How to Address Feminist Questions regarding Lord Rama,Krishna in Ramayana and Mahabharata in FeminismInIndia Hindu-Phobia and Hindu-Hatred

2 points | Post submitted by suyash95 13 days ago | 3 comments | viewed 51 times

Countering Feminism propaganda against Hindu Gods like Ramayana , Mahabharata


Add your comment

Please Login or Signup to leave a comment
  • suyash95 13 days ago | +0 points

    If any man in today’s day and age did what Ram did to Sita, that man would be shamed and cursed, then why is Ram worshipped?

    The very premise of the question is dubious. To compare the domestic events of the Ramayana with modern values is false. The Ramayana is a didactic narrative - it is about the difficulty of practicing Dharma in a real world of competing values and demands.

    What people are doing to manage their domestic affairs in today’s world is something else. Divorce and serial marriages and partnerships are becoming the norm.

    Divorce demography - Wikipedia

    Some SJW’s want to find misogyne in the Ramayana and deconstruct it using Marxist paradigms of power, privilege and gender-conflict.

    Here are some pertinent factors to consider.

    Sita was never forced by the patriarchy to do anything against her wish. She freely chose to marry Rama, she chose to go to the forest with him - in fact - insisted, despite all discouragement. She chose to send Lakshmana away - with cruel torments, she then chose to ignore warnings and to cross the line drawn by Lakshmana. So Sita was not the passive victim of male patriarchy - she was the victim of her own decisions.

    Now lest the feminist cohort begin a barrage of abuse - let’s consider the other side of the equation.

    Bali was counselled by his wife Tara not to go and fight with Sugriva. She suspected it was a trap and repeatedly counselled and begged him to make peace - he refused and was killed - a victim of his own choice and a rejection of the advice of a woman.

    Ravana was also repeatedly advised and counselled by his wife Mandodari to return Sita to Rama and to make peace - again he rejected her advice, and he thus met his end.

    Two very strong and intelligent women who were ignored by two powerful and stupid men to their own detriment.

    The moral of the story is not about power and privilege and gender-conflict - it is about listening to, and heeding bloody good counsel!

    Just to be clear - Ram NEVER asked Sita to undergo Agnipariksha. It was Sita who ordered Lakshman to bring woods and light a fire so that she can give Agnipariksha. Both Valmiki Ramayan & Tulsidas Ramcharitmanas mention this thing.

    Hence, the question is based on hearsay and fraudulent claims.

    Cheers…!

    Question - If nobody asked Sita to give agnipariksha, why did she do it ? To whom was she proving her purity ? What was the point of the whole exercise ?

    Response - 

    There is nothing in Ramayana, that does not have a hidden meaning or a parallel storyline or a backdrop. The beauty of it is that one can interpret it both while knowing these parallel stories and while unknown to them in totallity.

    Coming to answer your questions:

    Scientifically and modern perspective:

    What would be the mental condition of a lady being accused of adultery? what she does in that condition - it could be rational or irrational - isn’t it? So what a lady in pain, sorrow, feeling betrayed, accused falsely and sad and enraged; does could only be explained by her and no one else.

    Philosophical/Mythological/Religious perspective (as per the scriptures):

    Before going for Vanvas, Ramji had sent her to Agni Dev and what was with Ramji, was a chhavi of her. Agnipariksha was the best way to return back to Ramji and be with him.

    I highly suggest one to read at least Ramcharitmanas so as to know the right story - the right sequence of events and then pose questions, it would be a logical discussion then.

    Cheers…!

    [reply]
  • suyash95 13 days ago | +0 points

    Why did Lord Ram send Sita into exile while she was pregnant?

    In order to understand the Ramayana you need to know that it is a map of Dharma - it does not give historical facts and figures. It raises important and sometimes controversial issues of the art of living for examination.

    The issue of the second banishment of Sita revolves around the question of the legitimacy of a monarch.

    Does a monarch get legitimacy from privilege (autocracy) or from the popular endorsement and validation of the people he rules (democracy)?

    Should the monarch disregard the murmuring of the people in favour of his own self-interest or should he sacrifice his own self-interest to appease the citizens?

    This is the question for discussion.


    Is it right that Lord Rama left Sita when she was kidnapped by a demon and because a washerman passed unkind comments? Is it not the same as victim shaming and victim blaming? How is this considered “Godly behaviour”?

    The first error is analyzing and deconstructing ancient literature using Neo-marxist critical theory methodology.

    The second error is taking an ancient literary narrative as an historical account of what really happened and judging it according to 21st century values.

    The Neo-marxist professors of Indology in the USA are expert at this. Sheldon Pollock was the first to deconstruct the Ramayana in terms of victimology and hierarchies of power and oppression and to completely disregard the spiritual significance and value.

    The Ramayana is an epic which contains descriptive stories, narratives and legends which have an implication in defining cultural beliefs and asserting values, and which inform ideal practice and behaviour (human and not Godly). The Ramayana is considered as the epic par excellence and is studied during these current 9 days from New Year till the festival of Rama Navami in order to orientate us to ideal human values and to prepare us mentally and spiritually for the year ahead.

    It is well known that the Uttara Ramayana is an interpolation and the particular story that you are alluding to, is not found in other version of the Ramayana of which there are hundreds!

    Even if, for arguments sake, we take it as part of the original epic, even then there are values to be found here. Rama was a King i.e. a politician. He heard the discontent of the people who doubted his virtue and that of his own wife, and took their concerns to heart and exiled his most beloved wife to demonstrate that he put the people before his own self interest. In other words he was prepared to sacrifice his own family for the sake of the trust of the citizens. He ruled only because the citizens gave him a mandate to rule and that too because of his impeccable virtue.

    How many modern politicians, all of whom are corrupt and who lie and deceive would do that? So you need to compare the acts of Rama with your own Presidents or Prime Ministers - how many of them put the concerns or anxieties of their electorate before that of themselves and their families.

    P.S. Regarding Marxist cultural interpretations of Hindu texts.

    There are hundreds of different Ramayanas extending over the whole of South East Asia - it is not confined to India. Each and every Ramayana has contradictions and variations in themes and narrative details. The primary purpose of the Ramayana is to transmit spiritual and cultural values.

    Marxist critical theory is not about uncovering the spiritual values and higher aspirations of the Ramayana it is about deconstructing and demolishing Culture and Religion - it a device of the Marxist Cultural Revolution - to sow dissent and to pit races, genders and classes against each other — as is happening in all the Universities in the USA. So the whole Grand narrative of the Marxist is the destruction of Hinduism - “the opiate of the people” - in order to bring about the Utopian Socialist Republic.

    This is my objection to their methodology - it is about deconstruction not redefining and exploring as Hindu critics have done over the centuries.

    [reply]
  • suyash95 13 days ago | +0 points

    Krishna married more than 16,000 girls. Draupadi married 5 Pandavas at a time. But, still Hindus say they can marry one girl or a boy at a time. Isn't it hypocritical? Doesn't it show self-contradiction to Hinduism beliefs?

    One or two exceptions don’t make a rule. The Shastric (Scriptural) rule is monogamy but some exceptions may be there. It’s not a big deal for us Hindus since we don’t really care who marries whom and how many - it is for the people involved to manage their blended families themselves and not for us to judge them.


    Was Lord Krishna a womanizer?

    Why did Lord Krishna have so many gopiyas?

    Why not? Hindu mythology is psychology and metaphysics in cartoon form. The deities are our graphical user interface with the immensity of the Absolute Reality which is essentially incomprehensible.

    Krishna is the Supreme Consciousness manifest in human form. Within the metaphysical body we have 16,000 nadis or subtle nerve channels in which this “consciousness” pervades the body. So Krishna aka consciousness has 16,000 consorts with which he communes.

    Krishna is blue which is colour of the sky and the sea - both infinite. He wears yello robes - yellow is the colour of fire and the symbol of the principle of exchange between realms (i.e. yajna or sacrifice) every form of progress requires sacrifice, just as the wood is sacrificed to produce energy.

    Krishna plays a flute which is an hollowed out piece of bamboo indicating that in order to become channels of the Divine we need to rid ourselves all all obstructions to that, the obstructions being: selfish desire, anger, delusion, arrogance, greed and malicious envy. When we have purified ourselves of these mental afflictions then the Divine will manifest in us for the benefit of others (loka-sangraha).

    Krishna’s lover’s name is Radha which mean delight. The Supreme Being is united with Delight/love/ joy etc.

    The demons that Krishna kills are the lower negative psychological traits which hinder and harm our spiritual evolution. For example Kamsa represents the Ego which is totally self-absorbed, Bakasura represents hypocrisy etc.


    What do the Hindu Vedas or Puranas say about polygamy?

    The Dharma Shastras do mention polygamy. .

    But although permission was given for polygamy it never really became popular and monogamy was the general rule. Polygamy was common among the Kings and elite. Polyandry did and does still exist among some tribes in South India and in Nepal.

    Rama is known as maryada purushottama — the best example of a human and he only ever had one wife and so this became the highest ideal.

    [reply]

Welcome to HMW!


This site is for discussion about Hinduism.

You must have an account here to participate.

Register here >>>>

We do NOT offer personalized advice based on astrology.

Check the Guidelines for posting >>>>

Suggested Offline Book


Related Posts