If we are the atma and not the body, why are all gender restrictions in BAPS based on the body?
Not attacking. Trying to understand something that doesn’t add up theologically.
The foundational teaching of BAPS is that we are the atma, not this body. The atma has no gender. This isn’t a side point. It is the bedrock of Akshar Purushottam Darshan. Every sabha, every pravachan reinforces it. You are not your body. You are the atma.
So why is every restriction that applies differently to women based entirely on the body?
Women sit in the back during aarti. Body. Women cannot speak directly to a sant. Body. Sants cannot look at women. Body. Women cannot become sants. Body. Women must relay messages to the guru through a male relative. Body.
Not one of these rules is based on the quality of someone’s atma, their devotion, their gnan, or their bhakti. Every single one exists because of what body someone was born into. But we are taught that identifying with the body is the fundamental mistake that keeps the jiva trapped in maya.
So which is it? Either the atma truly transcends the body and these restrictions should not exist, or the body does matter when it is convenient for maintaining certain structures and we should stop telling women they are the atma and not the body because the sanstha itself does not operate on that principle when it comes to them.
Take it one step further. BAPS proudly teaches that Bhagatji Maharaj was born into what society considered a low caste. This is held up as proof that the atma transcends caste and spiritual greatness is not determined by birth. Beautiful. Revolutionary.
Now apply the same logic to gender. If a man from a low caste can become the guru because the atma transcends caste, why can a woman not become a sant because the atma transcends gender? If the answer is tradition, then tradition was also the justification for the caste discrimination that Bhagwan Swaminarayan himself dismantled. He looked at sati and said this is wrong. He looked at female infanticide and said this is wrong. He did not accept “this is how it has always been” as a reason to continue injustice.
Would he look at what we do now and say this is right?