 | |
Of the many takeaways from our epics, one is that of Vishnu (or his avataras such as Rama or Krishna) being the male protagonist and Lakshmi (or her avataras such as Sita or Rukmini) being the subordinate female protagonist. Of the lesser divine beings in the epics, couples abound, with the female usually being the subordinate consort.
So, it is clear why in Indian society (and families) the female, while not slighted (at least in theory), is still somewhat lesser in stature to the female; the male being at least the first among equals.
A better way to think about the role of gender is through the prism of division of labour. Yet another prism is that of the needs of society and its future generations. The father provides protection to the family and procures resources, the mother make decisions on allocation of resources, feeds and raises the children. The mother and father also usually play good cop-bad cop with the children to provide them the right stimulus, usually gender-sensitive as well. The daughter is taught certain things, the son others.
Beyond the family, it is clusters of males that usually conduct public life, governance, and more. Still, beyond societal imperfections, if any, in theory or practice, past or present, does God have a gender? Why do we refer to God as He/Him?
My theory is that God chose to create society, natural order, reproduction, the whole nine yards (in conformance with the Vedas, of course) in a form where the male dominates (or can dominate) public life and the female dominates the home; and it is for this reason and His incarnations are as male, and that of his consort are as a female.
Still, God provides us several examples where his incarnations are not male, why, not even human, in some cases. The first few incarnations in the dashaavataras (an evolution of sorts) are Matsya (fish form), Koorma (turtle form), Varaha (boar form), Narasmiha (male+lion form). The Vedas and Upanishads describe God (Brahman/incarnations such as Rama, Krishna etc.) not in physical terms but variously as 'satyam-gnanam-anantham', 'gunabhrun-nirguno-mahaan', etc. meaning that He is essentially composed of boundless non-material characteristics such as knowledge, happiness, compassion, etc., in infinite quantity and in blemishless fashion. i.e., He is not just a 'great guy' but completely independent of any other being or thing. Of His boundless qualities, Lakshmi is described as being in a perpetual state of discovery.
Therefore, if God had a gender associated with Him (being male/female) there would be something material about him, and the physical limitations and needs that come with being male/female. All the boundless qualities described cannot, therefore, be ascribed to a 'mere' male. Further, in all the avataras where God is described as being born, e.g., as Rama or Krishna, the epics also describe a birth without any garbhavaasa ('immaculate conception'). For, if garbhavaasa was involved, that would be a material occurence, not something the God that we've defined can undergo.
I'm unsure whether we should classify His consort as female (yes, perhaps), but still that he provides Himself to her in male form could not be for His own sake, but her's, given the independence from everything that is ascribed to Him as a quality.
In reference to God, it is always 'sriman' not 'srimaan', the latter being a reference to a male, while the former, not. Still, for common purposes, it is good to focus on a male God, while diving into the philosophical (Brahman) requires us to stop ascribing any gender to Him to get anywhere meaningful.
The Mohini avatara is an interesting case of Vishnu incarnating in female form during the 'samudra manthana' (churning of the ocean for divine nectar) where Mohini 'outwits' the ashuras and distributes all the nectar to the devas. During the Mahabharata (Dwapara yuga), Vishnu's incarnations all appear to be aimed at doing whatever it takes (usually in sly fashion) to outwit evil. Krishna avatara proves this over and over, and Mohini avatara proves this too. In addition, it is for us to not ascribe a gender to God, and to not treat Mohini as a case of perversion involving God.
No comments:
Post a Comment