Hindu Media Wiki

Why are sex, menstruation and excretion considered impure in Hinduism?

Student of ReligionsAuthor has 7.9K answers and 146.7M answer views6y

These three are considered as “impure” in Judaism and Islam as well.

Hindu Scriptures recommend a shower after sex. Sex is often accompanied by sticky fluid stuff which most people don’t consider very favourably and many people shower after sex regardless of religion.

The menstrual discharge consists of the waste matter of the uterus - in ancient India there were no accessories like tampons etc. to manage the cycle - and so while menstruating, women were segregated in order to avoid contamination and embarrassment. This confinement also relieved them from all domestic duties for 3 -4 days. Most women never had any other days off! I still remember days of my childhood when strange looking rags were hung on the washing line monthly - people avoided explaining to us what their function was!

Excretion — meaning any discharge from the human body, urine, feces, sweat, snot and tears are not considered as “pure” by any one I dare say.

What happens if a woman who is menstruating enters a Hindu temple?

Why would a menstruating woman want to enter a temple?

In Hinduism, temples are not essential places for people to pray - you can pray or meditate anywhere - even in your bedroom sitting on your bed.

If it is have the darshan of the enshrined deity - that too is never an emergency - so another day could be chosen.

If it is to hang out with friends perhaps a mall would be more conducive.

If it is to study the architecture then the best part of a temple is its facade - the inside is very bland.

If it simply to challenge custom and tradition then nothing will happen unless she broadcasts it to all and sundry as she goes along - some people might find it willful and objectionable and say something abusive. If it is brought to the attention of the priests then they may perform a purification ceremony.

Why is menstruation considered impure?

This question has been asked at least 100 times.

All exudate from the human body is considered as “impure” i.e.

• Blood
• Urine
• feces
• pus
• sputum
• sperm

As long as these substance are present, the situation is said to one of “impurity”.

Purity and immunity are social conventions.

This is agreed by Jews and Muslims as well as Hindus.

In India, why are girls not allowed in temples at the time of their periods?

Well first of all let’s review some Hindu rules about purity. All the exudates of the human body are considered impure and defiling i.e. saliva, urine, feces, blood. So the presence of any of these substances on the body render one ritually “impure” and therefore not fit to enter into sacred spaces.

So it is not gender specific but substance specific. If a man or a woman has diarrhea regardless of the number of pads they may be wearing they cannot enter a temple or participate in religious ceremonies, spit on the beard or hands like after eating, also render one impure. So does the presence of blood on a person - whether it be in the form of menstruation or a bleeding wound in a man.

Now I know that feminists would glorify menstruation but the fact is that the menstrual discharge is waste matter - the lining of the uterus which is being discharged.

Going to the temple is not an essential feature of Hinduism - you can go your entire life without ever seeing the inside of a temple and still be a good, pious wholesome and devoted person - so why would anyone insist on going to the temple during menstruation when they have a day off?

What is the fuss about women entering Sabarimala temple? Why can't either groups back down from their stance and reach an amicable solution?

Bhagavad Gita 12:15 yasmān no dvijate loko lokān nodvijate ca yaḥ | harṣāmarṣabhayo-dvegaiḥ mukto yaḥ sa ca me priyaḥ ||

One by whom the world is not disturbed, and who is not disturbed by the world, who is free from joy and jealousy, fear and repulsion — is dear to me.

Many have asked my opinion on this now international news item and I have been reluctant to engage, but finally I shall give my 2 pence but I make no pronouncements and just ask some rhetorical questions.

Firstly it is none of my business or interest. I am not a devotee of Ayyapan and have no desire to visit the temple. Shan Bharani has written an excellent response and I fully endorse everything he has said.

1. In a liberal democracy there is a separation of Church and State. Does the judiciary have any right to intervene in a purely religious dispute? Would the learned and esteemed justices have given the same verdict based on gender-equality with regard to Mosques and women being allowed to stand in the same row with men during namaz?
2. The temple is managed by a Devaswom board, a committee, priests and a high priest all of whom are stake-holders. In any democracy the corporate bodies within that democracy operate by exercising of the vote - the majority wining. Were those stake-holders of the temple democratically consulted? Or — if so - was their majority decision respected?
3. The temple is a private space and it is occupied by everyone regardless of caste or creed (even Yesudas a Christian has made the pilgrimage) entrance is at the discretion of the authorities and according to the constitution of the temple. Does the sentiment and devotional convictions of these thousands of other devotees need to be taken into consideration or is the majority irrelevant to the demands of a few?
4. Do those women who are campaigning to enter the temple do so from overwhelming devotion that cannot bear a moments separation from their beloved lord or are they doing so from political reasons?
5. There are hundreds of other Ayyapan temples in every city in Kerala and most of India - in these temples women have full right of access and the right to exercise their devotional imperatives - Sabarimala is the ONE temple in the entire world in which there is restriction of access to women from 10 to 50 years old — why has this single remote temple become the focus of SJW’s activism?
6. Temples and sacred places in India are associated with legends, mysticism, traditions, customs and practices particular to that place - as Shan has pointed out - should we not respect those traditions and practices and let them be? (As long as no one is harmed — temple entry is not a human right.)
7. Kerala is run by a communist government and as such is severely hostile to religion - is such a Government an impartial arbitrator in this dispute or should they back off from conflict of interest?
8. This regrettable incident has generated huge international interest and has attracted negative criticism of Hinduism by talking-heads without any understanding of the complexity of the issue - is this in any way beneficial?

Here's a list of 8 temples in India where men are not allowed to enter!

For all those who wish to have immediate darshan of Lord Ayyapan without rush or discomfort or controversy here’s his picture:–