Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Feminism and Hinduism

  1. #41

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    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.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Kumar_Das View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumar_Das View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Adhvagat; 17 April 2011 at 01:35 PM.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    July 2009
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Age
    36
    Posts
    860
    Rep Power
    1516

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    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
    "Watch your thoughts, they become words.
    Watch your words, they become actions.
    Watch your actions, they become habits.
    Watch your habits, they become your character.
    Watch your character, it becomes your destiny."

    ॐ गं गणपतये नमः
    Om Gam Ganapataye namah

    लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु ।
    Lokaah SamastaaH Sukhino Bhavantu

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL, USA
    Age
    50
    Posts
    254
    Rep Power
    360

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Kumar_Das View Post
    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.

  5. #45

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by BryonMorrigan View Post
    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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Watery fellow... I completely miss your point.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Augustine, FL, USA
    Age
    50
    Posts
    254
    Rep Power
    360

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Water View Post
    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.

  8. #48

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    September 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    1014

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    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/sho...6&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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    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

  10. #50

    Re: Feminism and Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pietro Impagliazzo View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Water; 17 April 2011 at 05:54 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •