02-23-2016, 08:29 AM
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
To stick to what's known or has been documented:
1. From the quoted paragraph of ISKCON's commentary/spin on Shrimad Bhagavatam (SB) above,
- the women go up to shower flowers on Krishna. Easier done from somewhere high up like balconies. The Devas are often shown (in the Hindu epic cinema of yore) showering flowers on earth-dwelling divinities and on Hindu heroes for having acted righteously from up in the sky too.[/quote]
Out of your entire reply, this part makes the most sense.
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
- it speaks only of "the ladies of the palace" and admits to no more.
Something that is universally seen among royalty and high aristocracy in Asia to Europe is that royal women have their own chambers in a palace, their own wing in a castle, etc. Ladies in waiting/chambermaids also tend to be found in (end up restricted to) these areas. (Whereas other staff - male and female - are not restricted to these parts and some are not allowed there.)
It ain't purdah.
In China, royal and aristocratic women had their own area in the royal palace/aristocratic household too. There were huge numbers of women there, usually men didn't venture there.
From the context of the Odyssey you can see Penelope and the maids of her interior household are all in the female part of the house, which ends up having more of a feeling of a jail/enforced limited space when the suitors invade during the daytime. Telemachus tells his mother several times to go back to her chambers and not show herself to the belligerent suitors, as befits her station (as married woman and aristocrat).
(Moreover, when Penelope does show herself officially in public/to the suitors, she is usually veiled. IIRC she still appears veiled when she finally shows herself for the penultimate competition.
Christianity didn't invent the veil, neither did islam: it was already used by Persian Zoroastrians at least, and certainly by the Greeks. However, among the Greeks and Persians it seems more often women of aristocratic rank rather than the average household maid let alone female slave that had the "privilege" of covering her face in the presence of unknown men. The Persian ritualist males were moreover to have been veiled to keep their fire pure.)
In other words, it need come as no surprise that royal or other high aristocratic (i.e. kShatriya) Hindu women at the time the SB was written (or even - at least conceptually - at the time of the MBH context) could afford their own wing at the palace and were regarded so special as to not have to deign to show themselves to everyone.
It's like etiquette. It would be for privileged people, notably royalty. Not likely for the rest of the masses like Vaishyas, Shudras and Brahmanas.
Besides, the SB shows many instances of day-to-day women who did *not* live in their own wing, but worked outdoors. Such as the hunchbacked lady who gave a young Krishna fruits IIRC(?) She did not segregate herself from Krishna and Balarama.
Nor the Gopis.
This is *very* different from islamania which orders a segregation of all men and women because of a fundamental inequality.
In islam it isn't specialised behaviour restricted to the cream of the nation (kShatriya royal women, and by extension their female staff).[/quote]
You're right-- in societies that practice some form of gender separation, the elites are better able to implement it than the common people, because non-elite women have to interact with men as a matter of economic survival.
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
It remains a fact that royal women or high aristocracy (like nth degree princes who were not successors to the throne) were *not* usually universally accessible or meant to be universally accessible, anywhere in the world: they are *not* private people, they are public persons (same as their male counterparts). That is, they were usually meant to marry royalty/other high aristocracy and thereby seal unions of political importance and to strengthen bonds between neighbouring kingdoms.[/quote]
I was a little confused when I read this part, until I realized that "public" in this context meant "part of the state". Generally, when something is "public", it is available to everyone. But even if we assume that these women were part of the ruling apparatus, does it make any sense to keep them sealed away? Surely they must be interacting with ministers and other state officials?
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
Royal households generally can't afford their royal daughters to run off with the chimney sweep, shepherd, gardener, jester or shoemaker. (I inserted that line as a throwback to the fewer number of fairy tales that show a cute exception.) Royal chambermaids are collateral: their living space and thus behaviour conforms to that of their mistress. Not all nations' chambermaids got married or even had the chance thereof - though there's several indications that Indian royal handmaids got married (at least arranged marriages, just like their mistress).
Only very rich people like royalty and high aristocracy can afford to set aside separate wings anyway - besides, they're usually the only ones that can afford a castle or palace or more.[/quote]
Do you realize what you've just done? In your effort to criticize Islamic purdah, you've described something worse-- a system where women are not just prohibited from choosing their life partners, but are also prohibited from interacting with most of humanity.
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
2. The shloka is from the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB), not from the Mahabharatam (MBH) or its appendix Harivamsha.
SB is dated much later than MBH by Hindu scholars. The majority of the text is estimated to have been finally concretised in the first part of the 6th century CE, though an earlier version is known to have existed in the 4th century CE.
The SB reflects some of the traditions extant at the times and the localities it was set down in.
A similar case already came up: the earlier instance IIRC had to do with Tulsidas in his Ramacharitamanas. Apparently he had Sita "cover up" in his retelling of the Ramayanam. This was discussed long ago on IF.
Islamics wanted to use the instance to accuse Hindus of having the "veil" and "purdah" before islamania too, except 1. no definite reference to veil, IIRC "cover up" didn't necessarily mean the head; or 2. it could again just be Tulsidas' own time and familiarity with his own context influencing this detail; and/or 3. the *fashionable* royal veil having been borrowed from the Persians before islam came to India and hence sticking around to influence Tulsidas. Or any other such simple reason which has nothing to do with restricting women; and/or 4. No evidence this was a universal Hindu thing across all of Indic geography and community either.[/quote]
They don't need to prove that Islamic practices have direct analogues within Hinduism-- they just have to prove that their practices aren't worse than what is already found there.
To stick to what's known or has been documented:
1. From the quoted paragraph of ISKCON's commentary/spin on Shrimad Bhagavatam (SB) above,
- the women go up to shower flowers on Krishna. Easier done from somewhere high up like balconies. The Devas are often shown (in the Hindu epic cinema of yore) showering flowers on earth-dwelling divinities and on Hindu heroes for having acted righteously from up in the sky too.[/quote]
Out of your entire reply, this part makes the most sense.
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
- it speaks only of "the ladies of the palace" and admits to no more.
Something that is universally seen among royalty and high aristocracy in Asia to Europe is that royal women have their own chambers in a palace, their own wing in a castle, etc. Ladies in waiting/chambermaids also tend to be found in (end up restricted to) these areas. (Whereas other staff - male and female - are not restricted to these parts and some are not allowed there.)
It ain't purdah.
In China, royal and aristocratic women had their own area in the royal palace/aristocratic household too. There were huge numbers of women there, usually men didn't venture there.
From the context of the Odyssey you can see Penelope and the maids of her interior household are all in the female part of the house, which ends up having more of a feeling of a jail/enforced limited space when the suitors invade during the daytime. Telemachus tells his mother several times to go back to her chambers and not show herself to the belligerent suitors, as befits her station (as married woman and aristocrat).
(Moreover, when Penelope does show herself officially in public/to the suitors, she is usually veiled. IIRC she still appears veiled when she finally shows herself for the penultimate competition.
Christianity didn't invent the veil, neither did islam: it was already used by Persian Zoroastrians at least, and certainly by the Greeks. However, among the Greeks and Persians it seems more often women of aristocratic rank rather than the average household maid let alone female slave that had the "privilege" of covering her face in the presence of unknown men. The Persian ritualist males were moreover to have been veiled to keep their fire pure.)
In other words, it need come as no surprise that royal or other high aristocratic (i.e. kShatriya) Hindu women at the time the SB was written (or even - at least conceptually - at the time of the MBH context) could afford their own wing at the palace and were regarded so special as to not have to deign to show themselves to everyone.
It's like etiquette. It would be for privileged people, notably royalty. Not likely for the rest of the masses like Vaishyas, Shudras and Brahmanas.
Besides, the SB shows many instances of day-to-day women who did *not* live in their own wing, but worked outdoors. Such as the hunchbacked lady who gave a young Krishna fruits IIRC(?) She did not segregate herself from Krishna and Balarama.
Nor the Gopis.
This is *very* different from islamania which orders a segregation of all men and women because of a fundamental inequality.
In islam it isn't specialised behaviour restricted to the cream of the nation (kShatriya royal women, and by extension their female staff).[/quote]
You're right-- in societies that practice some form of gender separation, the elites are better able to implement it than the common people, because non-elite women have to interact with men as a matter of economic survival.
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
It remains a fact that royal women or high aristocracy (like nth degree princes who were not successors to the throne) were *not* usually universally accessible or meant to be universally accessible, anywhere in the world: they are *not* private people, they are public persons (same as their male counterparts). That is, they were usually meant to marry royalty/other high aristocracy and thereby seal unions of political importance and to strengthen bonds between neighbouring kingdoms.[/quote]
I was a little confused when I read this part, until I realized that "public" in this context meant "part of the state". Generally, when something is "public", it is available to everyone. But even if we assume that these women were part of the ruling apparatus, does it make any sense to keep them sealed away? Surely they must be interacting with ministers and other state officials?
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
Royal households generally can't afford their royal daughters to run off with the chimney sweep, shepherd, gardener, jester or shoemaker. (I inserted that line as a throwback to the fewer number of fairy tales that show a cute exception.) Royal chambermaids are collateral: their living space and thus behaviour conforms to that of their mistress. Not all nations' chambermaids got married or even had the chance thereof - though there's several indications that Indian royal handmaids got married (at least arranged marriages, just like their mistress).
Only very rich people like royalty and high aristocracy can afford to set aside separate wings anyway - besides, they're usually the only ones that can afford a castle or palace or more.[/quote]
Do you realize what you've just done? In your effort to criticize Islamic purdah, you've described something worse-- a system where women are not just prohibited from choosing their life partners, but are also prohibited from interacting with most of humanity.
[quote name='Husky' date='16 February 2016 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1455632011' post='117925']
2. The shloka is from the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB), not from the Mahabharatam (MBH) or its appendix Harivamsha.
SB is dated much later than MBH by Hindu scholars. The majority of the text is estimated to have been finally concretised in the first part of the 6th century CE, though an earlier version is known to have existed in the 4th century CE.
The SB reflects some of the traditions extant at the times and the localities it was set down in.
A similar case already came up: the earlier instance IIRC had to do with Tulsidas in his Ramacharitamanas. Apparently he had Sita "cover up" in his retelling of the Ramayanam. This was discussed long ago on IF.
Islamics wanted to use the instance to accuse Hindus of having the "veil" and "purdah" before islamania too, except 1. no definite reference to veil, IIRC "cover up" didn't necessarily mean the head; or 2. it could again just be Tulsidas' own time and familiarity with his own context influencing this detail; and/or 3. the *fashionable* royal veil having been borrowed from the Persians before islam came to India and hence sticking around to influence Tulsidas. Or any other such simple reason which has nothing to do with restricting women; and/or 4. No evidence this was a universal Hindu thing across all of Indic geography and community either.[/quote]
They don't need to prove that Islamic practices have direct analogues within Hinduism-- they just have to prove that their practices aren't worse than what is already found there.