Response to Vedkabhed on women in vedas
This entire article is my answers and responses to a WordPress blog titled Vedkabhed, which contains an article “Women in Hinduism”
He began his article by writing son is called Putra in Sanskrit which means one who saves from the hell called put for which I have no problem in accepting, but I have problem in accepting his definition of Duhita which means daughter. He said it means one who does bad. However, that is not the case.
But if we go by the definition of the Linga Purana on the word “Putri”, the even daughter too can save one from hell. Because in Linga Purana 5.30-33 Brahma interprets the term Putri as “one who saves from hell”.
Thereafter the author quoted Atharva Veda 6.11.3 and Sankhayana Grihya Surtra 1.19.6 which contain Mantras for a ritual called Pumsavana Samskara which is acknowledged by the author himself. The author is thinking since Hinduism has a separate ritual for the birth of a boy, it oppresses women. Those who want to get rid of Pitru Rina (debt owed to ancestors or manes) want a male child. Though son of an appointed daughter can also offer Pindas to father, debts to ancestors will get repaid only if a father’s own son offered Pindas for him. Garuda Purana says a woman can perform funeral rites in the absence of sons, grandsons or male relatives. However, woman performing Sraddha rites may not help one to get rid of Pitru Rina.
This doesn’t mean there are no rituals prescribed for the birth of a girl. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mentions a ritual to be performed for the birth of a scholarly daughter.
Asvalayana Grihya sutra 1.2.1-5 also mentions a ritual for birth of both son and daughter.
Next he mentioned several hymns and verses from Vedas which prays for birth of son alone and not daughter. Hymns and verses quoted by him are: Atharva Veda 3.23 and 7.48 and verses like Atharva Veda 14.1.22; 12.3.47; 2.36.3, 14.2.72, Rig Veda 3.31.1; 10.85.42-45. Let’s examine one by one.
So far only three verses pray for sons. They are Rig Veda 10.85.45 and Atharva Veda 2.36.3.
Afterwards, the author has said the verses which pray for the birth of son is the reason for female infanticide. However, Hinduism discourages it. One may desires to get a male child, but however after the birth of female child no one is allowed to kill it.
There is also a prayer for the birth of women in every country in Yajur Veda 22.22
I will give more verses related to it in my upcoming blog Importance of women in vedas.
His next claim is Garuda Purana verse about abandoning the wife who produces only daughters.My response here is, this verse doesn’t command to abandon any woman.
This verse doesn’t ask to abandon a wife, but to take a second wife in case if the wife produces daughters only.
He also quoted Yajnavalkya Smriti 73, Manu Smriti 9.81 and claimed that Yajnavalkya and Manu order to supersede a wife who produces only female children. The Sanskrit word used here in Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti is अधिवेदन for supersession which means taking an additional wife.
Mitaksara clearly said the following in his commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti 73:
“Adhivedana or supersession means taking additional wife.”
The very next verse removes the misconception:
So, Yajnavalkya advises to keep the superseded wife with the husband.
However, Medhatithi in his commentary on Manusmriti 9.81 clearly says the reason what does it mean when Manu orders to supersede the wife who produces only females.
So, the reason why a wife who produces daughters only should be superseded because laying of fire is not prescribed for a person who has no son. Medhatithi also interpreted there is no such supersession in case of a wife who is quarrelsome(harsh of speech). I don’t have any problem here even if someone say wife who is harsh of speech also should be superseded for laying fire.
One can also interpret Manusmriti 9.81 in the lens of Yajnavalkya Smriti 73 too.
I don’t know how the author missed Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.6 which is also conveying the same meaning as Manusmriti 9.81.
The only Smriti which may admit abandoning wife who produces female children is Narada Smriti since in 12.95 it prohibits a husband from abandoning a wife who has male children. In Narada Smriti 12.94 too, there it no straight forward command for abandoning wife. Whatever may be,
Padma Purana clearly considers abandoning wife as a sin:
Garuda Purana says if a wife discard or abandon without finding any faults in them, they will go to hell.
At least Garuda Purana says if a husband abandons wife, without seeing any faults will become ghost, however, Padma Purana simply says abandoning wife is a sin and doesn’t mention anything like finding faults in wife.
Now, few more verses:
Markandeya Purana Chapter 12 “Men, who go to places and eat things that they shouldn’t, who are not loyal to friends, betrayal their master, who defile their wives and who divorce their own wives, who destroy path, pond and gardens;- they all and other wicked people fall into this (Raurava) hell.”
Vashistha Dharma Sutra 28.2-3 “A wife, (though) tainted by sin, whether she be quarrelsome, or have left the house, or have suffered criminal force, or have fallen into the hands of thieves, must not be abandoned; to forsake her is not prescribed (by the sacred law). Let him wait for the time of her courses; by her temporary uncleanness she becomes pure.”
Vashistha Dharma Sutra clearly says abandoning wife is not supported by sacred law. But Garuda Purana I.95.21 allows to forsake wife if she is addicted to wine or suffering from incurable diseases.
[Note: Some say females have no roles in determining the genders of a baby, it is only the male chromosomes which determine the gender of the fetus. My response to them is, modern science may be saying like that but Hinduism follows Ayurvedic principles when it comes to human body, and according to Ayurveda at the time of intercourse if a male’s seed (semen) is more powerful than female seed (ovum), a male child will be born and vice versa for the birth of a female child.]
Simply cherry-picking some verses in which rituals for birth of a male child is mentioned, one cannot assume that there are no rituals for the birth of a female child.
Devi Bhagavatam 9.33. 1-9 “….He who does not support his father, mother, spiritual teacher, wife, sons, daughters and the helpless persons, goes to Gara Kunda where he eats poison for full one hundred years. Finally he becomes born and wanders as Bhûtas (disembodied spirits). Then he becomes pure.”
Purpose of creating women:
Here he quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana 61. 22-41.
Brahma Vaivarata Purana 61.22-41 ”…There can be no creation without a woman. This is why at the command of Lord Krisna, Brahma created the woman to entice the heart of lustful people. The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion, the bar or bolt (or obstacle) in the way of a man’s act or Karma, the impediment of meditation and the harbour of evil”
My response here is, what is wrong with this? He simply highlighted the portion “Brahma created the woman to entice the heart of lustful people. The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion“. One should understand at what context it is spoken. The verse begins with “There can be no creation without a woman”. So, this verse is basically describing women are created to procreate, of course what is wrong with that? This doesn’t demean women by any means. The meaning of the statement “The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion” here is she is capable of making a man to procreate with her.
His next quote:
Srimad Bhagavatam 3.31.40 “The woman, created by the Lord, is the representation of maya, and one who associates with such maya by accepting services must certainly know that this is the way of death, just like a blind well covered with grass.”
My response here is, this is another best example of cherry-picking. The entire context is about Maya. The word women is used here as an alternative term to wordy pleasures. Have a look at the 38th verse which says “Look at the power of my Maya in the form of women” This means Look at the power of my Maya in the form of worldly pleasures. The previous verse basically saying one shouldn’t associate with women (worldly pleasures) as women (worldly pleasures) is the gateway to hell. The very next verse also says a man who was attached to worldly pleasures in his previous life now reborn as woman and looks on Maya in the form of her husband.
He then quoted Manusmriti 9.17:
Manu Smriti 9.17 (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
Mahabharata 13.40 also quoted by him which also conveys the same meaning. Now, let’s analyze Mahabharata quotation first.
In a former creation, O son of Kunti, women were all virtuous. Those, however, that sprang from this creation by Prajapati with the aid of an illusion became sinful. The grand sire bestowed upon them the desire of enjoyment, all kinds of carnal pleasure. Tempted by the desire of enjoyment, they began to pursue persons of the other sex. The puissant lord of the deities created Wrath as the companion of Lust. Persons of the male sex, yielding to the power of Lust and Wrath, sought the companionship of women. Women have no especial acts prescribed for them. Even this is the ordinance that was laid down. The Sruti declares that women are endued with senses the most powerful, that they have no scriptures to follow, and that they are living lies.
At first it is speaking about a former creation (previous Kalpa), not present creation. And that too, only those women who were created by Prajapati with the help of Maya became sinful. Because it also says women were all virtuous. Further, the same Mahabharata 13.40 says “Persons of the male sex, yielding to the power of Lust and Wrath, sought the companionship of women.” Can we now consider Mahabharata to be anti-men?
And entire Mahabharata 13.40 may seem demeaning women. Now let’s look at the context.
Mahabharata 13.38 “Yudhishthira said, ‘O best of the Bharatas, I wish to hear thee discourse on the disposition of women. Women are said to be the root of all evil. They are all regarded as exceedingly frail. Bhishma said, ‘In this connection is cited the old history of the discourse between the celestial Rishi Narada and the (celestial) courtezan Panchachuda. Once in ancient times, the celestial Rishi Narada, having roamed over all the world, met the Apsara Panchachuda of faultless beauty, having her abode in the region of Brahman. Beholding the Apsara every limb of whose body was endued with great beauty, the ascetic addressed her, saying, ‘O thou of slender waist, I have a doubt in my mind. Do thou explain it. Bhishma continued, ‘Thus addressed by the Rishi, the Apsara said unto him, ‘If the subject is one which is known to me and if thou thinkest me competent to speak on it, I shall certainly say what is in my mind. Narada said, ‘O amiable one, I shall not certainly appoint thee to any task that is beyond thy competence. O thou of beautiful face, I wish to hear from thee of the disposition of women. Bhishma continued, ‘Hearing these words of the celestial Rishi, that foremost of Apsaras replied unto him, saying, ‘I am unable, being myself a woman, to speak ill of women. Thou knowest what women are and with what nature they are endued. It behoveth thee not, O celestial Rishi, to set me to such a task.’ Unto her the celestial Rishi said, ‘It is very true, O thou of slender waist! One incurs fault by speaking what is untrue. In saying, however, what is true, there can be no fault.’ Thus addressed by him, the Apsara Panchachuda of sweet smiles consented to answer Narada’s question. She then addressed herself to mention what the true and eternal faults of women are!‘
Further explanation: So, Yudhishthra asked Bhishma about his discourse on women. Bhishma narrated the story of Narada and Apsara Panchachuda. This story is very famous among sanyasis to relive themselves from worldly desires. In that story Narada asked that Apsaras about her disposition on women. She narrated Narada on her disposition of women by addressing herself. This means she is narrating her own qualities in the context of addressing to every women. Beginning verses of Mahabharata 13.40 too don’t say women were created to make men unrighteous, but to make them away from the status of attaining the position of deities.
Regarding why Mahabharata 13.40 calls them living lies, Mahabharata itself answers this. “The Sruti declares that women are endued with senses the most powerful, that they have no scriptures to follow, and that they are living lies.” So women are called as living lies because they have no scriptures to follow. Why they have no scripture to follow? Because they are most powerful. By saying most powerful, it is actually degrading men, as men cannot be most powerful if women are powerful.
Manusmriti 9.17 may be demeaning women, but similar to statements which may demean men also mentioned in scriptures.
Garuda Purana I.114.6 “One should not sit in the same seat with one’s mother, sister and daughter in an isolated place. The powerful sense organs can drag even an erudite man into lust. What of common man?”
This statement can also be interpreted as:
“For those who take refuge in Me. O Partha, though they be of sinful birth, women, Vaisyas, and Sudras even they attain the Supreme Goal”
You can see, there is a comma between sinful birth and women. Ramanujacharya interpreted it in the same way, though Shankaracharya interpreted it as “women, Vaishyas and Shudras are of sinful birth”.
“Women, Vaisyas and Sudras, and even those who are of sinful birth, can attain the supreme state by taking refuge in Me. How much more then the well-born Brahmanas and royal sages who are devoted to me! Therefore, roayl sage that you are, do worship Me, as you have come to this transient and joyless world stricken by the threefold afflictions…” (Ramanuja commentary on Bhagavad Gita 9.32-33)
One can simply see that women, Vaisyas, Sudras are not regarded as a sinful birth. Indeed those who are of sinful birth is separated from the other three.
Regarding Bhagavata Purana 7.7.54 which he quoted:
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.7.54 “O my friends, O sons of demons, everyone, including you (the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas), the unintelligent women, śūdras and cowherd men, the birds, the lower animals and the sinful living entities, can revive his original, eternal spiritual life and exist forever simply by accepting the principles of bhakti-yoga.”
Here too, the term sinful living entities is separated from other things. Nowhere this consider women to be sinful birth. Even the term unintelligent was inserted by Prabhupada out of context. You cannot locate the word unintelligent even in the word by word translation by Prabhupada himself.
Here he quoted Manusmriti first:
Manu Smriti 2.213-214 ”To defile men is the nature of women, hence the wise are never infatuated nor un-circumspect about them. Man, by nature, is subject to lust and anger; women are quite competent to lead even the wise men astray, not to speak of fools, (their easy victims).”
My response here is he only highlighted the portion “To defile men is the nature of women”. He should have highlighted “Man, by nature, is subject to lust and anger” What these verses say is that women have the capacity to sexually arouse the men(I don’t think anything wrong is said here), and men too are very lustful. So the very next verse (Manu 2.215) says One should not sit alone with his mother, sister or daughter. The powerful host of sense-organs overpowers even the learned.” Verse 215 is all about males. It is basically describing males shouldn’t sit alone with their mother, sister or daughter as they have powerful sense organs. Can we now consider Manu 2.214&215 are against men and demeaning men?
In Mahabharata 13.19, it is simply the thinking of Yudhishthra. He didn’t conclude that women are false. He actually asked Bhishma about why a person marry, whether to perform the duties laid down by Rishis or to beget offspring for religious duties or to simply enjoy carnal pleasure.
He then quoted Devi Bhagavatam Book 1 chapter 15. The entire chapter is all about Suka doesn’t want to proceed householder’s life but ascetic life. Asceticism is all about detachment of worldly pleasures, including desire for wife and householder life. Sexual intercourse is one of the biggest hurdles for Moksha. The entire sayings by Shuka regarding women are actually meant for asceticism. The phrase “steal away the semen virile, the strength and energy in the way of giving them happiness as sexual intercourse, and their minds and wealth and everything by their crooked love conversations” is told by Shuka as he is not fond of sexual pleasure which one can enjoy during householder’s life.
When Shuka said “so see what greater thief can there be than a woman?” clearly implies women steal the Moksha through sexual intercourse which a person can achieve in asceticism. Indeed, for Sanyasis, they are not supposed to make any contact with women.
When Shuka said “they accept wife to destroy their own pleasure of happiness. They can never understand that the women can never be the source of pleasure; they are the source of all miseries…”, it implies that Shuka thought asceticism as the source of pleasure and householder’s life as the source of miseries.
Testimony of women is not valid:
In this section he quoted Manusmriti 8.77:
“One man who is free from covetousness may be (accepted as) witness; but not even many pure women, because the understanding of females is apt to waver, nor even many other men, who are tainted with sin”
The other verses quoted by him in this section also implies more or less same meaning. Now the problem is, he is interpreting that this verse is all about in some cases in which witness given by anyone is allowed, women’s witness is not valid at all. However, I challenge him to find the context here which implies this verse is all about when witness given by anyone is allowed. Manusmriti 8.68 clearly says a woman can give evidence for women, a twice born man for twice born men, etc (which is acknowledged by the author himself). So the context here is even many pure women cannot stand as a witness for men.
This verse simply says a Brahmin must eat food in a shelter where these cannot see. May I know how saying a Chandala, a village pig, a cock, a dog and a menstruating woman cannot look at Brahmins when they eat food means a Chandala, a pig, a dog and a menstruating woman are equivalent to each other?
Then he quoted Atharva Veda:
Atharva Veda 4.5.2 …Lull all the women, lull the dogs to sleep, with Indra as thy friend!
Atharva Veda 4.5 is a charm for sleep by a lover. This charm can be used to lull someone to sleep. Since lull the dogs to sleep is mentioned after women, he is interpreting this as women are dogs, let them sleep. However, “lull all women” and Lull the dogs” both are separated by Comma, so this doesn’t mean women are dogs.
Atharva Veda 4.5.6 says:
Sleep mother, let the father sleep, sleep dog, and master of the home. Let all her kinsmen sleep, sleep all the people who are round about.
Since mother, father and master of the home are mentioned along with dog, can we now think father and master of the home are equivalent to dog? No, this is simply saying to lull father, mother, dog, master, and the master’s relatives (master must be a female) to sleep.
Let me explain Satapatha Brahamana 14.1.1.31. The Satapatha Brahmana 14.1.1 is all about Pravargya sacrifice. During Pravargya sacrifice, it is advised to a performer that he is not allowed to have intercourse with his wife, not allowed to interact with Shudras, crows, dogs. In this context only, everything is said. The beginning of the verse which says “And whilst not coming into contact with Sûdras and remains of food; for this Gharma is he that shines yonder, and he is excellence, truth, and light” implies a person who does Pravargya sacrifice if he doesn’t come into contact with Sudras and remains of food is excellence, truth and light and the phrase “but woman, the Sûdra, the dog, and the black bird (the crow), are untruth” implies that person the person who performs Pravargya sacrifice if he relates with these untruth(only for this sacrifice alone since the performer is advised to be a celibate, doesn’t mean that women are always untruth) such as woman, Shudra, dog and crow is untruth.
Now, let me tell you one verse from Shiva Purana which equate women with god.
Shiva Purana 7.2.4.54 “All men are identical with Śiva. All women are identical with Maheśvarī. Hence all men and women are their exalted superhuman power.”
Here since Hindu texts say one is discouraged from touching menstruating woman, dog, pig, Hinduism compares women in menses with dogs and pigs. However that is not the reason. Menstruation is considered as ashaucha (ritual impurity) that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman. Just because simply saying one shouldn’t touch women in her menses, dogs and pigs doesn’t mean that all the three are equivalents.
Some verses from scriptures which clearly say menstruation is a ritual impurity, and this impurity is temporary only.
Vasishta Dharma Sutra V. 4-5 “For month by month the menstrual excretion takes away her sins. A woman in her courses is impure during three (days and) nights.”
Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.4 “Women (possess) an unrivaled means of purification; they never become (entirely) foul. For month by month their temporary uncleanness removes their sins”
Purity is important, Shaucha (ritual purity) is important, that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman.
Manusmriti 10.63 “Abstention from injuring, truthfulness, abstention from unlawful appropriation, purity and control of the sense-organs,—this Manu has declared to be the sum and substance of duty for the four castes.”
Women devoid of intellect:
Under this section, first he quoted from Prabhupada’s commentary, which is least authoritative among all. So one can simply neglect them.
His next claim:
Devi Bhagavatam 9.38.1-6 ”…O Bhagavân! The woman kind has been created by the Creator as devoid of any Tattvajñâna or true knowledge.
My response here is read the full chapter to get the context.
Devi Bhagavatam 9.38. 1-6 “Savitri said, Give me the devotion to the Devî to that Âdyâ S’akti Bhagavatî Mahâ Mâye, Parames’varî Mâyî that is the Essence of all essences, the Door of final liberation to the human beings, and the Cause of delivering them from hells, that is the Root of all the Dharmas that lead to Mukti, that destroys all the in-auspiciousness, that takes away the fear of all the Karmas, and that takes away always all the sins committed before. O Thou, the Foremost amongst the knowers of the Vedas! How many kinds of Muktis are there in this world? What is the True Bhakti? What are its characteristics? What is to be done by which the enjoyment of the karmas done can be desisted and nullified? O Bhagavân! The woman kind has been created by the Creator as devoid of any Tattvajñâna or true knowledge; now tell me something about this True Knowledge.”
Savitri is asking to dharmaraja about the devotion to Devi and considering this devotion as true knowledge/Bhakti. Nothing about intellect here. Some say this is actually an exaggeration.
His next claim:
Rig Veda 8.33.17 Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline, Her intellect hath little weight.
This hymn 8.33 is all about Asanga who became a female due to curse. The mind of a Woman here only refers to this Asanga who became a female. So, Indra is saying Asanga’s mind is not discipline and her intellect is very small, here it refers to only that Asanga who became a woman, not all women.
Manusmriti 3.56-58 “Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where, on the other hand, they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic”
Padma Purana V.94.98-118 “Goblins enjoy at houses where indecent language is used and there where the daughters and sisters are not honored, so also where excellent women are not honored.”
Agni Purana even says one should avoid those who envy women:
Agni Purana 155.29 One should refrain from abusing scriptures, king, sages and gods. One should not envy women and one should avoid faith in them.
Woman is a child production machine:
Here the author quoted Mahabharata 5.39, Manu Smriti 9.96, Narada Smriti 12.19. These verses more or less imply the following meaning:
Women have been created for the sake of propagation, the wife being the field, and the husband the giver of the seed. The field must be given to him who has seed. He who has no seed in unworthy to possess the field.
I request the readers to double check this and verify how these verses are implying women are child production machine. Do these verses say a man should force his seed inside a woman even if she refuses and produce children? Or do these verses say women are here to produce children alone and not for others?
The maiden, who has got curling locks, a round face and a deep navel, increases her family.
A woman, whose colour is like that of gold, and whose hands are red, is called Padmini. Such a woman, born one in a thousand, is personification of chastity.
The maiden, who has a face like the full-moon, is effulgent like the rising Sun, has expensive eyes and Vimva-like lips, enjoys happiness.
One, having crimson-coloured lines, enjoys happiness.
The woman, who has the marks of a wall or gateway on her palms, becomes a queen even if she is born as a maid servant.
Oily eyes indicate good luck, oily teeth indicate good eating, oily skin indicates a good bed, and oily feet indicate conveyances.
The auspicious signs of women are cool and high breasts, copper-coloured nails, beautiful feet, marks of fish, goad, lotus, discus and plough-share on the soles and palms which do not perspire, a beautiful hip without hairs, thighs like the trunk of an elephant, most excellent and capacious buttock like a fig leaf, spacious and deep navel and chest and breast without hairs.
Considering several marks in the body as auspicious marks and several as inauspicious is a kind of omen.
The next chapter 65th deals with auspicious and inauspicious marks on body of both males and females. The author clearly cherry-picked only those signs on women which are considered inauspicious and neglected those signs on men which are considered inauspicious in the same chapter.
Preference of son over daughter:
He began his article by writing son is called Putra in Sanskrit which means one who saves from the hell called put for which I have no problem in accepting, but I have problem in accepting his definition of Duhita which means daughter. He said it means one who does bad. However, that is not the case.
Nirukta 3.4 “The husband admits the daughter’s right to be appointed as a son, with regard to the discharge to the duties of the offspring. A daughter is so called because it is difficult to arrange for her welfare or she fares well at distance or the word duhita may be derived from the root duh, which means to milk.”
But if we go by the definition of the Linga Purana on the word “Putri”, the even daughter too can save one from hell. Because in Linga Purana 5.30-33 Brahma interprets the term Putri as “one who saves from hell”.
Thereafter the author quoted Atharva Veda 6.11.3 and Sankhayana Grihya Surtra 1.19.6 which contain Mantras for a ritual called Pumsavana Samskara which is acknowledged by the author himself. The author is thinking since Hinduism has a separate ritual for the birth of a boy, it oppresses women. Those who want to get rid of Pitru Rina (debt owed to ancestors or manes) want a male child. Though son of an appointed daughter can also offer Pindas to father, debts to ancestors will get repaid only if a father’s own son offered Pindas for him. Garuda Purana says a woman can perform funeral rites in the absence of sons, grandsons or male relatives. However, woman performing Sraddha rites may not help one to get rid of Pitru Rina.
Padma Purana VII.6.89 “The purpose of having a wife is to have sons. The purpose of having a son is to receive Pindas from him at the Sraddha ceremony. For this purpose only the wise take a wife.”
Garuda Purana II.25.33 “A man is released from his debts to the manes on seeing his son’s face.
This doesn’t mean there are no rituals prescribed for the birth of a girl. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mentions a ritual to be performed for the birth of a scholarly daughter.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.17 “He who wishes that a daughter should be born to him who would be a scholar and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with sesame, and he and his wife should eat it with the clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a daughter.”
Asvalayana Grihya sutra 1.2.1-5 also mentions a ritual for birth of both son and daughter.
Asvalayana Grihya Sutra 1.2.1-5 “Now various indeed are the customs of the (different) countries and the customs of the (different) villages: those one should observe at the wedding. What, however, is commonly accepted, that we shall state. Having placed to the west of the fire a mill-stone, to the north-east (of the fire) a water-pot, he should sacrifice, while she takes hold of him. Standing, with his face turned to the west, while she is sitting and turns her face to the east, he should with (the formula), ‘I seize thy hand for the sake of happiness seize her thumb if he desires that only male children may be born to him; Her other fingers, (if he is) desirous of female (children); The hand on the hair-side together with the thumb, if desirous of both male and female children.“
Next he mentioned several hymns and verses from Vedas which prays for birth of son alone and not daughter. Hymns and verses quoted by him are: Atharva Veda 3.23 and 7.48 and verses like Atharva Veda 14.1.22; 12.3.47; 2.36.3, 14.2.72, Rig Veda 3.31.1; 10.85.42-45. Let’s examine one by one.
Atharva Veda 3.23: This is the hymn supposed to be chanted in Pumsavana Samskara, here the wife is compared with the well breeding cow.
Atharva Veda 7.48: This hymn is also not about praying for the birth of a son. But the title given by Griffith for previous and this hymn is ridiculous. Griffith also ruined the previous hymn by the same title which the author left unnoticed.
Atharva Veda 14.1.22: There is no prayer, just blessing a couple to see sons and grandsons playing in the home.
Atharva Veda 12.3.47: Nothing about prayer for female child.
Atharva Veda 14.2.72: Again nothing about prayer. The verse actually reads unmarried men desire for wife and married men desired for progeny. Griffith translated the word “Putriyantim” as sons, however, this refers to progeny or offspring in general here. You can refer several other verses (14,15,21,24,31, etc)in the same hymn to ensure this.
RigVeda 3.31.1: This verse actually speaks about who will perform funeral rites for a father who has no sons, but daughters. I will discuss it in my next blog "Response toto inheritance for women in Vedas"
Rig Veda 10.85.42 = Atharva Veda 14.1.22. So no need to discuss.
Krishna Yajur Veda 6.5.10.3: This too doesn’t say anything about prayer for son. In fact this verse says killing an embryo is as sinful as killing a Brahmin.
So far only three verses pray for sons. They are Rig Veda 10.85.45 and Atharva Veda 2.36.3.
Afterwards, the author has said the verses which pray for the birth of son is the reason for female infanticide. However, Hinduism discourages it. One may desires to get a male child, but however after the birth of female child no one is allowed to kill it.
There is also a prayer for the birth of women in every country in Yajur Veda 22.22
Yajur Veda 22.22 “O Brahman, may here be born in the kingdom, the Brahmin illustrious for poetic knowledge; let there be born the Rajanya, heroic, skilled archer, piercing with shafts, mighty warrior; the cow giving abundant milk; the ox good at carrying; the swift courser; the industrious woman. May Parjanya send rain according to our desire; may our fruit-bearing plants ripen; may acquisition and preservation of property be secured to us.”
I will give more verses related to it in my upcoming blog Importance of women in vedas.
His next claim is Garuda Purana verse about abandoning the wife who produces only daughters.My response here is, this verse doesn’t command to abandon any woman.
Garuda Purana 1.115.64 “A man is at liberty to marry a second wife in the event of his first having had no issue after eight years of wedlock; after nine years of that of one whose children die in their infancy; after eleven years of the marriage a wife that has given birth to daughters only, and instantly when the first is foul-mouthed and tries to give him a bit of her mind”
This verse doesn’t ask to abandon a wife, but to take a second wife in case if the wife produces daughters only.
He also quoted Yajnavalkya Smriti 73, Manu Smriti 9.81 and claimed that Yajnavalkya and Manu order to supersede a wife who produces only female children. The Sanskrit word used here in Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti is अधिवेदन for supersession which means taking an additional wife.
Mitaksara clearly said the following in his commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti 73:
“Adhivedana or supersession means taking additional wife.”
The very next verse removes the misconception:
Yajnavalkya Smriti verse 74 “The superseded should be maintained, otherwise great sin is caused. When the husband and wife live in harmony, the three Vargas (viz. Dharma, Arta and Kama) prosper there.”
So, Yajnavalkya advises to keep the superseded wife with the husband.
However, Medhatithi in his commentary on Manusmriti 9.81 clearly says the reason what does it mean when Manu orders to supersede the wife who produces only females.
“The text proceeds to lay down the super-session of other kinds of wives. Among these, the barren one should be superseded in the eighth year; in the tenth, she whose children die off. By marrying a second wife the man shall save himself from the contingency of disobeying the injunction regarding the Laying of Fire (to which a childless person is not entitled), and that regarding the begetting of children,—to which he would be liable by reason of his wife being childless. Because the laying of fire is not found to be prescribed for a sonless person. The same holds good regarding the wife that bears only daughters; as also she whose children die off. As regards the wife who is harsh of speech, as there is no such serious defect, there need be no supersession; and she may be forgiven.” (Medhatithi commentary on Manusmriti 9.81)
So, the reason why a wife who produces daughters only should be superseded because laying of fire is not prescribed for a person who has no son. Medhatithi also interpreted there is no such supersession in case of a wife who is quarrelsome(harsh of speech). I don’t have any problem here even if someone say wife who is harsh of speech also should be superseded for laying fire.
One can also interpret Manusmriti 9.81 in the lens of Yajnavalkya Smriti 73 too.
I don’t know how the author missed Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.6 which is also conveying the same meaning as Manusmriti 9.81.
The only Smriti which may admit abandoning wife who produces female children is Narada Smriti since in 12.95 it prohibits a husband from abandoning a wife who has male children. In Narada Smriti 12.94 too, there it no straight forward command for abandoning wife. Whatever may be,
Padma Purana clearly considers abandoning wife as a sin:
Padma Purana II.67.71-80 “Other sins are abandoning one’s son, friend, also one’s master when he is reduced to poverty, and one’s wife and good people and ascetics..”
Padma Purana VI.253.118-124 “(If) a man abandoning the woman whose hand he has sought, goes to another woman, that is illicit intercourse; it is the cause of instantly going to hell.”
Garuda Purana says if a wife discard or abandon without finding any faults in them, they will go to hell.
Garuda Purana II.22.14 “One who discards his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, mother, sister without seeing any fault in them, will surely obtains ghost-hood.”
At least Garuda Purana says if a husband abandons wife, without seeing any faults will become ghost, however, Padma Purana simply says abandoning wife is a sin and doesn’t mention anything like finding faults in wife.
Now, few more verses:
Markandeya Purana Chapter 12 “Men, who go to places and eat things that they shouldn’t, who are not loyal to friends, betrayal their master, who defile their wives and who divorce their own wives, who destroy path, pond and gardens;- they all and other wicked people fall into this (Raurava) hell.”
Vashistha Dharma Sutra 28.2-3 “A wife, (though) tainted by sin, whether she be quarrelsome, or have left the house, or have suffered criminal force, or have fallen into the hands of thieves, must not be abandoned; to forsake her is not prescribed (by the sacred law). Let him wait for the time of her courses; by her temporary uncleanness she becomes pure.”
Vashistha Dharma Sutra clearly says abandoning wife is not supported by sacred law. But Garuda Purana I.95.21 allows to forsake wife if she is addicted to wine or suffering from incurable diseases.
[Note: Some say females have no roles in determining the genders of a baby, it is only the male chromosomes which determine the gender of the fetus. My response to them is, modern science may be saying like that but Hinduism follows Ayurvedic principles when it comes to human body, and according to Ayurveda at the time of intercourse if a male’s seed (semen) is more powerful than female seed (ovum), a male child will be born and vice versa for the birth of a female child.]
Simply cherry-picking some verses in which rituals for birth of a male child is mentioned, one cannot assume that there are no rituals for the birth of a female child.
Devi Bhagavatam 9.33. 1-9 “….He who does not support his father, mother, spiritual teacher, wife, sons, daughters and the helpless persons, goes to Gara Kunda where he eats poison for full one hundred years. Finally he becomes born and wanders as Bhûtas (disembodied spirits). Then he becomes pure.”
Purpose of creating women:
Here he quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana 61. 22-41.
Brahma Vaivarata Purana 61.22-41 ”…There can be no creation without a woman. This is why at the command of Lord Krisna, Brahma created the woman to entice the heart of lustful people. The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion, the bar or bolt (or obstacle) in the way of a man’s act or Karma, the impediment of meditation and the harbour of evil”
My response here is, what is wrong with this? He simply highlighted the portion “Brahma created the woman to entice the heart of lustful people. The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion“. One should understand at what context it is spoken. The verse begins with “There can be no creation without a woman”. So, this verse is basically describing women are created to procreate, of course what is wrong with that? This doesn’t demean women by any means. The meaning of the statement “The beauty of a woman is the seat of illusion” here is she is capable of making a man to procreate with her.
His next quote:
Srimad Bhagavatam 3.31.40 “The woman, created by the Lord, is the representation of maya, and one who associates with such maya by accepting services must certainly know that this is the way of death, just like a blind well covered with grass.”
My response here is, this is another best example of cherry-picking. The entire context is about Maya. The word women is used here as an alternative term to wordy pleasures. Have a look at the 38th verse which says “Look at the power of my Maya in the form of women” This means Look at the power of my Maya in the form of worldly pleasures. The previous verse basically saying one shouldn’t associate with women (worldly pleasures) as women (worldly pleasures) is the gateway to hell. The very next verse also says a man who was attached to worldly pleasures in his previous life now reborn as woman and looks on Maya in the form of her husband.
He then quoted Manusmriti 9.17:
Manu Smriti 9.17 (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
Mahabharata 13.40 also quoted by him which also conveys the same meaning. Now, let’s analyze Mahabharata quotation first.
In a former creation, O son of Kunti, women were all virtuous. Those, however, that sprang from this creation by Prajapati with the aid of an illusion became sinful. The grand sire bestowed upon them the desire of enjoyment, all kinds of carnal pleasure. Tempted by the desire of enjoyment, they began to pursue persons of the other sex. The puissant lord of the deities created Wrath as the companion of Lust. Persons of the male sex, yielding to the power of Lust and Wrath, sought the companionship of women. Women have no especial acts prescribed for them. Even this is the ordinance that was laid down. The Sruti declares that women are endued with senses the most powerful, that they have no scriptures to follow, and that they are living lies.
At first it is speaking about a former creation (previous Kalpa), not present creation. And that too, only those women who were created by Prajapati with the help of Maya became sinful. Because it also says women were all virtuous. Further, the same Mahabharata 13.40 says “Persons of the male sex, yielding to the power of Lust and Wrath, sought the companionship of women.” Can we now consider Mahabharata to be anti-men?
And entire Mahabharata 13.40 may seem demeaning women. Now let’s look at the context.
Mahabharata 13.38 “Yudhishthira said, ‘O best of the Bharatas, I wish to hear thee discourse on the disposition of women. Women are said to be the root of all evil. They are all regarded as exceedingly frail. Bhishma said, ‘In this connection is cited the old history of the discourse between the celestial Rishi Narada and the (celestial) courtezan Panchachuda. Once in ancient times, the celestial Rishi Narada, having roamed over all the world, met the Apsara Panchachuda of faultless beauty, having her abode in the region of Brahman. Beholding the Apsara every limb of whose body was endued with great beauty, the ascetic addressed her, saying, ‘O thou of slender waist, I have a doubt in my mind. Do thou explain it. Bhishma continued, ‘Thus addressed by the Rishi, the Apsara said unto him, ‘If the subject is one which is known to me and if thou thinkest me competent to speak on it, I shall certainly say what is in my mind. Narada said, ‘O amiable one, I shall not certainly appoint thee to any task that is beyond thy competence. O thou of beautiful face, I wish to hear from thee of the disposition of women. Bhishma continued, ‘Hearing these words of the celestial Rishi, that foremost of Apsaras replied unto him, saying, ‘I am unable, being myself a woman, to speak ill of women. Thou knowest what women are and with what nature they are endued. It behoveth thee not, O celestial Rishi, to set me to such a task.’ Unto her the celestial Rishi said, ‘It is very true, O thou of slender waist! One incurs fault by speaking what is untrue. In saying, however, what is true, there can be no fault.’ Thus addressed by him, the Apsara Panchachuda of sweet smiles consented to answer Narada’s question. She then addressed herself to mention what the true and eternal faults of women are!‘
Further explanation: So, Yudhishthra asked Bhishma about his discourse on women. Bhishma narrated the story of Narada and Apsara Panchachuda. This story is very famous among sanyasis to relive themselves from worldly desires. In that story Narada asked that Apsaras about her disposition on women. She narrated Narada on her disposition of women by addressing herself. This means she is narrating her own qualities in the context of addressing to every women. Beginning verses of Mahabharata 13.40 too don’t say women were created to make men unrighteous, but to make them away from the status of attaining the position of deities.
Regarding why Mahabharata 13.40 calls them living lies, Mahabharata itself answers this. “The Sruti declares that women are endued with senses the most powerful, that they have no scriptures to follow, and that they are living lies.” So women are called as living lies because they have no scriptures to follow. Why they have no scripture to follow? Because they are most powerful. By saying most powerful, it is actually degrading men, as men cannot be most powerful if women are powerful.
Manusmriti 9.17 may be demeaning women, but similar to statements which may demean men also mentioned in scriptures.
Garuda Purana I.114.6 “One should not sit in the same seat with one’s mother, sister and daughter in an isolated place. The powerful sense organs can drag even an erudite man into lust. What of common man?”
Women are of sinful birth:
Here he quoted Bhagavad Gita 9.32, Srimad Bhagavatam 2.7.46, Mahabharata 14.19.61 which can be rendered as “For those who take refuge in Me. O Partha, though they be of sinful birth- women, Vaisyas, and Sudras even they attain the Supreme Goal”.This statement can also be interpreted as:
“For those who take refuge in Me. O Partha, though they be of sinful birth, women, Vaisyas, and Sudras even they attain the Supreme Goal”
You can see, there is a comma between sinful birth and women. Ramanujacharya interpreted it in the same way, though Shankaracharya interpreted it as “women, Vaishyas and Shudras are of sinful birth”.
“Women, Vaisyas and Sudras, and even those who are of sinful birth, can attain the supreme state by taking refuge in Me. How much more then the well-born Brahmanas and royal sages who are devoted to me! Therefore, roayl sage that you are, do worship Me, as you have come to this transient and joyless world stricken by the threefold afflictions…” (Ramanuja commentary on Bhagavad Gita 9.32-33)
One can simply see that women, Vaisyas, Sudras are not regarded as a sinful birth. Indeed those who are of sinful birth is separated from the other three.
Regarding Bhagavata Purana 7.7.54 which he quoted:
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.7.54 “O my friends, O sons of demons, everyone, including you (the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas), the unintelligent women, śūdras and cowherd men, the birds, the lower animals and the sinful living entities, can revive his original, eternal spiritual life and exist forever simply by accepting the principles of bhakti-yoga.”
Here too, the term sinful living entities is separated from other things. Nowhere this consider women to be sinful birth. Even the term unintelligent was inserted by Prabhupada out of context. You cannot locate the word unintelligent even in the word by word translation by Prabhupada himself.
Nature of women:
Here he quoted Manusmriti first:Manu Smriti 2.213-214 ”To defile men is the nature of women, hence the wise are never infatuated nor un-circumspect about them. Man, by nature, is subject to lust and anger; women are quite competent to lead even the wise men astray, not to speak of fools, (their easy victims).”
My response here is he only highlighted the portion “To defile men is the nature of women”. He should have highlighted “Man, by nature, is subject to lust and anger” What these verses say is that women have the capacity to sexually arouse the men(I don’t think anything wrong is said here), and men too are very lustful. So the very next verse (Manu 2.215) says One should not sit alone with his mother, sister or daughter. The powerful host of sense-organs overpowers even the learned.” Verse 215 is all about males. It is basically describing males shouldn’t sit alone with their mother, sister or daughter as they have powerful sense organs. Can we now consider Manu 2.214&215 are against men and demeaning men?
In Mahabharata 13.19, it is simply the thinking of Yudhishthra. He didn’t conclude that women are false. He actually asked Bhishma about why a person marry, whether to perform the duties laid down by Rishis or to beget offspring for religious duties or to simply enjoy carnal pleasure.
He then quoted Devi Bhagavatam Book 1 chapter 15. The entire chapter is all about Suka doesn’t want to proceed householder’s life but ascetic life. Asceticism is all about detachment of worldly pleasures, including desire for wife and householder life. Sexual intercourse is one of the biggest hurdles for Moksha. The entire sayings by Shuka regarding women are actually meant for asceticism. The phrase “steal away the semen virile, the strength and energy in the way of giving them happiness as sexual intercourse, and their minds and wealth and everything by their crooked love conversations” is told by Shuka as he is not fond of sexual pleasure which one can enjoy during householder’s life.
When Shuka said “so see what greater thief can there be than a woman?” clearly implies women steal the Moksha through sexual intercourse which a person can achieve in asceticism. Indeed, for Sanyasis, they are not supposed to make any contact with women.
When Shuka said “they accept wife to destroy their own pleasure of happiness. They can never understand that the women can never be the source of pleasure; they are the source of all miseries…”, it implies that Shuka thought asceticism as the source of pleasure and householder’s life as the source of miseries.
Testimony of women is not valid:
In this section he quoted Manusmriti 8.77:
“One man who is free from covetousness may be (accepted as) witness; but not even many pure women, because the understanding of females is apt to waver, nor even many other men, who are tainted with sin”
The other verses quoted by him in this section also implies more or less same meaning. Now the problem is, he is interpreting that this verse is all about in some cases in which witness given by anyone is allowed, women’s witness is not valid at all. However, I challenge him to find the context here which implies this verse is all about when witness given by anyone is allowed. Manusmriti 8.68 clearly says a woman can give evidence for women, a twice born man for twice born men, etc (which is acknowledged by the author himself). So the context here is even many pure women cannot stand as a witness for men.
Women are equivalent to dogs or pigs:
Manusmriti 3.239 “A Kandala, a village pig, a cock, a dog, a menstruating woman, and a eunuch must not look at the Brahmanas while they eat.”This verse simply says a Brahmin must eat food in a shelter where these cannot see. May I know how saying a Chandala, a village pig, a cock, a dog and a menstruating woman cannot look at Brahmins when they eat food means a Chandala, a pig, a dog and a menstruating woman are equivalent to each other?
Then he quoted Atharva Veda:
Atharva Veda 4.5.2 …Lull all the women, lull the dogs to sleep, with Indra as thy friend!
Atharva Veda 4.5 is a charm for sleep by a lover. This charm can be used to lull someone to sleep. Since lull the dogs to sleep is mentioned after women, he is interpreting this as women are dogs, let them sleep. However, “lull all women” and Lull the dogs” both are separated by Comma, so this doesn’t mean women are dogs.
Atharva Veda 4.5.6 says:
Sleep mother, let the father sleep, sleep dog, and master of the home. Let all her kinsmen sleep, sleep all the people who are round about.
Since mother, father and master of the home are mentioned along with dog, can we now think father and master of the home are equivalent to dog? No, this is simply saying to lull father, mother, dog, master, and the master’s relatives (master must be a female) to sleep.
Let me explain Satapatha Brahamana 14.1.1.31. The Satapatha Brahmana 14.1.1 is all about Pravargya sacrifice. During Pravargya sacrifice, it is advised to a performer that he is not allowed to have intercourse with his wife, not allowed to interact with Shudras, crows, dogs. In this context only, everything is said. The beginning of the verse which says “And whilst not coming into contact with Sûdras and remains of food; for this Gharma is he that shines yonder, and he is excellence, truth, and light” implies a person who does Pravargya sacrifice if he doesn’t come into contact with Sudras and remains of food is excellence, truth and light and the phrase “but woman, the Sûdra, the dog, and the black bird (the crow), are untruth” implies that person the person who performs Pravargya sacrifice if he relates with these untruth(only for this sacrifice alone since the performer is advised to be a celibate, doesn’t mean that women are always untruth) such as woman, Shudra, dog and crow is untruth.
Now, let me tell you one verse from Shiva Purana which equate women with god.
Shiva Purana 7.2.4.54 “All men are identical with Śiva. All women are identical with Maheśvarī. Hence all men and women are their exalted superhuman power.”
Women in her menses:
Here since Hindu texts say one is discouraged from touching menstruating woman, dog, pig, Hinduism compares women in menses with dogs and pigs. However that is not the reason. Menstruation is considered as ashaucha (ritual impurity) that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman. Just because simply saying one shouldn’t touch women in her menses, dogs and pigs doesn’t mean that all the three are equivalents.Some verses from scriptures which clearly say menstruation is a ritual impurity, and this impurity is temporary only.
Vasishta Dharma Sutra V. 4-5 “For month by month the menstrual excretion takes away her sins. A woman in her courses is impure during three (days and) nights.”
Baudhayana Dharma Sutra 2.2.4.4 “Women (possess) an unrivaled means of purification; they never become (entirely) foul. For month by month their temporary uncleanness removes their sins”
Purity is important, Shaucha (ritual purity) is important, that is why it is advised not to touch a menstruating woman.
Manusmriti 10.63 “Abstention from injuring, truthfulness, abstention from unlawful appropriation, purity and control of the sense-organs,—this Manu has declared to be the sum and substance of duty for the four castes.”
Women devoid of intellect:
Under this section, first he quoted from Prabhupada’s commentary, which is least authoritative among all. So one can simply neglect them.
His next claim:
Devi Bhagavatam 9.38.1-6 ”…O Bhagavân! The woman kind has been created by the Creator as devoid of any Tattvajñâna or true knowledge.
My response here is read the full chapter to get the context.
Devi Bhagavatam 9.38. 1-6 “Savitri said, Give me the devotion to the Devî to that Âdyâ S’akti Bhagavatî Mahâ Mâye, Parames’varî Mâyî that is the Essence of all essences, the Door of final liberation to the human beings, and the Cause of delivering them from hells, that is the Root of all the Dharmas that lead to Mukti, that destroys all the in-auspiciousness, that takes away the fear of all the Karmas, and that takes away always all the sins committed before. O Thou, the Foremost amongst the knowers of the Vedas! How many kinds of Muktis are there in this world? What is the True Bhakti? What are its characteristics? What is to be done by which the enjoyment of the karmas done can be desisted and nullified? O Bhagavân! The woman kind has been created by the Creator as devoid of any Tattvajñâna or true knowledge; now tell me something about this True Knowledge.”
Savitri is asking to dharmaraja about the devotion to Devi and considering this devotion as true knowledge/Bhakti. Nothing about intellect here. Some say this is actually an exaggeration.
His next claim:
Rig Veda 8.33.17 Indra himself hath said, The mind of woman brooks not discipline, Her intellect hath little weight.
This hymn 8.33 is all about Asanga who became a female due to curse. The mind of a Woman here only refers to this Asanga who became a female. So, Indra is saying Asanga’s mind is not discipline and her intellect is very small, here it refers to only that Asanga who became a woman, not all women.
Women should not be given freedom:
Here he quoted verses from scripture which say a father must protect her in childhood, her husband in youth and her son in her old age. So, she shouldn’t be let independent and shouldn’t act as her own will. True, however, in these cases too, all the three of them must honor and respect women.Manusmriti 3.56-58 “Where women are honoured, there the gods rejoice; where, on the other hand, they are not honoured, there all rites are fruitless. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic”
Padma Purana V.94.98-118 “Goblins enjoy at houses where indecent language is used and there where the daughters and sisters are not honored, so also where excellent women are not honored.”
Agni Purana even says one should avoid those who envy women:
Agni Purana 155.29 One should refrain from abusing scriptures, king, sages and gods. One should not envy women and one should avoid faith in them.
Woman is a child production machine:
Here the author quoted Mahabharata 5.39, Manu Smriti 9.96, Narada Smriti 12.19. These verses more or less imply the following meaning:
Women have been created for the sake of propagation, the wife being the field, and the husband the giver of the seed. The field must be given to him who has seed. He who has no seed in unworthy to possess the field.
I request the readers to double check this and verify how these verses are implying women are child production machine. Do these verses say a man should force his seed inside a woman even if she refuses and produce children? Or do these verses say women are here to produce children alone and not for others?
Women are bad luck:
The verses quoted by the author is purely cherry-picked here. The entire chapter 1.64 of Garuda Purana is all about describing auspicious and inauspicious marks on females. He simply quoted inauspicious alone. I will be quoting verses from the same chapter which discuss about auspicious marks on women.The maiden, who has got curling locks, a round face and a deep navel, increases her family.
A woman, whose colour is like that of gold, and whose hands are red, is called Padmini. Such a woman, born one in a thousand, is personification of chastity.
The maiden, who has a face like the full-moon, is effulgent like the rising Sun, has expensive eyes and Vimva-like lips, enjoys happiness.
One, having crimson-coloured lines, enjoys happiness.
The woman, who has the marks of a wall or gateway on her palms, becomes a queen even if she is born as a maid servant.
Oily eyes indicate good luck, oily teeth indicate good eating, oily skin indicates a good bed, and oily feet indicate conveyances.
The auspicious signs of women are cool and high breasts, copper-coloured nails, beautiful feet, marks of fish, goad, lotus, discus and plough-share on the soles and palms which do not perspire, a beautiful hip without hairs, thighs like the trunk of an elephant, most excellent and capacious buttock like a fig leaf, spacious and deep navel and chest and breast without hairs.
Considering several marks in the body as auspicious marks and several as inauspicious is a kind of omen.
The next chapter 65th deals with auspicious and inauspicious marks on body of both males and females. The author clearly cherry-picked only those signs on women which are considered inauspicious and neglected those signs on men which are considered inauspicious in the same chapter.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.7 “If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra: “With power and glory I takeaway your glory.” Thus she becomes discredited.”
Here due to this striking, nothing injury or pain is caused since it is all about ritual for getting a progeny. These kinds of rituals are mentioned all over the scriptures. For example, Agni Purana mentions one such ritual:
Agni Purana 92. 36-37 “After having washed the two kinds of ladles and after bathing the disciples, the preceptor (Guru) should sip the waters and gently beat the soul thus blended with the mantra of the weapon”
Shiva Purana 7.2.16. 48-49 “After sprinkling and striking lightly the disciple and remembering the soul of the disciple in his own, the preceptor shall drain out the wind that throbs like a flame, through the veins as mentioned. He shall then enter the vein and the heart of the disciple.”
Then he quoted Shiva Purana, Rudra Samhita 2, Parvatikhanda section III, 54.53-55 , Skanda Purana III.ii.7.43 [1] with the saying that since these verses say those wives who beat their husband in retaliation will go to hell, a wife cannot beat her husband back. Both these verses are speaking about chaste wife (Pativrata), a wife who has taken the vow of Pativrata. Usually whenever Hindu scriptures allow to beat others, it is only when they misbehave. It may be saying about the situation that if a wife did something wrong and her husband beat her for this, she should’t retaliate back.
[1] Skanda Purana IV.i.4.41 also has a similar verse.
Anyway even a wife can beat her husband if he doesn’t behave properly:
Padma Purana II.47.47-65 “….A mother should beat her daughter, a mother in law should beat the daughter in law. A preceptor should beat his pupil. Thus they acquire perfection, not otherwise. A wife should flog her husband, a king should punish his minister. A soldier should beat his horse and an elephant driver should beat him. O lord, by means of being beaten and protected, they are prepared with a thought of training…”
Another important thing is, Padma Purana II.47 doesn’t mention anything about beating wives by husbands!
Husband should also be loyal to wife.
Garuda Purana I.95.27 “The husband should be loyal to his wife. Since women are to be well protected, the husband, his brothers, father, mother or kinsmen should honour her with ornaments, raiment and foodstuffs.”
It is not that only wife alone is allowed to be beaten by husband (householder). Padma Purana even says who can a householder beat but doesn’t mention wife.
Padma Purana III.55. 42b-75 “He should not inflict pain on anyone but should beat his son or disciple.”
One should understand that when beating woman or a wife or even a son or pupil is mentioned, it is only when she/he misbehaves. That too, only with a split bamboo, which doesn’t cause much pain and only in the back side of the body. Moreover, we all know that just like how a husband is for a woman, similarly a Guru is for a man. Hindu scriptures also prohibits one from beating Guru and say one who violates this is a sinner.
“Padma Purana 11.67.81-87a “…Those who are engrossed in committing all kinds of sins, those who destroy the grazing fields of the quadrupeds, or he who beats saints, Brahmanas, preceptor or a cow or and those who beat a faultless woman settled in good position..”
Similarly, it is also written in some scriptures that even if a Guru beat his disciples, they shouldn’t feel distressed:
Shiva Purana 7.2.15. 57-58 “He (the Guru) shall test the disciples, with commands to give up life and wealth or by engaging the superior devotees in mean tasks and the inferior ones in noble tasks. Even when rebuked or beaten if they do not feel distressed they shall be considered self-controlled and pure and hence deserving consecration in Shaiva rituals.”
Though this one verse from Shiva Purana is speaking in the context of Shaiva rituals, this rule is applicable in general. There is not even a single Hindu scripture which I came across allows a student to beat his Guru.
However, a woman may be having two options, either to study the Vedas under a Guru or become a bride at once. The first is called Brahmavadini (not referring to Rishi’s wives here) and the second one is Sadyovadhu. Brahmavadinis are those who first undergo Upanayana then study the Vedas, thereafter only they will get married. Sadyovadhu are those who get married without undergoing Upanayana. For Sadyovadhu, marriage itself is a Upanayana, her husband is her Guru and her husband’s home is Guru’s home(Manusmriti 2.67). When several scriptures banning women from learning Vedas are only meant for Sadyovadhu. Not all scriptures mention all rules. For example, after the death of her husband, a wife has three options and not all scriptures mention all three except Parasara Smriti. Similarly, the rules for Brahmavadini women is mentioned in Harita Smriti:
Harita Smriti 30.21 “Among two kinds of women, Brahmavadini women can undergo sacred thread ceremony and undergo Vedic lessons. They even have the right for Bhiksha”
The next verse 22 speaks about Sadyovadhu.
So those women among upper three Varnas if they want to study Vedas, they can opt for it. Then, they will be called as Brahmavadinis.
He also quoted Madhvacharya’s opinion on women learning Vedas. But the problem here is, in this regard, what Madhvacharya said is not applicable to Hinduism as a whole, but only for his Sampradaya. Remember Madhavacharya also said those upper three caste men who are devoted to Hari alone can learn the Vedas. This means according to him, even I am not eligible to learn the Vedas since I am not devoted to Hari.
Those of the first three castes who are sincerely devoted to the Lord Hari (the purifier) are fit to acquire knowledge as given in the Vedic texts. And the women (of the celestial order) are also eligible for the study of Scripture; and they are Urvasi, Yami (the wife of Yama), Sachi and other goddesses, (as also the wives of Rishis)… (Madhavacharya on Brahma Sutras 1.1.1)
Taittiriya Brahmana (2.2.2.6) “A man who has no wife is not entitled to sacrifice”
Satapatha Brahmana I.iii.1.12 “He (the Agnidhra) then girds the wife of the sacrificer). She, the wife, truly is the hinder part of the sacrifice. ‘May the sacrifice go on increasing before me!’ thus (she thinks while) he girds her, thinking, ‘may she sit thus girt by my sacrifice!’
Skanda Purana IV.i.4.68 “Two worlds, viz. the visible world and the other world are won over through wife. A man without a wife is not entitled to perform the rites of Yajna pertaining to gods, manes and guests.”
There is a guy called Krikala in Padma Purana who was very happy after going for pilgrimage without his wife, but once he heard pilgrimage went without wife is useless, he became sad:
Padma Purana II.59 8-10 “Dharma said, The entire fruit of religious merit of him, who, leaving behind his pure and most meritorious wife, becomes worthless and not otherwise. All the religious deeds of him, who leaving behind even his wife who is devoted to a pious conduct, who is meritorious, who is a Pativrata, who is virtuous, who loves merit, goes to holy places to perform religious rites are done in vain.”
Padma Purana here implies that one should accompany his chaste wife with him when going to holy place for performing religious rites. Usually Vedas are clear that without a Pativrata (chaste) wife, it is impossible to proceed in householder’s life. So, Vedas themselves promises a Pativrata wife for a person who follows Vedas.
Linga Purana Section II 20.1-3 ”Rudra, Mahadeva, the grandfather stationed in the mystic diagram is worthy of being worshiped by the Brahmins, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas as well. For the Sudras the service rendered to a worshiper is enough. Undoubtedly women are not authorised to perform worship. If the worship is conducted through leading Brahmins, women and Sudras shall derive the same benefit.
The problem is here is highlighted “Undoubtedly women are not authorised to perform worship” and neglected others. Immediately, the 3rd verse says “If the worship is conducted through leading Brahmins, women and Sudras shall derive the same benefit”which means women and Shudras can worship through Brahmin priest.
In Padma Purana V.20.23-27, only Salagrama stone worship is mentioned as forbidden to women. The author is trying to build a perception that worship as a whole is prohibited to women. I wonder whether the author knows what is Salagrama or not.
Shiva Purana I.25.47 “People of all Varnas and Ashramas and even women and Shudras can wear Rudraksha at the bidding of Shiva. The ascetics shall wear it with the Pravara”
Shiva Purana I.21.39-40 “Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, persons born of intercaste marriages and others shall worship the Phallic icon of Shiva with the great devotion with the respective mantra. O Brahmin sages, what shall I tell more? Even women and others are authorized in the worship of the Phallic image.”
Padma Purana VI.119.30-43 “A man, a woman or a widow, having great devotion and with his/her senses conquered, should worship the Garuda bannered god (Visnu) with mind, deeds and words and should day and night utter the names of Visnu.”
Skanda Purana V.ii.16.25-34 “There is no doubt that the devotees, whether they are Brahmins, or Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras whether they are women or virgins will obtain the desired results.”
So I suggest him not to cherry pick. Even Madhvacharya’s commentary on Brahma Sutras 1.1.1 which he quoted to show only celestials and wives of Rishis alone can learn Vedas say women are entitled to learn Tantras.
‘..And in the Vyoma Samhita, it is said thus Even those of the lowest caste devoted to the Lord are eligible for initiation in respect of the knowledge of the sacred names of the the Lord ; while women, Sudras, and vile Brahmans are allowed to obtain knowledge from Tantra works as explained in part by others, but not from a regular study of such works.'(Madhvacharya’s commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.1)
Agni Purana even says women should be worshiped in certain cases:
Agni Purana 263. 22-23a “The women may deliver prematurely or may not deliver at appropriate time. They may deliver children with deformities or deliver twins, etc. One should worship the women and Brahmins in the case of such deviations in the delivery as above.”
Here due to this striking, nothing injury or pain is caused since it is all about ritual for getting a progeny. These kinds of rituals are mentioned all over the scriptures. For example, Agni Purana mentions one such ritual:
Agni Purana 92. 36-37 “After having washed the two kinds of ladles and after bathing the disciples, the preceptor (Guru) should sip the waters and gently beat the soul thus blended with the mantra of the weapon”
Shiva Purana 7.2.16. 48-49 “After sprinkling and striking lightly the disciple and remembering the soul of the disciple in his own, the preceptor shall drain out the wind that throbs like a flame, through the veins as mentioned. He shall then enter the vein and the heart of the disciple.”
Then he quoted Shiva Purana, Rudra Samhita 2, Parvatikhanda section III, 54.53-55 , Skanda Purana III.ii.7.43 [1] with the saying that since these verses say those wives who beat their husband in retaliation will go to hell, a wife cannot beat her husband back. Both these verses are speaking about chaste wife (Pativrata), a wife who has taken the vow of Pativrata. Usually whenever Hindu scriptures allow to beat others, it is only when they misbehave. It may be saying about the situation that if a wife did something wrong and her husband beat her for this, she should’t retaliate back.
[1] Skanda Purana IV.i.4.41 also has a similar verse.
Anyway even a wife can beat her husband if he doesn’t behave properly:
Padma Purana II.47.47-65 “….A mother should beat her daughter, a mother in law should beat the daughter in law. A preceptor should beat his pupil. Thus they acquire perfection, not otherwise. A wife should flog her husband, a king should punish his minister. A soldier should beat his horse and an elephant driver should beat him. O lord, by means of being beaten and protected, they are prepared with a thought of training…”
Another important thing is, Padma Purana II.47 doesn’t mention anything about beating wives by husbands!
Husband should also be loyal to wife.
Garuda Purana I.95.27 “The husband should be loyal to his wife. Since women are to be well protected, the husband, his brothers, father, mother or kinsmen should honour her with ornaments, raiment and foodstuffs.”
It is not that only wife alone is allowed to be beaten by husband (householder). Padma Purana even says who can a householder beat but doesn’t mention wife.
Padma Purana III.55. 42b-75 “He should not inflict pain on anyone but should beat his son or disciple.”
One should understand that when beating woman or a wife or even a son or pupil is mentioned, it is only when she/he misbehaves. That too, only with a split bamboo, which doesn’t cause much pain and only in the back side of the body. Moreover, we all know that just like how a husband is for a woman, similarly a Guru is for a man. Hindu scriptures also prohibits one from beating Guru and say one who violates this is a sinner.
“Padma Purana 11.67.81-87a “…Those who are engrossed in committing all kinds of sins, those who destroy the grazing fields of the quadrupeds, or he who beats saints, Brahmanas, preceptor or a cow or and those who beat a faultless woman settled in good position..”
Similarly, it is also written in some scriptures that even if a Guru beat his disciples, they shouldn’t feel distressed:
Shiva Purana 7.2.15. 57-58 “He (the Guru) shall test the disciples, with commands to give up life and wealth or by engaging the superior devotees in mean tasks and the inferior ones in noble tasks. Even when rebuked or beaten if they do not feel distressed they shall be considered self-controlled and pure and hence deserving consecration in Shaiva rituals.”
Though this one verse from Shiva Purana is speaking in the context of Shaiva rituals, this rule is applicable in general. There is not even a single Hindu scripture which I came across allows a student to beat his Guru.
Barred from studying Vedas, to perform sacrifice and to worship:
Vedas.
Here he quoted several verses from scriptures which seem to be prohibiting women from learning Vedas. My exact question here is “how prohibiting them from learning Vedas is against women?” If women too studied the Vedas, who will take care of household works?However, a woman may be having two options, either to study the Vedas under a Guru or become a bride at once. The first is called Brahmavadini (not referring to Rishi’s wives here) and the second one is Sadyovadhu. Brahmavadinis are those who first undergo Upanayana then study the Vedas, thereafter only they will get married. Sadyovadhu are those who get married without undergoing Upanayana. For Sadyovadhu, marriage itself is a Upanayana, her husband is her Guru and her husband’s home is Guru’s home(Manusmriti 2.67). When several scriptures banning women from learning Vedas are only meant for Sadyovadhu. Not all scriptures mention all rules. For example, after the death of her husband, a wife has three options and not all scriptures mention all three except Parasara Smriti. Similarly, the rules for Brahmavadini women is mentioned in Harita Smriti:
Harita Smriti 30.21 “Among two kinds of women, Brahmavadini women can undergo sacred thread ceremony and undergo Vedic lessons. They even have the right for Bhiksha”
The next verse 22 speaks about Sadyovadhu.
So those women among upper three Varnas if they want to study Vedas, they can opt for it. Then, they will be called as Brahmavadinis.
He also quoted Madhvacharya’s opinion on women learning Vedas. But the problem here is, in this regard, what Madhvacharya said is not applicable to Hinduism as a whole, but only for his Sampradaya. Remember Madhavacharya also said those upper three caste men who are devoted to Hari alone can learn the Vedas. This means according to him, even I am not eligible to learn the Vedas since I am not devoted to Hari.
Those of the first three castes who are sincerely devoted to the Lord Hari (the purifier) are fit to acquire knowledge as given in the Vedic texts. And the women (of the celestial order) are also eligible for the study of Scripture; and they are Urvasi, Yami (the wife of Yama), Sachi and other goddesses, (as also the wives of Rishis)… (Madhavacharya on Brahma Sutras 1.1.1)
Sacrifice.
When Manu Smriti 9.18 and Mahabharata 3.204 say women cannot sacrifice, it means a woman cannot perform sacrifice alone without her husband. Even an husband cannot perform sacrifice without her wife:Taittiriya Brahmana (2.2.2.6) “A man who has no wife is not entitled to sacrifice”
Satapatha Brahmana I.iii.1.12 “He (the Agnidhra) then girds the wife of the sacrificer). She, the wife, truly is the hinder part of the sacrifice. ‘May the sacrifice go on increasing before me!’ thus (she thinks while) he girds her, thinking, ‘may she sit thus girt by my sacrifice!’
Skanda Purana IV.i.4.68 “Two worlds, viz. the visible world and the other world are won over through wife. A man without a wife is not entitled to perform the rites of Yajna pertaining to gods, manes and guests.”
There is a guy called Krikala in Padma Purana who was very happy after going for pilgrimage without his wife, but once he heard pilgrimage went without wife is useless, he became sad:
Padma Purana II.59 8-10 “Dharma said, The entire fruit of religious merit of him, who, leaving behind his pure and most meritorious wife, becomes worthless and not otherwise. All the religious deeds of him, who leaving behind even his wife who is devoted to a pious conduct, who is meritorious, who is a Pativrata, who is virtuous, who loves merit, goes to holy places to perform religious rites are done in vain.”
Padma Purana here implies that one should accompany his chaste wife with him when going to holy place for performing religious rites. Usually Vedas are clear that without a Pativrata (chaste) wife, it is impossible to proceed in householder’s life. So, Vedas themselves promises a Pativrata wife for a person who follows Vedas.
Worship.
Does the Linga Purana Section II 20.1-3 forbid women from worshiping? The answer is No.Linga Purana Section II 20.1-3 ”Rudra, Mahadeva, the grandfather stationed in the mystic diagram is worthy of being worshiped by the Brahmins, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas as well. For the Sudras the service rendered to a worshiper is enough. Undoubtedly women are not authorised to perform worship. If the worship is conducted through leading Brahmins, women and Sudras shall derive the same benefit.
The problem is here is highlighted “Undoubtedly women are not authorised to perform worship” and neglected others. Immediately, the 3rd verse says “If the worship is conducted through leading Brahmins, women and Sudras shall derive the same benefit”which means women and Shudras can worship through Brahmin priest.
In Padma Purana V.20.23-27, only Salagrama stone worship is mentioned as forbidden to women. The author is trying to build a perception that worship as a whole is prohibited to women. I wonder whether the author knows what is Salagrama or not.
Shiva Purana I.25.47 “People of all Varnas and Ashramas and even women and Shudras can wear Rudraksha at the bidding of Shiva. The ascetics shall wear it with the Pravara”
Shiva Purana I.21.39-40 “Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras, persons born of intercaste marriages and others shall worship the Phallic icon of Shiva with the great devotion with the respective mantra. O Brahmin sages, what shall I tell more? Even women and others are authorized in the worship of the Phallic image.”
Padma Purana VI.119.30-43 “A man, a woman or a widow, having great devotion and with his/her senses conquered, should worship the Garuda bannered god (Visnu) with mind, deeds and words and should day and night utter the names of Visnu.”
Skanda Purana V.ii.16.25-34 “There is no doubt that the devotees, whether they are Brahmins, or Kshatriyas or Vaishyas or Shudras whether they are women or virgins will obtain the desired results.”
So I suggest him not to cherry pick. Even Madhvacharya’s commentary on Brahma Sutras 1.1.1 which he quoted to show only celestials and wives of Rishis alone can learn Vedas say women are entitled to learn Tantras.
‘..And in the Vyoma Samhita, it is said thus Even those of the lowest caste devoted to the Lord are eligible for initiation in respect of the knowledge of the sacred names of the the Lord ; while women, Sudras, and vile Brahmans are allowed to obtain knowledge from Tantra works as explained in part by others, but not from a regular study of such works.'(Madhvacharya’s commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.1.1)
Agni Purana even says women should be worshiped in certain cases:
Agni Purana 263. 22-23a “The women may deliver prematurely or may not deliver at appropriate time. They may deliver children with deformities or deliver twins, etc. One should worship the women and Brahmins in the case of such deviations in the delivery as above.”
Here he quoted Manu Smriti 5.139, Manu Smriti 11.153, Brahmanda Purana 2.3.15.56, Mahabharata 13.128, Manu Smriti 11.224. He misquoted some verses. I think he actually means Manu 5.137, Manu 11.223. Since these verses either prescribe same atonement for women and Shudras or women and Shudras are not entitled to be seen by a Brahmin while doing penances to get rid of sins etc, he is saying women are to be treated like Shudras. Interpreting like this is simply to delude people. There are several verses in the scriptures which mention different rites for women of other three Varnas and Shudras. Even a Brahmin male is considered on the level of Shudra if he doesn’t undergo Upanayana initiation ceremony. That is what the verse Janmana jatate Shudra implies.
Moreover, in the Agni Purana, women are mentioned along with Brahmins:
Agni Purana 263. 22-23a “The women may deliver prematurely or may not deliver at appropriate time. They may deliver children with deformities or deliver twins, etc. One should worship the women and Brahmins in the case of such deviations in the delivery as above.”
If we go by his logic, women are equated with cows and Brahmins in Skanda Purana:
Skanda Purana V.ii.49.9-18 “It is ordained that a woman should not be killed. A cow and a Brahmana should not be killed”.
Duty of a wife:
Here he quoted several verses from scriptures which say they should serve their husband that is what their sacrifice is. That is for Sadyovadhu women. My question is that a man has to perform sacrifice along with his wife in addition to surrendering to his Guru and identifying him as God. Then only he is on the pathway to Moskha. Even Naishtika Brahmacharis too simply remain without rebirth, and they don’t attain Moksha. However, for a woman, especially Sadyovadhus, simply surrendering to her husband alone is a pathway to Moksha. Now, on whom the Sastras are liberal, whether on women or on men?
Garuda Purana 1.64 “A wife is like a minister to her husband in works, a friend in enjoyments, a mother in affection, and a public woman while on bed.”
I would also like to mention Skanda Purana II.iv.4.74 and Skanda Purana III.ii.7.15-44 describe the qualities of a chaste wife.
Moreover, in the Agni Purana, women are mentioned along with Brahmins:
Agni Purana 263. 22-23a “The women may deliver prematurely or may not deliver at appropriate time. They may deliver children with deformities or deliver twins, etc. One should worship the women and Brahmins in the case of such deviations in the delivery as above.”
If we go by his logic, women are equated with cows and Brahmins in Skanda Purana:
Skanda Purana V.ii.49.9-18 “It is ordained that a woman should not be killed. A cow and a Brahmana should not be killed”.
Duty of a wife:
Here he quoted several verses from scriptures which say they should serve their husband that is what their sacrifice is. That is for Sadyovadhu women. My question is that a man has to perform sacrifice along with his wife in addition to surrendering to his Guru and identifying him as God. Then only he is on the pathway to Moskha. Even Naishtika Brahmacharis too simply remain without rebirth, and they don’t attain Moksha. However, for a woman, especially Sadyovadhus, simply surrendering to her husband alone is a pathway to Moksha. Now, on whom the Sastras are liberal, whether on women or on men?
Garuda Purana 1.64 “A wife is like a minister to her husband in works, a friend in enjoyments, a mother in affection, and a public woman while on bed.”
I would also like to mention Skanda Purana II.iv.4.74 and Skanda Purana III.ii.7.15-44 describe the qualities of a chaste wife.
Women are sex Manic:
Under this section the author several verses from the scriptures which say women have more sexual appetite than men. I don’t know how this is against women. Because it is simply describing that they have more sexual appetite which is naturally true.
With regards to Shiva Purana, UmaSamhita 5.24.16-36, these words are told by Panchachuda, a woman herself. Vyasa wanted to detach from the worldly pleasures so he asked Shantakumara with regard this. So, Shantakumara narrated the story of Narada and Apasara Panchachuda which is capable of making a person detach from women.
Shiva Purana 5.24.2 “I shall explain the nature of women as it is. O dear, listen to it, merely by hearing which excellent detachment results.”
Shiva Purana 5.24.37 “O Vyasa, thus the nature of women as mentioned by Panchachuda has been narrated to you. What other cause of detachment do you wish to hear?
So, these words are not told to insult women.
Can’t choose husband:
This is the most idiotic thing ever. If a father finds her a husband in the proper age, she can accept him, if the father didn’t a woman doesn’t incur any sin by choosing a husband by herself.
Garuda Purana I.95.14 “A father not giving her daughter in marriage incurs the sin of Bhrunahatya (murderer of a fetus) at every menstrual period. If no one gives her away in marriage, the girl is at liberty to choose her own lover“
Agni Purana 227.40-45 “A king should not punish a girl who chooses her own husband according to the rites of love marriage.
Manusmriti 9.90 “Having reached puberty, the maiden may wait for three years; after that time, she shall procure a suitable husband.”
Baudhayana Dharma Sutra IV.1.13 “Three years let a marriageable damsel wait for the order of her father. But after (that) time let her choose for herself in the fourth year a husband (of) equal (rank). If no man (of) equal (rank) be found, she may take even one destitute of good qualities.”
While choosing husband too, her father should take care of several things in the boy whom he chooses.
Devi Bhagavatam 9.18 72-87 “……It is highly advisable to choose one’s husband by examining his merits and defects. Sin equivalent to the murder of a Brâhmin is committed if one gives in marriage one’s daughter to one void of all qualifications, to an old man, to one who is ignorant, to a poor, illiterate, diseased, ugly, very angry, very harsh, lame, devoid of limbs, deaf, dumb, inanimate like, and who is impotent. If one gives in marriage a daughter to a young man of good character, learned, well qualified and of a peaceful temper, one acquires the fruits of performing ten horse sacrifices. If one nourishes a daughter and sells her out of greed for money, one falls to the Kumbhîpâka hell. That sinner drinks the urine and eats the excrement of that daughter, remaining in that hell. For a period equal to the fourteen Indra’s life-periods they are bitten by worms and crows. At the expiry of this period, they will have to be born in this world of men as diseased persons. In their human births they will have to earn their livelihood by selling flesh and carrying flesh.”
With regards to Shiva Purana, UmaSamhita 5.24.16-36, these words are told by Panchachuda, a woman herself. Vyasa wanted to detach from the worldly pleasures so he asked Shantakumara with regard this. So, Shantakumara narrated the story of Narada and Apasara Panchachuda which is capable of making a person detach from women.
Shiva Purana 5.24.2 “I shall explain the nature of women as it is. O dear, listen to it, merely by hearing which excellent detachment results.”
Shiva Purana 5.24.37 “O Vyasa, thus the nature of women as mentioned by Panchachuda has been narrated to you. What other cause of detachment do you wish to hear?
So, these words are not told to insult women.
Can’t choose husband:
This is the most idiotic thing ever. If a father finds her a husband in the proper age, she can accept him, if the father didn’t a woman doesn’t incur any sin by choosing a husband by herself.
Garuda Purana I.95.14 “A father not giving her daughter in marriage incurs the sin of Bhrunahatya (murderer of a fetus) at every menstrual period. If no one gives her away in marriage, the girl is at liberty to choose her own lover“
Agni Purana 227.40-45 “A king should not punish a girl who chooses her own husband according to the rites of love marriage.
Manusmriti 9.90 “Having reached puberty, the maiden may wait for three years; after that time, she shall procure a suitable husband.”
Baudhayana Dharma Sutra IV.1.13 “Three years let a marriageable damsel wait for the order of her father. But after (that) time let her choose for herself in the fourth year a husband (of) equal (rank). If no man (of) equal (rank) be found, she may take even one destitute of good qualities.”
While choosing husband too, her father should take care of several things in the boy whom he chooses.
Devi Bhagavatam 9.18 72-87 “……It is highly advisable to choose one’s husband by examining his merits and defects. Sin equivalent to the murder of a Brâhmin is committed if one gives in marriage one’s daughter to one void of all qualifications, to an old man, to one who is ignorant, to a poor, illiterate, diseased, ugly, very angry, very harsh, lame, devoid of limbs, deaf, dumb, inanimate like, and who is impotent. If one gives in marriage a daughter to a young man of good character, learned, well qualified and of a peaceful temper, one acquires the fruits of performing ten horse sacrifices. If one nourishes a daughter and sells her out of greed for money, one falls to the Kumbhîpâka hell. That sinner drinks the urine and eats the excrement of that daughter, remaining in that hell. For a period equal to the fourteen Indra’s life-periods they are bitten by worms and crows. At the expiry of this period, they will have to be born in this world of men as diseased persons. In their human births they will have to earn their livelihood by selling flesh and carrying flesh.”
Derogatory remarks against women:
In this section, the author quoted Varaha Purana:
Varaha Purana 177.17-22 “Looking at Narada, Krsna bent down his face in shame. He then told Narada in detail about the nature of women and their conduct leading to sin. ‘They have no consideration of time, of secrecy of what they do. Still they pass to be virtous. Women irrespective of their age, whether they be girls, teenagers, middle-aged or advanced in age, get their passion excited at the sight of a handsome man. O great sage, this is natural to them.
After Krishna said this, Narada continued this:
Varaha Purana 177. 23-24 “Narada fully agreed with Krishna in what he said, but knowing more about the woman of mind, made a remark that lead to the curse of samba. Narada said, a chariot doesn’t move with a single wheel alone. It is only when response of men do women get passion. They get gratified by the looks of men.”
Narada said that it is only because of men women get sexual passion, so men should be held responsible, shall we now consider this to be derogatory remarks against men?
He also quoted Garuda Purana 1.109.33-34. May I ask how this degrade women?
He also quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana:
Brahma Vaivartha Purana, Brahma Khanda 23.14-39 ”…The heart of women is keen like the edge of a razor…Immodesty and daring characteristic their conduct, and their deeds are tainted with defect and hypocrisy. O Lord of the universe the lust of a woman is eight times as great; hunger twice as great and cruelty, four times as great as the lust, hunger and cruelty of a man
My response here is such a statement is not there in Brahma Vaivarta Purana Brahma Khanda chapter 23. This chapter is basically describing what types of wives will a foolish householder will get. It is not describing either women as a whole or wives as a whole.
Understanding Rig Veda 10.95.15, Bhagavata Purana 9.14.36-38:
These two references basically describe the story of Pururava and Urvashi.
Urvasi didn’t want to see Pururava in naked.
Bhagavata Purana 9.14.22 “Urvaśī said: “My dear hero, only preparations made in ghee [clarified butter] will be my eatables, and I shall not want to see you naked at any time, except at the time of sexual intercourse.” The great-minded King Purūravā accepted these proposals.”
But once she saw him naked, so she left him:
9.14.31 “After giving up the two lambs, the Gandharvas shone brightly like lightning, thus illuminating the house of Purūravā. Urvaśī then saw her husband returning with the lambs in hand, but he was naked, and therefore she left.”
Later Pururava saw Urvasi somewhere and asked her to live with him, which Urvasi didn’t want:
9.14.33 “Once during his travels all over the world, Purūravā saw Urvaśī, accompanied by five companions, on the bank of the Sarasvatī at Kurukṣetra. With jubilation in his face, he then spoke to her in sweet words as follows.”
Thereafter only this happened:
Urvasi asked Pururava not to make your senses to overcome like foxes. It means she is linking his liking for Urvasi with fox. Thereafter she said “you should know that the heart of a woman is like that of a fox.” Thereafter she linked that fox with women in general. By saying this, she is trying to make the king Pururava not to long for her always. The intention here is not to degrade women by any means.
He then quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda 29.42-53 Devi Bhagavatam 9.33.20-50 and claimed that Hinduism says widows and barren women are degraded. However, none of these verses say so. These verses prohibit someone from eating food of a childless widows.
He also quoted several verses which say one should stop his journey on seeing a widow. My response here is, yes this is true. Because there is something called omen in Hinduism which can be observed while starting a journey. There are many omens, including one should stop his journey if he sees a single Brahmin man coming.
Widows are considered inauspicious only as long as they remain without practicing Vidva-vrata according to Skanda Purana:
[2] verses 74 to 103 of the same chapter mentions some vows.
Nowhere Hinduism equates widows or barren women with thieves or whores unlike he portrayed. He also quoted one verse from Brahma Vaivarta Purana which says whores will become widows. Whores are prostitutes, prostitution is wrong, so as a punishment for prostitution, they become widows in next life. Regarding cutting of hair, he quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krishna Janma Khanda 83.92-124. These and the other verses quoted by him simply describes Vidvavrata, which I already explained in my another article.
Some verses which may praise women:
Note: The underlined portion is all about wife in general, not chaste wife.
How to determine the nature of a woman:
Under this section, he cherry-picked verses from Garuda Purana 1.105. Let me cherry-pick another way from the same chapter:
Want to know which woman becomes a queen?
Some auspicious signs on women:
Well-rounded hips, devoid of hairs and arteries, are most auspicious. Well-formed joints and even knee-joints are most auspicious.
Thighs, like the trunk of an elephant, even and without hairs, are roost auspicious. A capacious buttock, like unto a fig-leaf, is most auspicious.
Loins, fire-head and chest, when they are of the form of a tortoise, are most auspicious. Fleshy wrists and hips are most auspicious for women.
A navel, capacious, deep and fleshy with three wrinkles inside, is most auspicious.
Even and pointed breasts without hairs are most auspicious. Red lips are most auspicious and round and fleshy mouth is the best.
Signs of royalty on women:
Eyes like blue lotuses well attached to the nose, eye-brows not very plump and like unto the rising moon, fore-head not very elevated and without hairs, not very fleshy and tender ears of equal size, and tender, curling and dark hairs are the most auspicious marks. Well-formed head and soles or palms, bearing the marks of horse, elephant, tree, sacrificial stake, wheat, Tomara, flag, chowri, garland, hill, well, altar, conch-shell, umbrella, lotus, fish, Svastika, car and goad are the signs of royalty in women.
Linear marks on the palms are the signs which show that a woman will not be widowed and enjoy her life. If a line rising from the wrist goes to the middle finger it indicates the possession of kingdom and happiness in women.
Which women will live for 100 years?
A line originating from the root of the youngest finger indicates life for a hundred years.
Proud wife should be punished:
In this section, he quoted Matsya Purana 225.132 and Manusmriti 8.371 and proud wife should be punished, let’s see how it should be interpreted, especially the words proud and relatives.
“Passing over means neglecting the husband and going over to another man; if a woman does this through ‘pride,’—the pride consisting in the idea,—‘I have several relations who are powerful and wealthy, and I myself am possessed of all the excellent qualities of a woman, such as beauty and love,—why then should I mind my character?’
Such women the king shall get devoured, till they die.
‘Place’—spot; where many people congregate, such as road-crossings, market-squares and so forth” (Medhatithi’s commentary on Manusmriti 8.371
Varaha Purana 177.17-22 “Looking at Narada, Krsna bent down his face in shame. He then told Narada in detail about the nature of women and their conduct leading to sin. ‘They have no consideration of time, of secrecy of what they do. Still they pass to be virtous. Women irrespective of their age, whether they be girls, teenagers, middle-aged or advanced in age, get their passion excited at the sight of a handsome man. O great sage, this is natural to them.
After Krishna said this, Narada continued this:
Varaha Purana 177. 23-24 “Narada fully agreed with Krishna in what he said, but knowing more about the woman of mind, made a remark that lead to the curse of samba. Narada said, a chariot doesn’t move with a single wheel alone. It is only when response of men do women get passion. They get gratified by the looks of men.”
Narada said that it is only because of men women get sexual passion, so men should be held responsible, shall we now consider this to be derogatory remarks against men?
He also quoted Garuda Purana 1.109.33-34. May I ask how this degrade women?
He also quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana:
Brahma Vaivartha Purana, Brahma Khanda 23.14-39 ”…The heart of women is keen like the edge of a razor…Immodesty and daring characteristic their conduct, and their deeds are tainted with defect and hypocrisy. O Lord of the universe the lust of a woman is eight times as great; hunger twice as great and cruelty, four times as great as the lust, hunger and cruelty of a man
My response here is such a statement is not there in Brahma Vaivarta Purana Brahma Khanda chapter 23. This chapter is basically describing what types of wives will a foolish householder will get. It is not describing either women as a whole or wives as a whole.
Understanding Rig Veda 10.95.15, Bhagavata Purana 9.14.36-38:
These two references basically describe the story of Pururava and Urvashi.
Urvasi didn’t want to see Pururava in naked.
Bhagavata Purana 9.14.22 “Urvaśī said: “My dear hero, only preparations made in ghee [clarified butter] will be my eatables, and I shall not want to see you naked at any time, except at the time of sexual intercourse.” The great-minded King Purūravā accepted these proposals.”
But once she saw him naked, so she left him:
9.14.31 “After giving up the two lambs, the Gandharvas shone brightly like lightning, thus illuminating the house of Purūravā. Urvaśī then saw her husband returning with the lambs in hand, but he was naked, and therefore she left.”
Later Pururava saw Urvasi somewhere and asked her to live with him, which Urvasi didn’t want:
9.14.33 “Once during his travels all over the world, Purūravā saw Urvaśī, accompanied by five companions, on the bank of the Sarasvatī at Kurukṣetra. With jubilation in his face, he then spoke to her in sweet words as follows.”
Thereafter only this happened:
9.14.36 “Urvaśī said: My dear King, you are a man, a hero. Don’t be impatient and give up your life. Be sober and don’t allow the senses to overcome you like foxes. Don’t let the foxes eat you. In other words, you should not be controlled by your senses. Rather, you should know that the heart of a woman is like that of a fox. There is no use making friendship with women.”
Urvasi asked Pururava not to make your senses to overcome like foxes. It means she is linking his liking for Urvasi with fox. Thereafter she said “you should know that the heart of a woman is like that of a fox.” Thereafter she linked that fox with women in general. By saying this, she is trying to make the king Pururava not to long for her always. The intention here is not to degrade women by any means.
He then quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda 29.42-53 Devi Bhagavatam 9.33.20-50 and claimed that Hinduism says widows and barren women are degraded. However, none of these verses say so. These verses prohibit someone from eating food of a childless widows.
He also quoted several verses which say one should stop his journey on seeing a widow. My response here is, yes this is true. Because there is something called omen in Hinduism which can be observed while starting a journey. There are many omens, including one should stop his journey if he sees a single Brahmin man coming.
Widows are considered inauspicious only as long as they remain without practicing Vidva-vrata according to Skanda Purana:
Skanda Purana IV.i.4.104. “A widow who is fond of her husband shall not do anything without asking her sons. A widow who is accustomed to observe all these vows [2] and practices, considered auspicious.”
[2] verses 74 to 103 of the same chapter mentions some vows.
Nowhere Hinduism equates widows or barren women with thieves or whores unlike he portrayed. He also quoted one verse from Brahma Vaivarta Purana which says whores will become widows. Whores are prostitutes, prostitution is wrong, so as a punishment for prostitution, they become widows in next life. Regarding cutting of hair, he quoted Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Krishna Janma Khanda 83.92-124. These and the other verses quoted by him simply describes Vidvavrata, which I already explained in my another article.
Some verses which may praise women:
Skanda Purana III.ii.7.64-65 “Wife is at the root of everything concerning a householder. Wife is the source of happiness. Wife is the fruit of virtue. Wife is for increase of progeny. The other world and this world, these two are won over by means of wife. It is through the wife only that the gods, manes and guests are propitiated. Only he should be considered a true householder, who has a chaste wife in his house.”
Note: The underlined portion is all about wife in general, not chaste wife.
Mahabharata 1.74 “A man’s half is his wife, the wife is her husband’s best of friends; the wife is the source of Dharma, Artha and Kāma; the wife is the source of salvation.”
How to determine the nature of a woman:
Under this section, he cherry-picked verses from Garuda Purana 1.105. Let me cherry-pick another way from the same chapter:
Want to know which woman becomes a queen?
“She, who has got cool and equal feet and palms, coppery nails, joining fingers with elevated tips, becomes a queen. One, obtaining her [as a wife] becomes a king. Well-formed ankle, lotus-like, tender and unperspiring palms containing the marks fish, goad and flag single out a woman for a queen. The feet of a queen bear the marks of a thunderbolt, lotus and plough-share.”
Some auspicious signs on women:
Well-rounded hips, devoid of hairs and arteries, are most auspicious. Well-formed joints and even knee-joints are most auspicious.
Thighs, like the trunk of an elephant, even and without hairs, are roost auspicious. A capacious buttock, like unto a fig-leaf, is most auspicious.
Loins, fire-head and chest, when they are of the form of a tortoise, are most auspicious. Fleshy wrists and hips are most auspicious for women.
A navel, capacious, deep and fleshy with three wrinkles inside, is most auspicious.
Even and pointed breasts without hairs are most auspicious. Red lips are most auspicious and round and fleshy mouth is the best.
Signs of royalty on women:
Eyes like blue lotuses well attached to the nose, eye-brows not very plump and like unto the rising moon, fore-head not very elevated and without hairs, not very fleshy and tender ears of equal size, and tender, curling and dark hairs are the most auspicious marks. Well-formed head and soles or palms, bearing the marks of horse, elephant, tree, sacrificial stake, wheat, Tomara, flag, chowri, garland, hill, well, altar, conch-shell, umbrella, lotus, fish, Svastika, car and goad are the signs of royalty in women.
Which women will never be widowed?
Linear marks on the palms are the signs which show that a woman will not be widowed and enjoy her life. If a line rising from the wrist goes to the middle finger it indicates the possession of kingdom and happiness in women.
Which women will live for 100 years?
A line originating from the root of the youngest finger indicates life for a hundred years.
Proud wife should be punished:
In this section, he quoted Matsya Purana 225.132 and Manusmriti 8.371 and proud wife should be punished, let’s see how it should be interpreted, especially the words proud and relatives.
“Passing over means neglecting the husband and going over to another man; if a woman does this through ‘pride,’—the pride consisting in the idea,—‘I have several relations who are powerful and wealthy, and I myself am possessed of all the excellent qualities of a woman, such as beauty and love,—why then should I mind my character?’
Such women the king shall get devoured, till they die.
‘Place’—spot; where many people congregate, such as road-crossings, market-squares and so forth” (Medhatithi’s commentary on Manusmriti 8.371
Great work! exposing lies, keep it up! That blog Vedkabhed is full of lies based on false translations by a leftist.
ReplyDeleteThe real translation can be achieved by good publishers or through Arya Samaj.
Thanks bro. Read my latest article.https://vedicanubhav.blogspot.com/2021/02/exposing-lies-on-sati.html?m=1
Deletefirstly, awesome blog, am a sanskrit student and really appreciate the blog, found it on the community post of a youtube channel called hindu response.
ReplyDeletesome general questions:
1) what are your views on arya samaj? they always blaspheme ram, krishna and puranas.
vedārthād adhikaṃ manye purāṇārthaṃ varānane
Nārada Purāṇa
(Quoted by Śrīla Jīva Goswami in his Tattva-sandarbha)
2) who are you, a shaiv or a vishnava? i do not take shaktās seriously because their accusations on vaishnavas are absurd and easily refutable. After completing my studies in sanskrit i will soon start a blog defending vaishnavism as the supreme vedic position.
3) are you on the side of arya samaj when it comes to moorti pooja? if yes some pramans of murti pooja are given by me here. if no then you can read it if you like.
//I have referred to a book (in Tamil) called "Vishnu Chitta Vijayam, Part 4", published by
Srivaishnava Sudarsanam/Srivaishnavasri, Srirangam (page 120) in which the following convincing argument is given:
"It is the opinion of the ignorant that there is no Murti Puja in the Vedas.
There are many places in which the Vedas talk about Murti Puja. For example,
in the Rigveda (Mandala 10, Sukta 130, Mantra 3), we have the statement
'kAsIt pramA pratimA' which means 'what was the size and what was the deity form (murti form) of that God?'. Sayana's Bhashya for 'pratimA' here goes as 'pratimA means the vigraha form which the God takes in order to accept the sacrificial offerings in a yajna'
(haviH prati yogitvena mIyate nirmIyata iti pratimA devatA'.
In addition, there is a description of the yajna called 'iShTishayanaM'. (Taittiriya Samhita 5.2.7) There is an instruction to conduct the yajna with a form similar to that of Garuda using bricks. Here, we also find the following statement: 'If one worships the golden murti of Purusha seated on the murti of that bird, the conductor of the sacrifices (yajamana) obtains all glory'. This is an obvious reference to Lord Vishnu seated on His mount, Garuda."
In addition, it is said in the Ramayana that Rama worshiped Lord Vishnu (Himself) in the murti form inside ayodhya (in Ayodhya Kanda). In this worship, Valmiki states that Lord Rama performed a Vedic yajna in the temple for the purpose of this worship. In addition, when Rama goes to the hermitage of Agastya (in Aranya Kanda), he finds that Agastya, the sage, had consecrated the mUrti forms of many Vedic devatas. These two incidents also support the fact that murti pooja is supported by the Vedas.//
Thanks for appreciating my blog. You asked me about my opinion on Arya Samaj. So let me tell you I respect Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati from bottom of my heart. Yes I also do idol worship. I disagree on some things with Arya Samaj like idol worship, not accepting Puranas. But I agree that a large part of smriti and Puranas is an interpolation. Similarly I agree with Shankaracharya on many things. I respect his views but I disagree on his views regarding varna system. Talking about saiva or Vaishnava, actually I am not following any of these sect. I just follow the teachings of Vedas and give mutual respect to both shiva and Vishnu because kaivalya Upanishad states that same para Brahma incarnated as Vishnu for preservaence and as Shiva for destruction so both are same for me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteprabhu ji which parts do you think might be an interpolation as arya samajis give the bogus interpolation argument without any proof.
Deleteabout kaivalya upanishad which verse prabhu ji.
in my opinion only those parts quoted by acharyas are authentic as it says shiva is supreme (first contradiction from the shruti)
says the worship of nirakar form of shiva is greater than sakar worship. (second contradiction)
refer page 11
https://www.v0.chinfo.org/images/userupload/Reflections/27_Kaivalya_Upanishad.pdf
deleted my last comment as i rejected kaivalya upanishad entirely and did not have any option to edit the comment. but had concrete proofs to reject it too even adi shankara in his vishnu sahasranam bhashya openly stated that lord vishnu is the supreme lord and the philosophy you stated
Delete//kaivalya Upanishad states that same para Brahma incarnated as Vishnu for preservaence and as Shiva for destruction so both are same for me.//
is condemned by krishna in gita
Bhagavad Gita 7.24
Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.
Sir I think you are an Isckon follower. Well You asked me about interpolation in scriptures so yes there is a lot of interpolation. Our scriptures specially Puranas and Smritis contradict each other it means they were edited by people time to time. But unlike Arya Samaj I don't completely. My freind You said that you reject Kaivalya Upanishad Mantra 8 because of Adi Shankaracharya statement but is his statement more valid then our Upanishads? And yes Vishnu is supereme God because he is also parambrahama and Shiva too. If you will check Vishnu Sahasranama you will find that Vishnu is also known as Shiva while in Shiva Sahasranama Shiva is called Vishnu. In Rigveda 2:1 it is written that Vishnu, Rudra, Brahma are different names of Same Prabrahma. Nrayana Upanishad ( a Vaishnava Upanishad) states that Vishnu and Shiva are same similarly Akshamalika Upanishad (sahaivite Upanishad) says that Shiva and Vishnu are same. Even Vishnu Purana Book 1 Chapter 2 states that Same Parambrahama incarnated as Brahma for creation, Vishnu for Preservaence and Shiva for destruction.
DeleteAnd Bhagwad Gita is also right. Lord Krishna is supereme godhead because he is incantation of Lord Vishnu and Vishnu is a form of Prabrahma. Supereme God or Parambrahama is described in Vedas as formless but he takes different forms .
Deletefirstly, let me make it clear the i am not a hardcore follower of ISKCON, but i like them because many ISKCON devotes are my online friends and have crushed arya samaji's arguements, that's why.
Delete//Our scriptures specially Puranas and Smritis contradict each other//
yes because they are divided in tamsik (shiva oreanted) rajsik (brahma, agni) and satvik (vishnu oreanted)
//My freind You said that you reject Kaivalya Upanishad Mantra 8 because of Adi Shankaracharya statement but is his statement more valid then our Upanishads?//
sa brahmaa sa shivah sendrah
sah aksharah paramah svaraat
sah eva vishnuh sa praanah
sah kaala agnih sa chandramaah.
here by simple sanskrit-hindi translation says in the third part of the verse that vishnu is the supreme, i mean this verse declares that vishnu is the supreme, because it uses the word "eva" for vishnu.
"i would like to quote a brahma sutra 1.3.3 bhashya by madhvacharya"
He is Siva, for, He is absolutely blissful.
He is Brahma, for He is perfect and He is Indra (the wealthy), for He is the sole Lord
(TRANSLATED BY PROF. PADNURANGI, quoted from brahmand purana by madhvacharya)
to support this interpretation we have some gita verses where vishnu says i am time(11.32), i am the fire of digestion (15.4), i am prāna (10.20).
//while in Shiva Sahasranama Shiva is called Vishnu.//
i have a big big doubt on shiva sahasranama as an interpolation in mahabharata. because of the following reasons. 1) Mahabharata talk about Shiva as a jivatma, 2) are quoted by ancient vidwans (like ramanujacharya, "will take some time to locate where he did so") as proof of supremacy of vishnu, then how can there be other sections that, praise shiva at the expense of vishnu and are not quoted by any shaivites before the 16th century in favor of shiva?
Indeed, how can both sections exist as part of the original text? Even hari-hara aikyawaad cannot be arrived at by these portions as they are too extreme to be reconciled.
and if you say that some of mAdhva and Sri vaishnava scholars consider Shiva sahasranAma as genuine, let me assure you that all this is only out of political correctness. One vidwan who regularly appears on social media says this because he is speaking to a secular audience, these vidwan are revered as elders by non-vaishnava as well who wouldn't understand the truth if they stated it, they would think it's some sort of ninda.
and let me make it clear that whenever the shruti says "para brahma" or any synonym, then it is referring to narayana only the supreme absolute reality.
"Eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma, nEshana…"
Bro didn't understood me. Yes I know Vishnu is supereme lord because he is also an incarntation of Parambrahama. Same as Shiva. Both are equal. I don't like when shaivites and Vaishnavas fight with each other that who is supereme. And Shiva Sahasranama is also mentioned in skanda Purana etc. Vishnu Sahasranama calls Vishnu Shiva it means both are same. According to Vedas Shiva, Vishnu Brahma are same and incarnation of para Brahma and Vedas are supereme authority of Hinduism. I also showed you a proof from Vishnu purana
Deletewas my comment deleted? i replied you. and in vishnu purana book 1 chapter too are you talking about this verse?
Deletesṛṣṭisthityantakaraṇīṃ brahmaviṣṇuśivātmikām |
sa saṃjñāṃ yāti bhagavāneka eva janārdanaḥ ||” (Vishnu Purana, 1.2.66)
this verse itself means that janardhana (krishna) is the supreme lord and assumes the form of the three devas, as (the antaryAmin of) Brahma, as vishNu, as (the antaryAmin of) Rudra for creation, preservation and destruction.
//According to Vedas Shiva, Vishnu Brahma are same and incarnation of para Brahma//
please prabhu ji show some references? and don't quote that bogus upanishad, its not authentic.
about shiva sahasranam, there are differences between the versions of shiva sahasranam and it is clearly an interpolation in mahabharata where Lord Krishna quotes the Shiva Sahasra Naama Stotra to Yudhishthara as he learnt from Sage Upamanyu. and the stotra are only stated in tamsik puranas which belittle vishnu. can not be considered as authentic.
and where ever in the shruti claims shiva/rudra to be the supreme lord, there either the perticular verse is referring to vishnu only as i quoted brahma sutra bhashya of madhavacharya earlier. or if the shruti is being specific like parvati-pati or something like that, then we will have to consider that vishnu is the antaryami of shiva as stated in vishnu sahasranama.
rudrO bahushirA babhru…,AdidevO mahAdevO
- vishnu sahasranama
How come you know that certain puran is tamsik just because its shiva centric or sung the glory of lord shiva its pure hypocrisy
DeleteWho classified them as tamsik let me guess a vaishanava puran come on
There is no God superior to Shiva in the Vedas. All deities are Pashus, Shiva alone is Pashupati. Rest are Jivas.
DeleteBrother @Mohit Upadhyay , Do you Really think Brahma Vishnu Mahesh Really Exist ?
DeleteI don't Think so....Logically I can debunk God don't have hand and feet , if he have then he lost the control over his Creation
Puranik Characters Were Evolved In last 1600-1800 yrs , These are Imagination they don't exist in Reality
Note --- i am not Arya samaji I am Vedanti
Hi, Mohit. Hare Krishna! I really find your insights on Murti puja in Vedas quite interesting, I want to dig deeper into this topic as some people say Vedas reject murti puja. Is there any way to reach you. Please, respond.
ReplyDeleteI was looking for a counter because that muslim guy running website called "ved ka bhed " and spreading misinformation.
ReplyDeleteWe need to create more counter to highlight his biased work.
I really thank you for doing this work.♥️🙏
Brother @Mohit Upadhyay , Do you Really think Brahma Vishnu Mahesh Really Exist ?
ReplyDeleteI don't Think so....Logically I can debunk God don't have hand and feet
Puranik Characters Were Evolved In last 1600-1800 yrs , These are Imagination they don't exist in Reality
Note --- i am not Arya samaji I am Vedanti