[Crundaangerge]

Dear Chintana Ji

Really appreciate your thoughts; I am getting more interest in this and would like to discuss this in some more subtle way!

First let me simply revisit the scientific (biological) concept what I had mentioned. Later I will try to share my thoughts on your concerns.

1. Female carries XX pair and Male carries XY pair

2. The progeny's sex is determined by the combination of any one from the pair of Female 'XX' with Male 'XY', in any case Female can provide only X and Male can provide either X or Y, if X of Female combines with X of Male produces Female and if X of Female combines with Y of male produces Male. Hence the Male property of any progeny purely depends on the chromosome/gene Patten of Male Gene alone.

---

Now some analysis on Y-C (this is still under research and some controversy still exist but I am sharing what prompted to presume Y-C could be the predominant reason our ancestors inferred early and maintained the Male Gothram is what passed down to generation considering the Y-C as it is what passed with-out any major change or modification)…

Please visit this site: http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/features/sex/ this will help you in getting a clear/good picture on what I am talking about and share your thoughts. Besides the below is a paragraph provoked my thought to analyze the concept of ‘Gothram’, my thought was based on whatever been told in this research page!

“……… consider that during the formation of a woman's eggs, paternal and maternal X chromosomes recombine during meiosis. Now suppose a mother passes to her son an X chromosome carrying a gene or genes for superintelligence. While this genetic parcel would boost the son's brilliance, he could pass that X chromosome only to a daughter, where it could be diluted by the maternally derived X. The daughter, in turn, could pass on only a broken-up and remixed version to the fourth generation, due, again, to the recombination that occurs during meiosis. Odds are that the suite of genes for superintelligence wouldn't survive intact in the remix. "It's like winning the lottery," Hameister adds. "You wouldn't expect to win twice in one day, would you?"”

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectra-pages/SciSpect-14-98.html this site might also help understanding the research done on Y-C factor (though it is a site takes Christian theology for comparison)

I inferred certain traits are broken-up or mixed and could not be reproduced as is it transferred through an X chromosome (Female).


-- With this basic scientific data and when comparing with what is said in our Shastra (I believe you won’t take our Shastra as gospels! it is scientific and rational) my presumption is as follows:

What Shastra say: Male carries the Jeeva (along with Y-C) in him, He plant the Jeeva in the womb of Female, Female Nourishes the Jeeva and provide the shell for the Jeeva by creating a ‘Sthula Form’ or ‘Pinda Form’ (later developed as various limbs of body) for that Jeeva to enjoy its fruits.

---

Now let us compare:

[The point here is not about the physical structure or frame of male body or female body, this point should always be remembered. We are discussing on subtle influencing factors.]

Jeeva is Sukshma - according to our scriptures Jeeva need to take birth in order to enjoy the fruits of its actions preformed in the past. So it should require adequate BMI (Body, Mind and Intellect) according to its past ‘Vasanas’. Jeeva is accompanied with all its Vasanas and cognitive mind/intelligence to manifest its Vasanas to enjoy the fruits, that is the basic ‘Karana Shareera’ of every Jeeva but for the physical realm it requires Sthula Shareera (‘Physical Framework / Body’ ) as well (it can be either Male or Female). But while taking birth it also carries some uniqueness from Father and Mother. Logically despite the sex (Male or Female) a Jeeva born with same pattern but Male carry the exact linage and have the to potential of passing it to the next Male or Female, but though Female carry the linage it gets mixed up.


---

I couldn’t spend much of my time today in expressing my thoughts over what you have expressed. I will continue this thread later…

RV

[XqrkN4a0]

Must read article:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15franc.htm

[Joesred]

hal chinthana,
I dunno u were talking about something that god doesnt exists among us
cud be i was pointing on that
when i saw this post only these opinions raised in me
thn k

Ah! I see! so you saw the last line and wrote a response.

I was confused because that entire posting was about a discussion on lineage. The last line was meant to be read IN THE CONTEXT OF the rest of the message. Otherwise it would make no sense.

So when your posting had nothing to do with lineage I didn't understand what was happening. I felt the issue got sidetracked a bit.

But I am glad that Sri Venkataraman has written his response to what I wrote and I hope Sri Shankar will do the same. Of course anybody else who has anything else to say on the subject will be most welcome.

[Grewlybreekly]

Dear friends:

I am sure you all know what "Reader's Digest" does. It takes a very long story, article or what have you and condense it so that readers dont have to spend enormous amount of time trying to figure out what is what.
In this day and age where we are so busy with our lives doing simultaneous multi-tasking (to put it mildly), would it not be better if discourses could be abridged and presented so that people like me can just read it and get the idea?
Perhaps I am foolish and am trying to present a simplistic suggestion!!

[viagsjicguara]

Thank you Siverfox for bringing up that point.

I have considered it several times especially whenever I discovered that I didn't intend to write a long post.

There are a couple of practical difficulties. One is we are discussing nuances. They need explanation. And those need words. It is easier to write a long piece than it is to write a short one when one has a lot to say.

One way to cirumvent this is to be specific about what point in whose posting one chooses to address. I have tried to do that but my posts are not as short as I would like them.

Reader's Digest writes articles for a living. They pay people to edit and summarize. We are in the midst of our daily grind and try to do what we can.

I think I managed a fairly short one this time.

Dear friends:

I am sure you all know what "Reader's Digest" does. It takes a very long story, article or what have you and condense it so that readers dont have to spend enormous amount of time trying to figure out what is what.
In this day and age where we are so busy with our lives doing simultaneous multi-tasking (to put it mildly), would it not be better if discourses could be abridged and presented so that people like me can just read it and get the idea?
Perhaps I am foolish and am trying to present a simplistic suggestion!!

[trorseIrripsy]

Dear Chintana:

I would hope I didn't offend you in any way. When I mentioned about long postings, I had Mr. Anbu and Mr. Venkatraman in mind. These two gentlemen have beeing doing a fantastic job of educating us on the Hindu philosophy, Dharmas, Vedas, etc. Nevertheless, I get lost somewhere (that is not hard for me to do!!).
I was mentioning Reader's Digest for example... for lack of a better one.
Of course, I agree that we all are writing to express our views, comments, discourses on our own and we dont have the luxury of somebody else doing the editing, abridging (and bring coffee, too, while they are at it!! -- I am just kidding!!).

As you have rightly pointed out, since these forums take on different threads and many a times the original title becomes irrelevent sometime, it would be nice when people respond if they are specific and state whose posting they are responding to.

[Sotmoigma]

Dear Silverfox,

No. You did not offend me. In fact there have actually been a few times when I caught myself saying, 'Boy! that's too long' after I wrote something.

But yes, I am not the only one who posts long messages.

And I hope your comment is received in the right spirit by everybody else as well.

In fact I started demystifying Sri Anbu's posting on Nishkama Karma as you had specifically asked for a simplified version. At the end of it I went, 'Wow! That's long'. But if it was useful to you then it was well worth the effort.

[DzjwMKo5]

Dear Sri Venkataraman,

I will post my reponse on the discussion on lineage shortly. I am working to meet a deadline this week.

[KignPeeseeamn]

Dear Chintana,

Hari Om. I am quite impressed with your detailed arguments on the genetics question to a well researched posting by Sri R.Venkatraman. I don't know how far I will be relevant in saying this, but because of the play of Karma and Reincarnation, you, Sri Venkatraman or I or any one else, were born innumberable times in alternate sexes, in different varnas, as even animals and plants and so on as the maturing karmas of ours have dictated. In such case which one of the two sexes are we really are? This body happens to be a vehicle for us to enjoy and suffer our fruits of karma. But we can use the same body not only to do Sat Karma but also surrender to a Guru and learn from him Aathma Gnanam and get released from the cycle of birth and death. So I was wondering why we should be getting so engrossed on the sex part of us that is only transitory. In any case I did not find Sri R.V's posting was even remotely chauvinistic, not that you implied it on him. Do I make sense to you?

With Narayana Smrithi
Anbu

[attractiveweb]

Everything is learning!

I hope everyone know we have many discussions and many threads going on in this forum to discuss and understand the given ‘Topic’ towards knowing/understand and further refine the subject matter we are dealing with for ourselves and for the community as a whole.

I feel it is quiet healthy to discuss / argue on any subject which we have taken for discussion. If a subject matter is ‘Athman’ then the discussion would be around ‘Athman’, if it is about ‘Bhakthi’ then the discussion would be around ‘Bhakthi’ so as here the topic of discussion is ‘Gothram’ hence we need to go for some scientific search or whatever for that matter, just for the sake of understanding.

I truly agree with Sri Anbu’s view, even I have mentioned in one of my posting in this thread as “The point here is not about the physical structure or frame of male body or female body….” As per the view of Sri Anbu, the body is to enjoy particular Vaasana it can be either male or female this point too I have quoted, as “Jeeva is neuter, there is nothing called Male or Female Jeeva!” Every Jeeva’s body in a given ‘Jenma’ would depend on its Vaasana and to enjoy that Vaasana it needs a body! It can be a human body or animal body! And many more…indeed every topic we take for discussion is a very deep and wide topic! I would say spending our thoughts in a given topic would enrich our understanding. But of course we know what was said by Sri Adi Shankara, when asked to him, what is his final word/finding to this world?

“Yadhuktham Grantha Kotibhi Pravakashyami, Bhramha Sathyam Jagathmithya Jeevo Bhramvaiva na paraha:”

“There are innumerable sciences, innumerable ‘Vedas’, innumerable findings! But what all say is that the ultimate reality is the ‘Bhrmhan’ and the ultimate misunderstanding is considering this physical realm as truth that is because of the confusion of Jeeva”

(Some one may give a perfect and exact translation to the above said Vaakyam, but I have tried what I can in translating. The point is to understand what was told by Sri Adi Shankara thro this Vaakyam – ‘Sentence’)

Adi Shankara revealed this Vaakyam after knowing all the science, after discussing various topics with various people, after many dharga vaadham we know this very well! My point here is, yes we should realize in this Janma, “Janthoonaam Dhurlabham Pumsvam” [being human being is a highest form of physical attainment, and it is very ‘Dhrulabham’ rare, so don’t waste this Janma]– said by Sri Adi Shankara in ‘Viveka Choodamani’ , this continues but am not going to that topic here. But the bottom line is we should also know/ understand what had been taken for discussion at least to its satisfactory extent!

Chintana is a great person, I infer her yearning for knowing and sharing.
J

Hari Om
RV

[Forexampleee]

Dear Sri Anbu,

Thank you for posing this question. When we all know that it is the Spirit that is eternal, why waste time discussing the Shell (which is the body)?

Great question.

The answer, at least to me is, for all Souls to learn and develop there needs to be an environment that is conducive for such growth. The environment is usually stronger that most people's will power so it is important that we pay attention to the environment within which we plan to live and grow. Currently women do not have an environment in India where they can develop their potential for as intelligent, mature human beings on a practical level and as Children of God on a spiritual level.

Usually in the case of any exploiter/exploited situation the aggressor never feels the pain of the victim. If S/He did, that person would not be the aggressor. The British felt it was their natural position to rule India. That didn't make it right. Similarly men feel that it is their natural position to do whatever they do without examining the consequences for the women around them (there are women who do the same as well but this point is about inflictors in general). When the consequences do not affect men adversely they tend to think there is no problem.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.

If we cannot create environmental conditions for women where they can live and realize their potential as Souls seeking liberation/Children of God/etc, I don't see how the community can progress. If men don't see that women are in a position where they have to work around the male egos in their families then we don't even have a beginning.

Dear Chintana,

Hari Om. I am quite impressed with your detailed arguments on the genetics question to a well researched posting by Sri R.Venkatraman. I don't know how far I will be relevant in saying this, but because of the play of Karma and Reincarnation, you, Sri Venkatraman or I or any one else, were born innumberable times in alternate sexes, in different varnas, as even animals and plants and so on as the maturing karmas of ours have dictated. In such case which one of the two sexes are we really are? This body happens to be a vehicle for us to enjoy and suffer our fruits of karma. But we can use the same body not only to do Sat Karma but also surrender to a Guru and learn from him Aathma Gnanam and get released from the cycle of birth and death. So I was wondering why we should be getting so engrossed on the sex part of us that is only transitory. In any case I did not find Sri R.V's posting was even remotely chauvinistic, not that you implied it on him. Do I make sense to you?

With Narayana Smrithi
Anbu

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

Dear Sri Venkataraman,

Thank you for your compliments.

I admire and appreciate every reference to the Vedas and Scriptures that scholars like yourself and Anbu make.

At the same time I feel it is important to open up those Vedic concepts for discussion and debate so that we may live our lives as intelligent human beings and not automatons that meekly concede the "greatness" of Vedas without understanding why they are great.

If there are certain things that work in favor of spiritual evolution then we must study the context under which such things work. Every generation should find its own answers to questions that are important to human kind and our generation need not be an exception.

So while I respect the Scriptures I am not over-awed by them. I hope that does not come across as offensive to anybody. I am here to question, to understand.

When we discussed the body, I don't believe we talked about the actual frame of the body as we did the social conditions under which that body has to operate.

Here is where I think I sense a confusion.

When we discuss material CONDITIONS we are not talking about the physical frame per se. We are discussing the factors that influence the mind in a positive way or a negative way. You'd agree with me when I say that nobody feels like thinking about God or attaining God when treated badly. The word 'badly' can mean different things for different people. In extreme cases it is physical abuse but in other quite 'normal' cases it translates to things like not taking the woman's point of view in decision making. Or not respecting the woman's ideas, feelings and views on things.

If men took these things seriously I doubt whether there would be such a big Eve-teasing problem in the country. For those men in this forum who believe that physical things are immaterial I wish to express that it is utterly humiliating to be at the receiving end of an Eve-teaser. One feels filthy and dirty beyond description - and for no particular reason other than just being a woman.

Please tell me, if I go out to work/school by bus and I am hounded by Eve-teasers do you think I will feel like praying when I get back home?

If I feel that I am too tired to make preparations for the next day's Homam do you think my father/brother/husband will be happy about it?

If I feel like I want to pursue higher studies because I am good at a certain subject do you think my father or my brother (if older) will not tell me that I should marry first and if my husband permits I can study further?

These issues are not necessarily related. But I can think of countless such issues where women's lives are tied strictly around men's lives. But in the interest of space I restrict myself.

The great Manu, the law-giver, equated women with Shudras saying that they are incapable of anything and must be 'kept under control'.

Do you honestly believe that such ideas do not influence Brahmin women's attitudes towards the religion/philosophy/community?

Or do you think that by ignoring the issue or looking the other way the problem is going to get resolved?

Or do you think that women, in this day and age, are going to be motivated to choose a position of subordination?

If religion and social customs don't make them feel good about being part of the community I will state right here and right now that there is no hope for the community.

It is necessary to understand what the scriptures mean for women too. Men tend to be invisible to their own position because they are getting the better end of the deal.

It is all too comforting to slip into the folds of Sanskrit verses and concepts without stopping to examine what exactly they mean and to whom.

I trust and hope that this esteemed forum will show the way in opening up those unexamined ideas.

Everything is learning!

I hope everyone know we have many discussions and many threads going on in this forum to discuss and understand the given ‘Topic’ towards knowing/understand and further refine the subject matter we are dealing with for ourselves and for the community as a whole.

I feel it is quiet healthy to discuss / argue on any subject which we have taken for discussion. If a subject matter is ‘Athman’ then the discussion would be around ‘Athman’, if it is about ‘Bhakthi’ then the discussion would be around ‘Bhakthi’ so as here the topic of discussion is ‘Gothram’ hence we need to go for some scientific search or whatever for that matter, just for the sake of understanding.

I truly agree with Sri Anbu’s view, even I have mentioned in one of my posting in this thread as “The point here is not about the physical structure or frame of male body or female body….” As per the view of Sri Anbu, the body is to enjoy particular Vaasana it can be either male or female this point too I have quoted, as “Jeeva is neuter, there is nothing called Male or Female Jeeva!” Every Jeeva’s body in a given ‘Jenma’ would depend on its Vaasana and to enjoy that Vaasana it needs a body! It can be a human body or animal body! And many more…indeed every topic we take for discussion is a very deep and wide topic! I would say spending our thoughts in a given topic would enrich our understanding. But of course we know what was said by Sri Adi Shankara, when asked to him, what is his final word/finding to this world?

“Yadhuktham Grantha Kotibhi Pravakashyami, Bhramha Sathyam Jagathmithya Jeevo Bhramvaiva na paraha:”

“There are innumerable sciences, innumerable ‘Vedas’, innumerable findings! But what all say is that the ultimate reality is the ‘Bhrmhan’ and the ultimate misunderstanding is considering this physical realm as truth that is because of the confusion of Jeeva”

(Some one may give a perfect and exact translation to the above said Vaakyam, but I have tried what I can in translating. The point is to understand what was told by Sri Adi Shankara thro this Vaakyam – ‘Sentence’)

Adi Shankara revealed this Vaakyam after knowing all the science, after discussing various topics with various people, after many dharga vaadham we know this very well! My point here is, yes we should realize in this Janma, “Janthoonaam Dhurlabham Pumsvam” [being human being is a highest form of physical attainment, and it is very ‘Dhrulabham’ rare, so don’t waste this Janma]– said by Sri Adi Shankara in ‘Viveka Choodamani’ , this continues but am not going to that topic here. But the bottom line is we should also know/ understand what had been taken for discussion at least to its satisfactory extent!

Chintana is a great person, I infer her yearning for knowing and sharing.
J

Hari Om
RV

[GrolmangHat27]

Bravo, Chintana! Well said. My compliments! I admire your clarity of thought and a powerful argument as to why women are not treated right in our society.
Chinata for President!!


[Usually in the case of any exploiter/exploited situation the aggressor never feels the pain of the victim. If S/He did, that person would not be the aggressor. The British felt it was their natural position to rule India. That didn't make it right. Similarly men feel that it is their natural position to do whatever they do without examining the consequences for the women around them (there are women who do the same as well but this point is about inflictors in general). When the consequences do not affect men adversely they tend to think there is no problem.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.]

[itititit]

Thank you Silverfox.

In defense of men I should add, however, that there is probably no intentional malice towards women. It is just that years of doing the same thing without questioning the context and being aware of changing conditions has led to a sense of complacence.

When such issues came up with my male friends some of them tended to treat is as an offence to their ego. I hope that is not the case here.

If we get into the egoism of things without focusing on the issues we would lose perspective.

As the old saying goes (or is it the old cliche?)...all change begins from within. We must deserve and then desire. If we as a community aspire for a better place in society than what we are currently accorded then we must prove that we are better indeed and must be able to defend our philosophies, thoughts and actions to whomever may choose to question them.

Bravo, Chintana! Well said. My compliments! I admire your clarity of thought and a powerful argument as to why women are not treated right in our society.
Chinata for President!!


[Usually in the case of any exploiter/exploited situation the aggressor never feels the pain of the victim. If S/He did, that person would not be the aggressor. The British felt it was their natural position to rule India. That didn't make it right. Similarly men feel that it is their natural position to do whatever they do without examining the consequences for the women around them (there are women who do the same as well but this point is about inflictors in general). When the consequences do not affect men adversely they tend to think there is no problem.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.]

[Eujacwta]

Thank you for your response Brahmi.

I am not sure if you have followed the specific debate in this forum but Anbu, Venkataraman, Silverfox and I agree that the status of women is absolutely great in the scriptures but is pathetic in day-to-day living.

But the way to bring about change is to question things in a mature way. You say that the mother-in-law becomes selfish and the father-in-law sometimes joins in ill-treating the daughter-in-law. This is a very general argument that has been hyper-propagated especially through movies.

But actual truth is a bit more complicated, as is always the case. None of us know what is actually happening in these families. Every person has his/her unique set of problems and history. The mother-in-law is a woman too and I am sure at some point in time she was a sweet girl like the countless number of friends we perhaps know.

If everybody should take to Bhakti, yoga and meditation then everybody should have an environment in which they can do that.

So the point you raised is a sweeping generalization. That is hard to take into consideration for this specific debate.

If lord Vishnu did not respect women he would not have his wife in his heart!!! all our gods are ALWAYS accompanied by their wifes emphasizing on the fact that a wife is important. Also remember story of Ramayana where Rama fought the war for Sita his wife also remember he could not perform yagna without his wife! Women are generally relieved of certain duties BECAUSE they are responsible for much higher responsibilities like taking care of home ...building a family... and care for her husband and child! A women should be treated with utmost care but in present generations some foolish people have forgotten the importance of a woman and deliberately twisted reality for their selfish needs. The height of kali kalam is so extreme that women are illtreated by their inlaws and sometimes even husband. Why does a Mother-in law or FIL illtreat...because she/he is selfish and obcessively possessive and she/he can't bear that her/his daughter -in -law is now of 'prime importance' for her/his son. This possessiveness pushes them to redicule their DIL. If every human practised detachment, bhakti, meditated, did yoga and controlled their negative emotions and did their duties we would have a better life. The duties also refer to humanity, removing hurtful practises and promote true hindu bhakti that causes positive change in life for true liberation.
Jai Santanadharma!

[Gaxiciverfere]

Dear Chintana Ji / All

Sorry I had to hide out for some time (work hectic!) anyhow manage to find some time and J happy to see your response and followed by some other additions to this thread! Before we continue with this I would like to just make some points clearer for the sake of other audience to this thread. Because perception dependents on the perceiver, somebody might think we are in a debate of controversies and even might think have quarrelling about chauvinisms or performing a gender wrestling!

1. We have a clear vision of what we are talking about and we have great reverence and respect for each and every one in this forum.
2. The topic is primarily about divisions amongst Brahmin community, lineage and the purpose or concept of ‘Gothram’

Chintana Ji: With all humbleness, honestly I am not a scholar! I would say we all are discussing to understand. Yes, anyone is an idiot if not developed the urge for knowing by querying ‘vicharam’. It is not me saying this word ‘idiot’ but all the learned scholars and I don’t find a stronger/sharper word than this to express politely J Query/Question the urge for ‘Why?’ - Alone made us today to evolve to the state of human beings both physically and mentally. So I really appreciate your point mentioned that we should open up and question what is said in our Shastras or for that matter wherever/whoever.

I felt we are slightly deviating away from our context hence the above 2 points to rememberJ. Anyhow what you are talking about is a social issue; different issue; I honestly listen to your concerns but Shastra cannot do any thing with ragging, ill- treatment, disrespect etc., It will say what dharma is; it is up to the individual to follow it. As parents, it is their responsibility to make a human as god-human and further it is the individuals to be in that state. (For our understanding I am quoting this from what a great scholar Swami Chinmayananda Ji said/classifies. “Animal-human, human-human, god-human).

No need to go up to the level of saying “that nobody feels like thinking about God or attaining God when treated badly” – thinking simply - for a child playing food ball the play is more than god and worship, for a starving person food is more than all. So ‘bad treatment’ here is just another state.

I would say your concerns should be put in this way ‘Stronger vs. Meeker’ [S vs. V]. We can find bad treatment in all levels in a society amongst these [S vs. V]; it is not tagged to ‘Brahmin-women’ or ‘Women’ alone.

How many land-lords treat badly/abuse (both physically and emotionally) their workers [male/female]?
In how many houses MIL treat badly the DIL and in how many houses DIL treat badly the MIL?
Can we then say all MIL are egoistic or it is only because of the MIL the entire wisdom of all the DILs are perished?
Or DIL are egoistic?
How many fathers treat their children badly (I mean it, as I have heard /seen things like parents killing/ humiliating and child abuse of their own children) so can we say Parents are egoistic or totally bad? No! It is happening everywhere in all levels in a society irrespective of the sex (Male or Female). But I would surely accept Females are the most affected and vulnerable. This is a different issue; we can discuss on this separately.

I agree with your point ‘women's lives are tied strictly around men's lives’ this is because of the assumed supremacy of Male (Note, there are many cases of supremacy of Female too exist haha) overcoming from this bond needs both Women and Men to understand each other. It is not that because of Shastras or because of what Manu said all Men or like that! Philosophically freewill is what guiding us, if a stronger person who does not have any code or ethics can be destructive with his own freewill (animal-human), if the same stronger person guided by ethics can raise to the level of Sri Sarada Devi, Sri Ramana Maharishi (god-human). Even if we take up this concern related with society, I would say the situation is changing; the present is not like what/how our Mother and Gran-Mother were. Great Men like Mohanroy, Mahakavi Bharathi came to revolutionize. Men are realizing they are equally meeker and Women are realizing they are equally stronger!!! J

Manu says:
“yathra naryastu poojyanthe thatra ramanthe devathaha:” [where women are worshiped there revels all the devethas]
In other place Manu says:
“Husband and wife are two owners of a single/same house”
How a person saying thus could contradict to his own statements! By saying or comparing women to Sudra and would emphasize on keeping her under control? I am not sure which part of Manu says this? I think that needs analysis here. You know what the problem is? We are reading our heritage through a foreigner! What foreigner says about our tradition and Shastras. Maxmuller and others are Christian missionary guys they had translated our scriptures with many ulterior motives! And we are reading it. But in fact the confusion started way back even before Britishers came to India that aided them to further fuel the confusion fire!!! Anyhow that is not the concern there. Coming to the point, our Shastra is deep in its meaning, its richness is its manifold meaning, and it is situation based. One should learn Shastra from an eligible guru then only can get the full ‘ras’ essence of the teaching else only a partial vision alone is gained. Each and ever vocabulary of Sanskrit has its own meaning, special meaning, situational meaning etc. Translating a Sanskrit text in other language might loose or twist its meaning. Anyhow I would be happy to research more on and get back to you on what you have mentioned here ‘equated women with Shudras’.

Just to add further to clarify some assumption made in previous thread: what I had mentioned and quoted from our Vedas and Shastras were not just a mimic of parrot like or papacy. Those were digested and assimilated thoughts. The purpose of quoting from Shastras is to prompt the perceiver to take it further and do research on that. We should not just stop after finishing reading, if so it would be like a gossip club, there won’t be any further cognitive progress unless we further analyze.

I will continue sharing my thoughts later.

RV

[DariushPetresku]

Dear Sri Venkataraman,

Thank you for bringing the point back to Shastras vs. Social issues.

I brought up the social issue aspect of it because I felt that our scriptures have a lot to offer to the world, not just Brahmins, but their meanings have not reached people because of the social practices that have surrounded their dissemination.

People from other religions have been able to say terrible things about Hinduism because it is most visible through its practices. Unfortunately some of those practices are not egalitarian.

But let the social issues rest for now. Let us look at the Shastric prescriptions themselves.

I feel strongly in our shastras certain texts deal just with philosophical issues and do not prescribe social rules. I think these are the four Vedas, the eighteen Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Other texts (I don't know all of them) prescribe rules for social living. And some of those rules are problematic. We have to discuss what those rules are with a view to understanding what we must keep and what we must change.

Gotram and counting the lineage is a social issue. Not a philosophical issue. It is based on philosophy but it is a bit of a skewed philosophy.

Hence this discussion.

Also, one point I would like to make explicit.

I am well aware of what the likes of Max Mueller and the likes have done to our religion and our minds. I ask these questions not because I am motivated by a foreigner who I think was very malicious but because I have had a chance to see the way people live in the West. They don't have rich philosophies like the way we do but goodness! the way they practice what they know is really commendable.

I feel sad we are not able to do more.

My humble opinion is that we should value that Hinduism is a personal religion but understand that we need to build a collective front to survive as a community. That collective front can come only with social practices that speak to equality.

This was the reason I raised the issue I raised, not because I am not aware of the greatness of the Scriptures or because some silly, half-witted foreigner wrote something about Hinduism.

Dear Chintana Ji / All

Sorry I had to hide out for some time (work hectic!) anyhow manage to find some time and J happy to see your response and followed by some other additions to this thread! Before we continue with this I would like to just make some points clearer for the sake of other audience to this thread. Because perception dependents on the perceiver, somebody might think we are in a debate of controversies and even might think have quarrelling about chauvinisms or performing a gender wrestling!

1. We have a clear vision of what we are talking about and we have great reverence and respect for each and every one in this forum.
2. The topic is primarily about divisions amongst Brahmin community, lineage and the purpose or concept of ‘Gothram’

Chintana Ji: With all humbleness, honestly I am not a scholar! I would say we all are discussing to understand. Yes, anyone is an idiot if not developed the urge for knowing by querying ‘vicharam’. It is not me saying this word ‘idiot’ but all the learned scholars and I don’t find a stronger/sharper word than this to express politely J Query/Question the urge for ‘Why?’ - Alone made us today to evolve to the state of human beings both physically and mentally. So I really appreciate your point mentioned that we should open up and question what is said in our Shastras or for that matter wherever/whoever.

I felt we are slightly deviating away from our context hence the above 2 points to rememberJ. Anyhow what you are talking about is a social issue; different issue; I honestly listen to your concerns but Shastra cannot do any thing with ragging, ill- treatment, disrespect etc., It will say what dharma is; it is up to the individual to follow it. As parents, it is their responsibility to make a human as god-human and further it is the individuals to be in that state. (For our understanding I am quoting this from what a great scholar Swami Chinmayananda Ji said/classifies. “Animal-human, human-human, god-human).

No need to go up to the level of saying “that nobody feels like thinking about God or attaining God when treated badly” – thinking simply - for a child playing food ball the play is more than god and worship, for a starving person food is more than all. So ‘bad treatment’ here is just another state.

I would say your concerns should be put in this way ‘Stronger vs. Meeker’ [S vs. V]. We can find bad treatment in all levels in a society amongst these [S vs. V]; it is not tagged to ‘Brahmin-women’ or ‘Women’ alone.

How many land-lords treat badly/abuse (both physically and emotionally) their workers [male/female]?
In how many houses MIL treat badly the DIL and in how many houses DIL treat badly the MIL?
Can we then say all MIL are egoistic or it is only because of the MIL the entire wisdom of all the DILs are perished?
Or DIL are egoistic?
How many fathers treat their children badly (I mean it, as I have heard /seen things like parents killing/ humiliating and child abuse of their own children) so can we say Parents are egoistic or totally bad? No! It is happening everywhere in all levels in a society irrespective of the sex (Male or Female). But I would surely accept Females are the most affected and vulnerable. This is a different issue; we can discuss on this separately.

I agree with your point ‘women's lives are tied strictly around men's lives’ this is because of the assumed supremacy of Male (Note, there are many cases of supremacy of Female too exist haha) overcoming from this bond needs both Women and Men to understand each other. It is not that because of Shastras or because of what Manu said all Men or like that! Philosophically freewill is what guiding us, if a stronger person who does not have any code or ethics can be destructive with his own freewill (animal-human), if the same stronger person guided by ethics can raise to the level of Sri Sarada Devi, Sri Ramana Maharishi (god-human). Even if we take up this concern related with society, I would say the situation is changing; the present is not like what/how our Mother and Gran-Mother were. Great Men like Mohanroy, Mahakavi Bharathi came to revolutionize. Men are realizing they are equally meeker and Women are realizing they are equally stronger!!! J

Manu says:
“yathra naryastu poojyanthe thatra ramanthe devathaha:” [where women are worshiped there revels all the devethas]
In other place Manu says:
“Husband and wife are two owners of a single/same house”
How a person saying thus could contradict to his own statements! By saying or comparing women to Sudra and would emphasize on keeping her under control? I am not sure which part of Manu says this? I think that needs analysis here. You know what the problem is? We are reading our heritage through a foreigner! What foreigner says about our tradition and Shastras. Maxmuller and others are Christian missionary guys they had translated our scriptures with many ulterior motives! And we are reading it. But in fact the confusion started way back even before Britishers came to India that aided them to further fuel the confusion fire!!! Anyhow that is not the concern there. Coming to the point, our Shastra is deep in its meaning, its richness is its manifold meaning, and it is situation based. One should learn Shastra from an eligible guru then only can get the full ‘ras’ essence of the teaching else only a partial vision alone is gained. Each and ever vocabulary of Sanskrit has its own meaning, special meaning, situational meaning etc. Translating a Sanskrit text in other language might loose or twist its meaning. Anyhow I would be happy to research more on and get back to you on what you have mentioned here ‘equated women with Shudras’.

Just to add further to clarify some assumption made in previous thread: what I had mentioned and quoted from our Vedas and Shastras were not just a mimic of parrot like or papacy. Those were digested and assimilated thoughts. The purpose of quoting from Shastras is to prompt the perceiver to take it further and do research on that. We should not just stop after finishing reading, if so it would be like a gossip club, there won’t be any further cognitive progress unless we further analyze.

I will continue sharing my thoughts later.

RV