In response to Julia - Full comments here - http://juliamcla4.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-for-self-at-all-costs.html
I suppose I should agree that leaving the family is not selfless, though I think that it isn't selfish either. I promote the idea of equality for men and women. I think that men and women should have equal economic, social, civil, human rights, and so on. Meaning I think that any opportunity a man has, a woman should have to. The difference is, I am mostly concerned with the Human rights as it is the antecedent to all other rights. By definition I think that woman already have all of those rights. They have equal rights to take opportunities and responsibilities. They should be able to leave their families, if they want, but they should also be willing to take up the same responsibilities that they expect from others.1.) That's irrelevant because a person could die at any moment anyhow. You don't need to be elderly to pass away, and when you do pass away, you leave your family with no more than you would have if became a Sannyasin. Additionally, most of these families have many generations, meaning that, it would probably fall on a variety of people even the males of the next generation.
2.) An elderly person or an ill person, who expects to die soon, should not choose to become a Sannyasin, I think. If they are ill or incredibly old they cannot successfully walk miles and miles and only survive off of bare minimum food intake. They would likely die on the side of the road somewhere. Additionally, the choice to become a Sannyasin is a choice to embark on a spiritual journey - it takes time. There is little point to embarking on a journey which could take a decade, if you only expect to live for ten months. I am uncertain if one could suggest that women are unable to 'abandon' their own 'obligations.' Women do, after all, have the same human rights as men - if they wanted to they could just as easily walk away from their 'obligations' and, in fact, some do. As Avery mentioned; It's not largely men who are ABLE to become Sannyasin, women are perfectly able to, some simply CHOOSE not to. To view this otherwise seems possibly sexist to me - when the women choose to become Sannyasini, they too are 'abandoning' their families, leaving only the man responsible. In any given family, men and women alike all have equal opportunity to become a member of the Sannyasa.
3.) We'll agree that leaving is not selfless; though it does not necessarily have to be selfish either, I think. Regarding the 'abandonment' of a loved one, he is going to die anyhow. Not letting him leave is only putting off the inevitable consequences and probably causing more suffering, given that with death, it is abrupt and you know he is dead, whereas with becoming a Sannyasin he leaves gradually and in good health. Your argument continues to state that women would pick up a heavy burden if the man left, this implies that it is already the man alone who is carrying this heavy burden, bearing the largest obligation in the family. It's also unfair for this to happen, but it seems like women have no particular objection to men taking on the entire burden. It is only when faced with having to do what men already do, actually being equal, that they begin to object and imply that men are somehow selfish in choosing not to continue carrying such a heavy burden
I also figured I should add that Women do indeed have a place in Indian society, they are fairly progressed in that sense. In some ways they are even further along than we are. Indira Gandhi was the second female head of modern government in the world and she also is the second longest serving Prime Minister (15 years). Also, Pratibha Patil is the current President of India and won the election receiving more than 2/3 of the vote (more than twice as many votes as the other candidate. She also took office at the age of 73, older than our oldest elected president.
It would be easier to comment on your post if it were shorter, and made fewer points.
ReplyDeleteI would like to correct you on some of your assertions about women's ability to become sannyasin. Though we do have evidence from ancient times about female renunciants, past about 500 B.C.E. women had to face serious obstacles to become sannyasin. Women were largely under the control of their male relatives, and after the Muslim conquests, were mostly sequestered within the household. Women were firmly tied to the household in their roles as daughter, wife, and mother. In the event that her husband died, a woman was not necessarily free to renounce the world - widows face many taboos in most Indian societies.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there is a popular belief in some branches of Hinduism that a woman cannot hope to achieve moksha in her lifetime - she must hope to be reborn as a man first.
Unfortunately, renunciation has not historically been an equal-opportunity venture. Some women still did become sannyasin, and some were even venerated for their achievements. But it's likely that many more women may have wanted to become sannyasin, but were simply unable to make this choice.
Women in Ochre Robes, by Meena Kandelwal, does a good job of elucidating the gender issues and paradoxes of the sannyasin. (Link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0791459225/ref=rdr_ext_tmb)