Need Help: A Question on Daughters, Hinduism, Gender and Religion
Long-time readers of my blog would remember a post I had carried on in 2009 – in response to a query from an eager student of Hinduism on why higher caste, saintly people and gods/goddesses were predominantly painted using bright colours in Indian art? The eager student was Owen Slavin. In my response to him I wrote that his queries may be more easily resolved if I post them on my blog – since there would be many readers far better-read and well-versed in Indian sacred literature and art history than me. The result was this post: Question on Indian Art. Last week, Owen wrote to me once again. This time with the following question (emphasis added):
Dear  Shantanu,
..There is an expression in India that to have a daughter is like watering your neighbors garden.  The result of this is a poorer life outcome for women in terms of health (physical/psychological), materially and in terms of education. Women feel like and are treated as second-class citizens. Young girls especially feel under-valued and unwanted. This made me think of what role religion may have had in determining this negative view.
I was recently reading both  the Guru Gita and The Crest Jewel of Wisdom (Shankara). The former which promised like many other prayers do, that if one recites it then you willbe granted “sons and grandsons”. In the latter (Adi) Shankara  states “For all beings a human birth is difficult to obtain, more so is a male body…The man who, having by some means obtained a human birth,with a male body and mastery of the Vedas to boot, is foolish enough not to exert himself for self-liberation,verily commits suicide, for he kills himself by clinging to things unreal.” Is this quote of Shankara not being discriminatory here?
…I mentioned this to an Indian friend who told me Krishna apparently had 10 sons for every one daughter, Rama and his brothers and Lord Shiva all had two sons each and no daughters. There are many techniques mentioned in Ayurvedic texts to increase one’s chances of having a son but few methods are described if one wants a daughter.
On the other hand Hinduism has given birth to such powerful and empowered Goddesses such as Durga and Kali.
Please do not think I am being critical but I am just trying to gain an understanding  and  would be most appreciative if anyone could possible throw some light on the above as I may simply be misinterpreting the texts. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,Owen
Owen’s question is thought-provoking and I intend to do some digging to find out more. In the meantime, I am opening up this post for thoughts and comments from readers – many of whom are more learned, and far more widely read than me.
Separately, I have already pointed Owen in the direction of these 2 excellent guest-posts: Women in Hinduism – Part 1 and Part II by Dr Raju Maliger. Some of you may also find these two (somewhat related) posts interesting:Â The Last Word on Water.. and a post on the declining sex ratio in India. Look forward to thoughts & comments.
In Vivekachudamani, the actual term used is “puMsatvam”, which roughly translates to “manliness” or “manhood”. I believe this refers to the mental state of a person, specifically to one’s maturity. Maturity and discrimination is essential in the spiritual path. This need not be extrapolated to be favoring men. Both masculine and feminine characteristics are needed for a spiritual path, but when a particular characteristic is referred to, it does not necessarily favor a specific gender.
@Shantanu
Pls read the article below and also the related ones on the website. This might help you.
http://agniveer.com/women-in-hinduism/
Why is Vivekachudamani being discriminatory? At a time when women were not allowed to study upaniShads, Shankaracharya sees men as having greater shot at liberation. It is a commentary on, not a prescription for, the state of affairs at that time.
Apropos your post, https://satyameva-jayate.org/2012/06/22/girl-child-in-hinduism/, I was reminded of an excellent book I read recently, “Unnatural Selection”, by Mara Hvistendahl, and which I reviewed on my blog earlier in the month (http://blog.abhinavagarwal.net/2012/06/review-unnatural-selection-by-mara.html). While the book covers the topic of the skewed gender ratio in Asia, it does devote considerable space to the topic when it comes to India, and particularly the distortion of Indian and Hindu history by the British.
I am including some quotes from the book review here. This topic, of the treatment of women in Vedic literature and Hindu society is an interesting one, and I will be following this site for updates.
“…British military historian John William Kaye, who succeeded John Stuart Mill as secretary of the East India Company Political and Secret Department”, was one such luminary, and he had “infinite energy for detailing Indians’ faults, and he devoted an entire chapter of his book to female infanticide.” What brings a wry smile is the author’s observation that “But England’s imperialists took care to distinguish India’s baby killings from the abuses that occurred on their own turf. “In this Christian country, it is to be feared that the dark crime of infanticide is painfully on the increase,” Kaye wrote of England. “Still it is only a crime – incidental, exceptional. In some parts of India it has been, for many generations, a custom.””
“Marriage practices change over time, of course. Bride-price and dowry have long fluctuated with economic cycles. But the colonial surveyors treated the Indian marital practices they encountered as if they were static, … As time went on, the idea that some castes and tribes had always killed girls evolved into doctrine. The report that accompanied the 1901 census, which found continued evidence of girl killing, explained that some castes had a tradition of female infanticide dating to “olden times.” The 1921 census went one step further, classifying India’s castes into those that killed their daughters and those that didn’t. …Western officials, philosophers, and writers were swept up in a search for proof that the darker, southern inhabitants of the world needed to be civilized. …No custom was too obscure, no native crime too sensational.”
“Flabby analysis of subcontinent history persisted well into the twentieth century. According to the historians Barbara and Thomas Metcalf, the idea that “because India was ‘timeless,’ the village and caste organization of colonial or even contemporary India was a guide to its historical past” remains one of the central misperceptions in histories of India.”
An initial comment, rather a question to Owen.
Whenever observations like the ones Owen asked you come about, I wonder and honestly so about some more questions:
If Adi Sankara was really discriminatory in substance, why did he write so much literature on just the female deities. His first piece was in response to a lady who gave him “bhiksha” out of generosity though she was very poor. This piece is called Kanaka Dhara Stotram (loosely means – a prayer for a shower of gold). One of his favorite names is “Sarada” – a female deity. He established two peethams in the name of Sarada! Why? Taking this one line alone without applying it in context could be a problem. May be it needs to be understood in that way?
In fact, Sankara was instrumental in establishing the importance of female deity. Most of his works extoll the vedic importance of female. His works on Annapurna, Mahishasura Mardini etc. are an example.
I would in fact go one step further and say his works spoke of importance of both male and female and a Dharmic bond between them through vivaham (commonly called Marriage in English). This can be seen in Ardhanareeswara Stotram. It is believed that he wrote Sarada Bhujanga Prayata Stotram after a female fed him and his disciples at Sringa Mountain in Sringeri.
Not just Adi Sankara, but even Ramanujacharya’s works were in this domain. His most popular Bhashyam (or commentary) is on Bramha Sutras and it is called “Sri Bhashyam”. Sri is a direct reference to Godess Lakshmi. Complete Acharya parampara in his school of thought gave some superb works and establishments which reinforced the importance female in the society.
I think it is post modern world that unfortunately took all these literary works out of context. The context in which Sankara made those comments has to be taken into account. Sankara was trying to take the best out of philosophies like Sankhya where female and male are seen as two different entities. His idea to integrate everything into one universal consciousness which is everything and everywhere, which is both the experience and experienced is a point that has to stressed in this debate.
As a Hindu, I am allowed to distance myself from some thoughts of even Adi Shankaracharya. Once we accept this fact, we can explore this issue further.
In marathi, my mother tongue, I do not know equivalent saying for “having a girl as watering neighbor’s garden” though there are other sayings similar but less severe in gender discrimination. It would be interesting to analyze the periods of origin for these.
Is it really a revelation that Indian texts are discriminatory against women? Even a popular devotional hymn (Sholkas) of Laxmi called “Shri Suktam” has a verse that wishes the devotee to have sons. Bias towards sons is as old as Indian culture.
The old testament has some things that would not be considered ideal from the present day culture that does not take away from the spiritual message of the old testament. Even the new testament and the new bible could be interpreted to have references to slavery, yet it was the modern western Christians who got rid of slavery. The same way there might be some anti-women statements in old Hindu texts/sholkas but it should not take anything away from it general spiritual message. And if Indian culture is truly progressive then all those biases have to be removed from present day social practices.
very pertinant q sir ,even in amritmanthan ,as per my knowledge no women took part ! if so y – some disrimination wass it
A classic case of ‘drain inspector’ again.
Owen needs to understand / check things like why ‘woe-man’ are forced to ‘keep their heads’ covered’ in church where as man can do without it; & why ‘god-man’ XAVIER complained of heathens in S.India worshiping ‘black gods’ etc before examining Vivekachudamani.
One commentator ‘Vidhya’ has pointed out the correct version. A certain amount of ‘pumsatvam’ is needed to be able to get on a spiritual life.
Spiritual masters like Mata Amritanandamayi devi & Swami Chinmayananda have specified this in their discourses.
“many techniques mentioned in Ayurvedic texts to increase one’s chances of having a son but few methods are described if one wants a daughter.”
This allegation is wrong and mischievous. AFAIK, Ayurvedic shastras are very clear on this (was used for having sons and daughters as desired). The method ‘ Pumsvana’ was ridiculed for its distorted etymology by alleging that this was another aspect of patriarchy.( it needs to be noted that this whole technique was considered ‘un-scientific’ by western morons; but now they are very silent on this allegation.)
Skewed arguments.
The tale is one of the tortoise and the hare: Women are superior in almost all respects : calmness, sensory perception, multi-tasking, intuition etc. But they have tough tasks that bog them down: the menstrual cycle, the urge for bearing children, chidbirth, child-rearing and myriad tasks as householders.
Men are relatively free in these matters, and therefore, the (male) tortoise actually gets a chance in the race.
My firm belief is that this is the basis for Shankara’s statement.
If you think along abrahamic faith, then ‘yes’ sastras are biased against women. They all believe in single birth and eternal hell or heaven. As per our Sanatana Dharma, the current janma is due to the merits/demerits acquired in the previous births. Pumsatvam is one opportunity for you to study vedas and realize the atman. If you miss this then you never know when again you will get this opportunity. It is like in the corporate world people get promoted to higher ups based on their merits. But after reaching the higher level, if you degrade you’ll be shown the door. The only difference is that in corporate world the nepotism may allow corrupt ones to continue as it is man made but in Sanatana Dharma there is no deviation as it is eternal one.
Thanks All for your points and very thoughtful comments..I have been badly tied up in work but shall try to respond next week..
In the meantime, I must express my gratitude to all of you – I learn so much just reading the thoughts you share and following the links.
Pl continue the discussion/ Thanks
Hello Shantanu,
It may help you to explore Agniveer’s work at http://www.agniveer.com. Specifically, read this http://agniveer.com/women-in-hinduism/
Here and at other places in the website, Agniveer has quite successfully debunked myths about the status of women in Vedas.
Regards,
I am not better-read nor well-versed in Indian sacred literature and art history – but still I will share here whatever bit I know…
From July 2007 to July 2008, Swami Ramdevs Patanjali Yogpeeth ran 1 hour daily program on Aastha channel on Veda, Upanishad, Sanskaara and Sanskriti.
The speakers were traditional Sanskrit experts: Dr Dharamveer Singh, Bharadhwaj Ji, Dr Mahaveer (Principal of Gurukul Kangri University), Dr Javalant Kumar Shastri, Dr Surendra Kumar (of Vishudha Manusmriti), Satyananda Veda Vaageesh Ji, Dr Vaagesh Acharya
This question came up many times in their readings. Once a person even directly mailed Satyananda Veda Vaageesh Ji – raising this issue.
I don’t remember in exact detail the replies – but the broadly they explained that word Purusha has different meanings by the context – at times it means Almighty, at times it just means Person (male or female), and in few places it means Man.
They also brought this forward that one who does not learn Sanskrit properly ends up misinterpreting it.
In my last post I forgot to mention many other names.
One more that I remember is: Dr Satish Prakash (of http://www.aryasamajtoday.org)
People in India were backward in those days. They did not have cars. They travelled on foot. They did not have maternity hospitals (Adi Shankaracharya has not mentioned of one) so women really suffered a lot.
Outside India, the world was very well developed. All were equal, happy, and prosperous. Outside India, women were given a lot of respect, and still men and women were equal because men also were given a lot of respect.
The tradition of disrespecing women still continues in India. For the President’s election in 2012, no party bothered to offer candidature to a woman!
http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-mythology/escape-from-put.html
“For several days and nights, the Rishi Jaratkaru was tormented by visions of old men hanging precariously upside down from a ledge extending across a dark bottomless pit. “Save us, save us,†they cried. “Who are you?†asked the sage. The old men replied, “We are Pitrs, your ancestors. Save us. Save yourself.†“How?†asked Jaratkaru. “Here is how,†said the ancestors, “get a wife and beget upon her children. If you don’t we will forever be trapped in Pitr-loka (the land of ancestors), hanging upside down, and you will be trapped forever in the hell known as Put.â€
This story recurs several times in the Puranas. Rishi Agastya had a similar vision. Following this vision, Jaratkaru and Agastya get married and produce children. A male offspring was called Putra and a female offspring was called Putri because by their birth they saved their parents from the hell known as Put reserved for men and women who refuse to produce children. Pitrs are typically portrayed in art in male form because in the language of symbols, the male form is used to represent the soul while the female form is used to represent the flesh.”
Patnaik is not being politically correct. Read this story in Mahabharat.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01117.htm
SECTION CXVI
(Sambhava Parva continued)
“Janamejaya said, ‘O sinless one, thou hast narrated to me from the beginning all about the birth of Dhritarashtra’s hundred sons owing to the boon granted by the Rishi. But thou hast not told me as yet any particulars about the birth of the daughter. Thou hast merely said that over and above the hundred sons, there was another son named Yuyutsu begotten upon a Vaisya woman, and a daughter. The great Rishi Vyasa of immeasurable energy said unto the daughter of the king of Gandhara that she would become the mother of a hundred sons. Illustrious one, how is that thou sayest Gandhari had a daughter over and above her hundred sons? If the ball of flesh was distributed by the great Rishi only into a hundred parts, and if Gandhari did not conceive on any other occasion, how was then Duhsala born. Tell me this, O Rishi! my curiosity hath been great.”
“Vaisampayana said, ‘O descendant of the Pandavas, thy question is just, and I will tell thee how it happened. The illustrious and great Rishi himself, by sprinkling water over that ball of flesh, began to divide it into parts. And as it was being divided into parts, the nurse began to take them up and put them one by one into those pots filled with clarified butter. While this process was going on, the beautiful and chaste Gandhari of rigid vows, realising the affection that one feeleth for a daughter, began to think within herself, ‘There is no doubt that I shall have a hundred sons, the Muni having said so. It can never be otherwise. But I should be very happy if a daughter were born of me over and above these hundred sons and junior to them all. My husband then may attain to those worlds that the possession of a daughter’s sons conferreth. Then again, the affection the women feel for their sons-in-law is great. If, therefore, I obtain a daughter over and above my hundred sons, then, surrounded by sons and daughter’s sons, I may feel supremely blest. If I have ever practised ascetic austerities, if I have ever given anything in charity, if I have ever performed the homa (through Brahamanas), if I have ever gratified my superiors by respectful attentions, then (as the fruit of those acts) let a daughter be born unto me.’
All this while that illustrious and best of Rishis, Krishna-Dwaipayana himself was dividing the ball of flesh; and counting a full hundred of the parts, he said unto the daughter of Suvala, ‘Here are thy hundred sons. I did not speak aught unto thee that was false. Here, however, is one part in excess of the hundred, intended for giving thee a daughter’s son. This part shall develop into an amiable and fortunate daughter, as thou hast desired’ Then that great ascetic brought another pot full of clarified butter, and put the part intended for a daughter into it.
“Thus have I, O Bharata, narrated unto thee all about the birth of Duhsala. Tell me, O sinless one, what more I am now to narrate.’
We just need to look at the text as-is without trying to interpret using our present-day politics and political-correctness. As Vidhya pointed out above in #1, pumsatvam is a “state” – specifically the state of ones consciousness. Following that verse see manushyatvam – which is achieved after hundred crore births. Basically, a jeevatma who is in that extremely rare state of being a male brahmana (guna+karma), with the knowledge of vedanta, should not waste it away – and should focus on moksha, jeevan-mukti. At that state, because of the sattva guna, it is comparatively easier to renounce all attachments, whereas in other states it is comparatively difficult – but not impossible – because ultimately it is all Brahman.
#3. froginthewell said: … At a time when women were not allowed to study upaniShads …
We can be pretty sure that Mandana Mishra’s wife, Ubhaya Bharathi, was a woman.
Why do we fall for baits? And after falling explain in a defensive way till cows come home?
I want to see that for every such question asked by such eager learners (who have mastered enough Sanskrit punditry to understand complex sentences from Veda-s, why they can’t understand the real meaning as well), a similar excerpt from their religious books is put forward.
As, why is Mary Virgin? Or why does Mohammad say to his own son to divorce his young wife so he could marry her? What does that amount to?
Answer a question only to a su-pAtra, one who really wants to learn. Otherwise, ask a counter question to a ku-pAtra.
Written words are already easy to misinterpret. The answer to the questions raised is not difficult, if one wants to understand that life is NOT politically correct at all. A look a Unnatural Selection will also help understand that the desire to have a son (with or without a daughter as well) is not just Indian thing.
The mention of 15 types of hells and 17 types of heavens have to be understood at a social psychology. If we don’t do that then there is no point even discussing anything.
The dark ages in Europe saw a very interesting thing develop. A field book manual to detect, find, tackle, persecute a witch. Yes, it was no joke. The Church had a massive mission which killed over 2 million women in the most brutal way – naked live burning at stake; third degree torture of skin burning, nail-pulling etc.
This whole operation was sanctioned by the Pope. Now, who should I go and ask some clarification as to why so many women were killed, and sex ration screwed along with the fairer sex?
In the name of search for truth, don’t all for baits from a ku-pAtra.
I can ask 10 intriguing questions about anyone’s mother. How much should they respond academically and respectfully?
When God finds they have eaten the apple, the punishment to the woman was ‘I will increase you pain during childbirth’.
The very process that will give more meek sheep to herd, is a punishment!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who wants to explain that to me? Where is the gender equality?
And Why did Adam and Eve have two SONS Caine and Abel?