the chaste wife should serve the husband who is not fallen i.e. it says that the rule applies only if the husband is also chaste - or a pure VaishNav.

Of Course, one should not take that literally, but rather , try to help the husband stay away from mAyA. The import here, is that one should choose their spouse wisely in the first place, such that it is conducive to spiritual progress of both. This is what VaishNav acharyas call daivi varNAshram dharma.

So although it appears like Hinduism supports male dominance, true spiritual Hinduism is about striking the balance, offers respectful roles to both - as has been stated in posts above, and certainly discourages and fights against abuse. (I told you Govind the AdiPurush never leaves loopholes :) ).

Govindam AdiPurusham Tam aham bhajAmi ~

Kumar_Das
18 July 2011, 03:03 PM
Your view is very Abrahamic.

My views are my own and others as per what has been taught to me. Hardly have acquired any from Abrahamism to draw from.

Why dont you quote which Abrahamic sources you think I quoted?

Kumar_Das
18 July 2011, 03:15 PM
Yes, I have heard Vaishnavas and Shaivas compare their fathers to Vishnu and Shiva. Your assertion that they don't is simply wrong. People get compared to Rama and Krishna with great frequency.

Nonsense. It appears to me that you on purpose want it to be that way.

The only time I've seen is when some couples compare their love to that of Krishna and Radha.


Worship is just a word. Yeah and you can say that God is also just a word in the same vein.


To you it means accepting subjugation and inferiority. To me it means acknowledgment of value.I'm not stopping you from living in your own world. So long as you don't dictate mine based upon yours, which you are doing.


Your view is very Abrahamic.Are you an Abrahamic follower yourself? Do you feel offended by complex theology present in Hinduism? Does that hurt your feelings?:)

I don't go around stopping other Hindus from being polytheists or pantheists if they want to.

So how can you say such a thing as "your religious inclinations are Abrahamic" ?

Tell me in which of your Abrahamic literature such an understanding is found



~Worship means submission, helplessness and inferiority.

~Worshipping anything apart from God/or anything that relates to God(Guru) always will mean that you will lose something. Always you will lose intelligence and dignity.

~You will never be able to surpass anything that you (genuinely) worship even if you could.







Try to be more Hindu.

Okay mleccha.:D