Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

  1. Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Namaskaaram:

    I think the stories of bhakts also reveal the greatness of the wife of a bhakt (where applicable). Some examples that i have heard of:

    In the story of Jayadeva and his wife Padnmavati; it is said (at least the way i have heard) that Padmavati was like a guru to Jayadeva. Prior to marriage (that Jayadeva tried to avoid), his bhakti was like a sadhana (Bhakti Yoga) and after marriage, he was the enjoyer of Bhakti (Bhakti rasa). Indeed, after marriage his wife was the advisor and counselor regarding how to worship and conduct festivals in a less dry manner (as would be the case with a strict life of a brahmachari). Jayadeva wrote the Gita Govindam after marriage and it was Padmavati who got darshan of Shri Krishna earlier. Thus, Padmavati was indeed like a guru to Jayadeva.

    It is also said that Shri Vallabhacharya was a brahmachari going from village to village giving lectures till Shri Panduranga on the advise of Rukmini Devi arranged for a marriage so that Shri Vallabhacharya's life would be more fulfilling.

    Pandit Mandana Mishra's wife was known to be a great scholar in her own right and gave him temporary reprieve in his debate against Adi Shankaracharya.

    Unfortunately, the examples i provide are all from my hearing and I have no references to back them up (but of course I believe them).

    Jai SitaRam

  2. Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    This is slightly off topic but very inspiring (probably belongs to the temple section). I provide the link that is quite sufficient in itself. This is another instance of the wife's steadfastness and sincerity saving the husband.

    http://www.writespirit.net/stories-t...y-the-british/

    I hope to visit this temple sometime in my life.

    Jai Sitaram

  3. #23

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Quote Originally Posted by Inquirer View Post
    A deity can only be described as a powerful supernatural being. Otherwise, anything could be a deity. No man is a god.
    We consider the possibility of not just man being god but a woman being goddess also. But we are not bothered about Greeko-Roman Definitions of terms. Dharmic religious texts are written in Sanskrit, Pali and other languages which do not include English or other European Languages. So the term Deva or Hindu context of god doesnt translate to your conception of "god". Deva is defined by the author of "Nirukta", Yaskacharya as Deepanaadava, Denaadava, Jnaanadava. we have 33 categories to define dieties or say hindu context of "god". so the Judeo-Christian View of god is not what we discuss here, where in "no man is god" except through some One and only one realisation in History being the only way holds true. This(Hindu view) is a different view, it exists in this planet. Deal with it. Before posting comments on random posts i suggest you to read through basics of Dharmic concepts using search option in this forum. there is great detail of threads, It is little effort to search and enlighten oneself. It is ones responsibility to know and clarify doubts through a Pramaana or a Guru(master) and Scriptures.
    योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् ll (भगवद्गीता)

    धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः ll (भगवद्गीता)

  4. #24

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Quote Originally Posted by sudhumravarna View Post
    We consider the possibility of not just man being god but a woman being goddess also. But we are not bothered about Greeko-Roman Definitions of terms. Dharmic religious texts are written in Sanskrit, Pali and other languages which do not include English or other European Languages. So the term Deva or Hindu context of god doesnt translate to your conception of "god". Deva is defined by the author of "Nirukta", Yaskacharya as Deepanaadava, Denaadava, Jnaanadava. we have 33 categories to define dieties or say hindu context of "god". so the Judeo-Christian View of god is not what we discuss here, where in "no man is god" except through some One and only one realisation in History being the only way holds true. This(Hindu view) is a different view, it exists in this planet. Deal with it. Before posting comments on random posts i suggest you to read through basics of Dharmic concepts using search option in this forum. there is great detail of threads, It is little effort to search and enlighten oneself. It is ones responsibility to know and clarify doubts through a Pramaana or a Guru(master) and Scriptures.
    As I am the original poster, let me clarify that the above remarks, speaking on behalf of "we," do not represent my views or those of any knowledgeable Hindus with whom I associate.

    The original point of this thread was to highlight the seemingly "inferior" position of women and show how men can learn from it, in a devotional context. Ordinary living entities are not God, and the incorrectly fashionable idea that they are is a new age construct without basis in shruti. I request members not to hijack this thread to promote non-Vedic ideologies.

    thanks,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  5. #25

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    As I am the original poster, let me clarify that the above remarks, speaking on behalf of "we," do not represent my views or those of any knowledgeable Hindus with whom I associate.

    The original point of this thread was to highlight the seemingly "inferior" position of women and show how men can learn from it, in a devotional context. Ordinary living entities are not God, and the incorrectly fashionable idea that they are is a new age construct without basis in shruti. I request members not to hijack this thread to promote non-Vedic ideologies.

    thanks,
    I have not used the term with capital G for representing the idea. you cant put words in my mouth and push a slight remark "new-age" on me. Well as a matter of fact, pointing fro your way of interpretation, one can say that hinduism is a godless religion. because none of the srutis used the english term god. I assume that this thread is discussing things such as "gurudev" and "patidev", from vaishvite scripture SB 4.12.41. i dont think they are new agey kind, i certainly dont think, they would translate "pati-dev" as "Husband God". but a forceful imposition to speak and discuss in Greeko-roman terms would ask for "husband-god" as accepted one. If you dont agree with this situation then, can some one please enlighten us with new "intellectual" thought to present the idea of "pati deva" to wider audience by not being New-Age hippocrate. I would like to learn as well.
    योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् ll (भगवद्गीता)

    धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः ll (भगवद्गीता)

  6. #26

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Quote Originally Posted by sudhumravarna View Post
    I have not used the term with capital G for representing the idea. you cant put words in my mouth and push a slight remark "new-age" on me. Well as a matter of fact, pointing fro your way of interpretation, one can say that hinduism is a godless religion. because none of the srutis used the english term god. I assume that this thread is discussing things such as "gurudev" and "patidev", from vaishvite scripture SB 4.12.41. i dont think they are new agey kind, i certainly dont think, they would translate "pati-dev" as "Husband God". but a forceful imposition to speak and discuss in Greeko-roman terms would ask for "husband-god" as accepted one. If you dont agree with this situation then, can some one please enlighten us with new "intellectual" thought to present the idea of "pati deva" to wider audience by not being New-Age hippocrate. I would like to learn as well.
    It doesn't matter whether you meant "God" or "gods." In vedAntic Hinduism we don't say that people are "gods" or "devas." The position of a deva is held only by specific living entities who are qualified by virtue of having a lot of punya to their credit. It is not the case that "We consider the possibility of not just man being god but a woman being goddess also."

    The shAstric injunction to the effect that a husband is a deva to his wife is the subject of this thread, and as I was explaining, this honorary designation, which is meant to convey the respect and devotion a woman should have for her husband, has spiritual significance which is lost on the "feminism and equality" crowd. Hence, the need to bring it out and put it in its devotional context. It has nothing to do with being a "god" or "deva" in some higher, metaphysical sense.

    Please do not divert this thread again.

    Thanks,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  7. #27
    Join Date
    June 2009
    Location
    New Delhi
    Age
    31
    Posts
    89
    Rep Power
    117

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    I have no idea where this whole idea of husband being the God came from. But I do think that it is extremely regressive and orthodox.

    My logic is very simple. Dharma teaches as detachment. In the end we need to realize our true nature. But treating your husband as God for whatever reason is plain materialistic. Not only internally you feel emotionally dependent on your husband, but because this also implies spiritual dependence (the whole thing about a wife is able to partake in yajnas because of husband etc etc) lessens the chance of the female to realize her nature.

    We basically need to remember that there are like hundreds of God pleasing rituals that exist in Hindu Dharma for people with all kinds of thoughts and needs. And the above is not only subjugating women but we are also indirectly being narrow minded about the many practices in Hindu dharma. Is being a wife to a man the only dharma of a woman? Or is it the only way to achieve moksha? I strongly disagree.

    And yes what about Durga? Are our Goddesess married to male Gods to justify their power or spirituality? No way man. These are some seriously cool women and I love them a lot.

    Besides who says that this texts need to be taken so literally? In the end we need to remember that much of what has been said about living is based on the speculation and insight of people belonging to the culture of the age they were written in.

    Instead of taking these things literally we must try to understand where do some of the text go completely wrong and are in direct contradiction to the goal of Hindu life and theory of Karma and rebirth. Look, I am not criticizing the texts here because I believe in freedom of thought and speech.

    Another way to look at this, suppose a couple a man and a wife. And they were born in their next birth with opposite genders. So what is their true nature then. Both of them can be considered men because they have have been born as one. And both of them can be considered women because they have been born as one.

    And should we as Hindu intellectuals waste our time on such trivial issues such as Husband worship which basically has no role to play in the larger scheme of things.

    What relations we had in this life, in our previous lives and relations we will have in future lives has no bearing on the relationship that we have with God (or our self).

    Look, from a Hindu point of view men and women are equal not because it is what the modern outlook and culture expects from us, or the fact that we believe in women empowerment. As a matter of fact if we believe in any of it either we do not know much about our faith, or we ourselves are reducing women to inferior status by talking about their empowerment.

    We believe in soul which has neither any form, nor gender and hence there is no point in talking about family relations (even those of husband or wife), because they make little sense.

    A woman because inherently it is a soul, like a man is capable of attaining moksha by any means that she desires and for this she does not necessarily has to be devoted to her husband or whatever.

    I do not care what Sita did or did not do. For me, she is a historical figure, and by no means influences my views on Hindu dharma in any way. And I do not see why any woman in this age be influenced by her actions. I do not care how much she was devoted to Rama, or if this should serve as an example to me or not.

    I as a Hindu, if am influenced by other people so blindly, than I personally feel I will only be a Hindu in name. I believe in the richness of Hindu culture and Sanatana Dharma and would like to continue the the tradition of healthy debate and progressive thoughts which I have inherited from my ancestors. But if I get trapped in such orthodox ideas, it will hamper my mental, emotional and spiritual growth.

    I am without gender, body, name, relation or anything of the sort. I am only soul and my only reality is my own karma. Nobody is obligated to me and I am not obligated to anyone.

    My identity of being a woman is only to help me to assimilate with the society at large, and it is not suppose to influence either my dharma or my karma. And of course this goes for people born as any other gender too.

  8. #28

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Eriko is quite mistaken.

    One's body does influence one's dharma. A human's dharma is different from a deva's dharma, and their dharmas are different from an animal's dharma.

    A woman's dharma is not the same as a man's dharma. A man cannot bear a child or provide it milk from his own body, for example.

    Treating one's husband, one's parents, or one's guru with the same respect one would normally give a deva is not "materialistic." It is an extension of the upaniShadic idea that the paramAtmA is the indwelling controller of all jIvAtmA-s. Thus, it is really the case (in the example of wives and husbands) that a lady's pati is indeed her deity, as per traditional Hindu culture.

    Someone may ask, is it not also that case that paramAtmA is within the jIva of the wife also, and so should not husband should treat wife as a Deity? Although the first part is true, the meditation on the wife as a man's Deity is not prescribed in shAstra, and so it is not followed like that. Still, the husband has to recognize the presence of paramAtmA within his wife and treat her compassionately. In brihadAraNyaka upaniShad, yagnavAlkya explains this to his wife before taking sannyAsa - "it is not for one's self that one holds the wife dear, but for the sake of the Atman (paramAtmA)." This is repeated twice in the upaniShad, and it underscores the spiritual basis for proper family relations in traditional Hinduism. If the Lord wanted everyone to be "equal" and "treated equally," then He would have arranged for shAstra-s that prescribe that. But the fact is, dharma is not "equal" for men and women. For example, twice-born men have to awaken every day before dawn and meditate on the Lord's presence in the sun. This austerity is obligatory on men, but not on women.

    If one cannot understand, at least for the sake of argument, the presence of God within one's spouse, one's parents, one's children, etc, then one simply has no basis for discussing what is and is not authentic spirituality. For a truly God-conscious person, there is no difficulty at all in respecting those who, by social convention (which, in Hinduism, is determined by dharma-shAstra-s), are higher. Indeed, one can argue that it is obligatory for spiritual advancement to show respect. If you cannot respect your husband or your father, where is the question of respecting the Lord of all of them?
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  9. #29
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Quote Originally Posted by eriko View Post
    I have no idea where this whole idea of husband being the God came from. But I do think that it is extremely regressive and orthodox.

    My logic is very simple. Dharma teaches as detachment. In the end we need to realize our true nature. But treating your husband as God for whatever reason is plain materialistic. Not only internally you feel emotionally dependent on your husband, but because this also implies spiritual dependence (the whole thing about a wife is able to partake in yajnas because of husband etc etc) lessens the chance of the female to realize her nature.

    We basically need to remember that there are like hundreds of God pleasing rituals that exist in Hindu Dharma for people with all kinds of thoughts and needs. And the above is not only subjugating women but we are also indirectly being narrow minded about the many practices in Hindu dharma. Is being a wife to a man the only dharma of a woman? Or is it the only way to achieve moksha? I strongly disagree.

    And yes what about Durga? Are our Goddesess married to male Gods to justify their power or spirituality? No way man. These are some seriously cool women and I love them a lot.

    Besides who says that this texts need to be taken so literally? In the end we need to remember that much of what has been said about living is based on the speculation and insight of people belonging to the culture of the age they were written in.

    Instead of taking these things literally we must try to understand where do some of the text go completely wrong and are in direct contradiction to the goal of Hindu life and theory of Karma and rebirth. Look, I am not criticizing the texts here because I believe in freedom of thought and speech.

    Another way to look at this, suppose a couple a man and a wife. And they were born in their next birth with opposite genders. So what is their true nature then. Both of them can be considered men because they have have been born as one. And both of them can be considered women because they have been born as one.

    And should we as Hindu intellectuals waste our time on such trivial issues such as Husband worship which basically has no role to play in the larger scheme of things.

    What relations we had in this life, in our previous lives and relations we will have in future lives has no bearing on the relationship that we have with God (or our self).

    Look, from a Hindu point of view men and women are equal not because it is what the modern outlook and culture expects from us, or the fact that we believe in women empowerment. As a matter of fact if we believe in any of it either we do not know much about our faith, or we ourselves are reducing women to inferior status by talking about their empowerment.

    We believe in soul which has neither any form, nor gender and hence there is no point in talking about family relations (even those of husband or wife), because they make little sense.

    A woman because inherently it is a soul, like a man is capable of attaining moksha by any means that she desires and for this she does not necessarily has to be devoted to her husband or whatever.

    I do not care what Sita did or did not do. For me, she is a historical figure, and by no means influences my views on Hindu dharma in any way. And I do not see why any woman in this age be influenced by her actions. I do not care how much she was devoted to Rama, or if this should serve as an example to me or not.

    I as a Hindu, if am influenced by other people so blindly, than I personally feel I will only be a Hindu in name. I believe in the richness of Hindu culture and Sanatana Dharma and would like to continue the the tradition of healthy debate and progressive thoughts which I have inherited from my ancestors. But if I get trapped in such orthodox ideas, it will hamper my mental, emotional and spiritual growth.

    I am without gender, body, name, relation or anything of the sort. I am only soul and my only reality is my own karma. Nobody is obligated to me and I am not obligated to anyone.

    My identity of being a woman is only to help me to assimilate with the society at large, and it is not suppose to influence either my dharma or my karma. And of course this goes for people born as any other gender too.
    Vannakkam eriko: Thank you for the long and detailed post. It's cause for plenty of reflection. Good to see you posting again, so welcome back as well. I can really see a lot of change from age 17 to age 20, and I hope the heat in Delhi isn't insufferable.

    Aum Namasivaya

  10. #30
    Join Date
    June 2009
    Location
    New Delhi
    Age
    31
    Posts
    89
    Rep Power
    117

    Re: The Wife is the Guru and the Deity of the Husband

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    One's body does influence one's dharma. A human's dharma is different from a deva's dharma, and their dharmas are different from an animal's dharma.
    Please explain why you feel male and female bodies are any different, except for their respective sex organs, and how does it influence their dharma?

    A woman's dharma is not the same as a man's dharma. A man cannot bear a child or provide it milk from his own body, for example.
    What about a woman who is infertile, will you equate her to a man? Because she also cannot bear a child or produce milk like other women. And how do you explain the empathic pregnancy pains men feel when their wives are about to deliver?

    Treating one's husband, one's parents, or one's guru with the same respect one would normally give a deva is not "materialistic." It is an extension of the upaniShadic idea that the is the indwelling controller of all jIvAtmA-s. Thus, it is really the case (in the example of wives and husbands) that a lady's pati is indeed her deity, as per traditional Hindu culture.

    Someone may ask, is it not also that case that paramAtmA is within the jIva of the wife also, and so should not husband should treat wife as a Deity? Although the first part is true, the meditation on the wife as a man's Deity is not prescribed in shAstra, and so it is not followed like that. Still, the husband has to recognize the presence of paramAtmA within his wife and treat her compassionately.

    In brihadAraNyaka upaniShad, yagnavAlkya explains this to his wife before taking sannyAsa - "it is not for one's self that one holds the wife dear, but for the sake of the Atman (paramAtmA)." This is repeated twice in the upaniShad, and it underscores the spiritual basis for proper family relations in traditional Hinduism. If the Lord wanted everyone to be "equal" and "treated equally," then He would have arranged for shAstra-s that prescribe that.

    But the fact is, dharma is not "equal" for men and women.
    It might not be equal but it in no way should restrict the Karma potential of an individual soul no matter its present form or gender. And if it does, I would not think of it as dharma at all.

    For example, twice-born men have to awaken every day before dawn and meditate on the Lord's presence in the sun. This austerity is obligatory on men, but not on women.
    And who can tell which man is twice born? And who is not? Can you? Or can the person himself? What should one do to know this? And what if a man born twice, is born a woman a third time?


    If one cannot understand, at least for the sake of argument, the presence of God within one's spouse, one's parents, one's children, etc, then one simply has no basis for discussing what is and is not authentic spirituality.
    God is present not just in family members, but all that surrounds us. Your logic back at you: make me understand why men do not view their wife as deity, are not mutually devoted, and act only compassionate (and that too in a sense of being just simply nice to the women)?


    For a truly God-conscious person, there is no difficulty at all in respecting those who, by social convention (which, in Hinduism, is determined by dharma-shAstra-s), are higher.
    Great, a patriarch agreeing to the fact the men are indeed given higher status than women without any logic to support it.

    Indeed, one can argue that it is obligatory for spiritual advancement to show respect. If you cannot respect your husband or your father, where is the question of respecting the Lord of all of them?
    And if you cannot respect your wife and your mother, where is the question of respecting the Lord/Goddess of all of them?

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
  •