Comments Posted By Krsna das
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
While we must thank Maharaja for a most sublime article, could he please clarify this statement: “It is significant to note that Srila Narada Muni does not include women as belonging to any of the four varnas or social orders. Rather, his description below explains how women, as a whole, are meant to assist the husband in his particular varna. In other words, social occupations that involve interaction with the outside world are not meant to be taken up by women. Or put yet in another way, varnas are for men, not for women.”
This does not seem consist with the Manu, Bhisma and other authorities who proclaim that a man, if wanting to wed many wives, should marry first the higher born woman and then proceed in descending order (eg. marry a brahaman wife first, a ksatriya wife second and so forth) in order to keep relative peace.
How does his statement fit with the example of Draupadi Maharani who refused to wed Karna on the basis of his not being a ksatriya? Very clearly, she is a proud ksatriya woman. The very definition of a queen or princess equals a ksatriya woman, correct?
To say that the wives of the seven sages such as Srimati Arundhati have no varna smacks of wrongness.
Is Maharaja saying that women only have varna through a man? So a woman must then take on her father’s and son’s varna as well when the husband retires to the forest? Can he please explain or cite an example of this, if so? How would a brahmana man find a brahmana wife if she has no varna?
We are not arguing that in a strict Vedic society, woman may have had various restrictions placed on them. For example, Manu states that woman can have Samskara rites but these should be done without uttering the Vedic hymns. However, that says nothing about a brahmana woman not being treated as such and given brahminical rites.
Comment Posted By Krsna das On 14.07.2011 @ 21:44