u/lelouch_huh

One opinion I have seen circling here is that 2 was worse than 1 and that 1 was some generational masterpiece and a hallmark in Indian cinema and 2 was just a propaganda driven masala film.

But I feel the critics miss the core of dhurandhar duology. Dhurandhar, as in the operation, was always about infiltrating the core of terrorism in Pakistan and destroying it.

Despite all the aura farming and trying to humanizing the terrorists and warlords in the movie , The major theme of the movie is that- Terrorists are weak bitches. They are dangerous for sure, but they are weak people. They target the civilians cuz they are weak enough to target militants and know they will be wiped off.

The first scene is the humiliation that the govt faced. It showed the exact face of terrorists. They are dangerous because they target the innocent civilians and think that the Indian defense is weak.

The entire operation is a punch to the liver to these terrorists. This is a theme that is common in both aditya dhar films(Uri and Dhurandhar). The counter punch from India is way stronger and way more brutal. In some sense, the villains in the movies are those annoying siblings who irritate you in front of your parents. They are "winning" but they are not strong and will be humbled if you counter.

The first movie is built on patience. The second movie is blitzkrieg(attacking with full force), it's the fruit of being patient and waiting.

"Oh the second movie doesn't have enough conflict and its an easy spree for hamza"- That is the point of the movie. The only real conflict hamza had on his way up was Pinda in this movie which caused his identity to be revealed and be investigated by the officials. The terrorists being completely clueless is EXACTLY THE POINT.

Another is that "lyari gangwar and hamza rose too quickly in the movie." This is a bit interesting but the first movie had always focused on this exact political detail- The one who wins lyari gets control of Karachi and getting control of Karachi means getting control of Pakistan.

The movie further divided the lyari into two factions-

Balochi and pathan. Baloch had rehman and the other side was Babu and Arshad. Babu was easily taken down in like a matter of time. And it was really rehman who had full control and Arshad in minority.

Hamza killed rehman when he was at peak of his powers. Used uzair aand jameel to kill arshad and sent off uzair and became king of lyari himself. It wasnt "rushed" at all. For anything, Babu's death is more "rushed" than the gangwar in Dhurandhar 2 lol.

Another is that- "Political propaganda in Dhurandhar 2 is more forefront than in D1". This is exceptionally stupid. The demonetization is so blown out of proportion. It was AJAY SANYAL's plan(a fictionalized interpretation of real life ajit doval) and sure movie used Modi's face cuz the movie also had used 2011 footages. The movie seemed to use real life footage to build "immersive scene" which is a fine artistic choice and open to subjectivity.

On a meta level, yes you can argue it was BJP biased but every work has bias that you may not agree with. Be it political, religious, social, historical etc.

I feel this leads me to a deeper layer and that is- An art can have two interpretation. One on social level, what the art has social impact and second is individual.

On a social level, you can argue Dhurandhar may not have the best impact(even then the movie is pro nation) and it is still blown out of proportion given BJP hasn't used this as a tool like nazis did with their books for propaganda lol which left seems to fret about.

On an individual level, if you know the movie has political propaganda, I find it ludicrous to still hinge on politics. You know you're not getting brainwashed into thinking that hamza exists and he was the reason why demonization was stopped. So just start enjoying the film for what it's worth.

Yea, these are my two cents. Am not saying D2 is perfect and stuff. I have my own criticism but to act like D2 was a downgrade is ludicrous viewpoint imo.

Also D2 added depth to major iqbal's character giving insights to his personal relationships. Also added depth to hamza by giving him backstory AND THAT FCKIN ENDING.

Funfact: This post was meant for main dhurandhar subreddit but the mods/automoderation was so garbage. They kept on deleting the post and now, am not exactly interested in that sub and its state.

Now, Every week in this sub you will find posts or some jackass in comments criticizing Lord Rama about the same beat-up-to-death events and you all know which ones am referring(Killing of Vali, Abandonment of Sita and also agni pariksha and killing of Shambuka).

This isn't to say am against freedom of speech or that am a fanatic enough to not allow any criticism but these criticisms show nothing but an intent of bad faith if you can't care to search for explanations. It's not like this is a niche issue towards Hinduism but rather, something that has been answered all the times even before Ambedkar started writing his blasphemous book about Lord Rama.

Just one search in YouTube and You will find all sorts of quality explanations as to why Lord Rama did this thing. There are many videos where many learnt have given explanations with proper arguments. Modern day Shankaracharya, Nigrahacharya, Vededucation, hyper quest, some beerbiceps podcast hosting maybe Nityanandra mishra, 21 notes and ami ganatra etc

If you want a book, then some vaishnava acharyas, puranas, ramayana mimansa by Swami karpatri. If you want websites, then can dig reddit too, quora, Hinduism stack exchange and blog posts.

And most amass good amount of views and some are available in English too.

If you just so happens to ask this question cuz you see it circulating in some atheistic subs or some feminist subs mocking our gods, then cmon man. These things won't lead to interesting arguments but rather, same banal and uninteresting discussion. This isn't a niche criticism about lord rama either.

I think, i plead to the mods to be more strict towards ssuch "trolls" and please don't delete this post ig.

This has been something that I have had an itch for a long time to write about as I see, an emergence in idea of Indra's status from vedas to puranas. Indra is by no shred of doubt, one of the most significant deities appearing across various traditions- not just limited to hinduism but this emergence thought that the original vedas talked of Indra differently and how Puranic indra is a corruption and how Puranas corrupted the true meaning of Vedas is a very grave allegation.

Now, This thought personally, have nagged me ever since I have tried learning about the religion primarily because it attacks the very deities I worship or a billion others worship, reducing them to fictionalized or some sort of "evolved" form of vedic deities. This reduces the deities that are to revered as some sort of markers used in didactic folk tales to teach moral lessons.

This idea is also very odd because it claims to have known the true meaning of vedas and what vedas are *meant* to convey in contrast to the thousand years of tradition of acharyas and different schools. It's also with little surprise to me, that this idea was really given a boost with "Scholars"(with a BIG QUOTATION) like Max Muller and it was really in the colonial period.

And this leads me first to- hermeneutics. Simple. Hermeneutics is a field of study that deals with interpretation of particular scriptures and now, this "thought" really has no claim with hermeneutics as strong as the established traditional sampradayas has. If there is a field of study that for a thousand years has been interpreted in one way and everyone agreed upon it, someone coming in a modern time period coming with a radically different interpretation, the bayesian probability and just basic historical hermeneutics, the likelihood that the particular modern interpretation is the true interpretation of the scripture is VERY slim. Ofcourse, it doesnt mean that the interpretation is invalid but likelihood of it being invalid is very high.

Second is lack of rigor with whatever "philosophy" they believe in. If I worship Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti, I have one of the cleanest and most rigorously defined, debated and ironclad philosophies out there to discuss and with this thought that Indra is the supreme God(with a capital G). There isnt one.There is no one who has done a proper good old debate with orthodox school to establish legitimacy of their interpretation and philosophy.

There are a lot of problems every school related to God has to answer. Free will, Relationship between JIva(individual) and God, the normative reason and necessity for God to exist, The need for such God or the importance of such God for one to worship, divine simplicity, problem of evil, afterlife, creation, suffering etc. This particular emergent idea has had zero such formal arguments to establish themselves or for them to be taken seriously.

How can one treat such a vague, abstract, brainstormed idea that emerged from indos and historians, who arent even interested in the religion like acharyas are, to be taken seriously?

This leads me to a bigger issue- What are Vedas? Vedas as described by our acharyas, is roughly in 4 sections- Brahmana, Aranyakas, Upanishad and Samhitas. Such modern nonsense really emerges when one ONLY interprets Samhita and even then, one doesn't become some sort of prodigious genius to unravel the secrets of hinduism. I can also say that Lord Rama is supreme and no else by reading just Ramayana and say that Lord Krishna is a later addition. Sounds compelling?

This is a big problem with such modern gibberish. Vedas are divided into Jnana Kanda and Karma Kanda. This is as clear as everything becomes. Every school unequivocally believes in the same thing and if you disagree(then the first point on hermeneutics...duh).

Such interpretation only come with readings JUST FROM KARMA KANDA, the same way I can interpret that Rama was a human king and not vishnu avatar because Ayodhya, Aranya, Kishkinda, sundara and Yuddha kanda doesnt call him a vishnu avatar and only "interpolated bala kanda and Uttara Kanda" calls him as such. You see the ludicrousness with this idea? This idea emerged BECAUSE I narrowed the scriptures more and more till I came with this interpretation...this is really not a serious idea in any sense of the word.

I can showcase gopala tapani upanishad, which is a upanishad and also quoted by Vaishnava Acharyas and claim vedas speak of Radha Krishna but if you exclude them, then that's just being nitpicky and convenience to suit your claims tbh.

Now, All the stutis done in name of Indra, Varuna, Prajapati in Vedas are IN KARMA KANDA section of vedas, one concerned with yajnas. Ofcourse, to invoke deities, you will praise them and frankly, you will find such glories in Itihasa and Puranas. This is as simple as it gets.

I quote someone I discussed this with(not a discussion but a doubt) and he responds coming from sampradaya of Madhvacharya-

>In his Mahabharata tattparya nirnaya, Acharya Madva says "yajña-pravṛttaye devāḥ stūyante nātra tattva-nirṇayaḥ" which means "“The gods are praised for the functioning of sacrifice; this is not metaphysical determination.”

Agni and Indra dominate the Ṛigveda because of their ritual relevance. The frequency of a deity in the Veda doesn't indicate their ontological status.

I also quote another guy I asked a question that is rather learnt in scriptures and Sanskrit!

1. The praises to indra/varuna/prajapati etc are indeed directed to those deities. Krishna states in the gita that men were directed to worship those devatas, and those devatas then reciprocate to them in return with phala.
2. This is certainly a valid meaning of the Veda mantras. However, vedas are not ordinary texts having just one layer of meaning. They have several. Krishna says in the gita vedaiśca sarvairahameva vedyaḥ ( i alone am known by the vedas). Similarly elsewhere in mahabharata he says Ṛgvede sayajurvede tathaivātharvasāmasu... Bahūni mama nāmni kīrtitāni. ( In the ṛk, yajus , sama as also in atharveda, it is my own multitude names which are sung of). Similar statements can be found in Puranas. Hence the vedas may also interpreted as refering not just to their stated deities but at a deeper level to Viṣṇu alone, firstly because the names of the deities viz indra, varuna etc can also be used as names of vishnu in their generic lexical meanings, and because ultimately vishnu is the indweller of all these deities ( Antaryāmin), and by their worship vishnu is also thus worshipped.

Also, I have given a slideshow that answers this matter(Credit to the user- https://www.instagram.com/the_rahul_bhagwadhari/ ) which is more Advaita centric answer there.

Now, one may say that This whole Idea comes in Mahabharata or Puranas---> Thus Invalid but this is a Argumentum ex Silentio or Argument from Silence. .Trimming it and cutting the fuss, it's about In simple terms, it is the flawed reasoning that says: "Because Person A or Text X did not mention this thing, it definitely did not happen, or it does not exist."

I would counter argue that such people are not really "respecting" or "understanding" the vedas. I have seen another perspective that Indra perhaps represents a scientific process or scientific phenomena, like maybe electromagnetic forces etc or that he represents some abstract idea such as "Courage" or "Bravery".

Now, I don't even have to start to debunk the former as many of y'all would already have but still- It is ad hoc reasoning.

The latter reduces Vedas to insignificant earthly scriptures that talk of this abstract feelings or notion in an ancient archaic manner. This is also something I have seen people also try to construct how early vedic periods used to think of( I will come that to that in next point) and this is just reduction. Just plain boring idea with zero depth. Because, There's no normative reason for me to follow this thought and not original hinduism.

I can get courage from even Rocky and how the boxer trained his soul out to beat Dolph in Rocky 4, not to say, Rocky is much better than Indra in this regard because he fed an entire generation of boxers and made people learn idea of courage lol.

And this idea to reduce vedic deities to personalities is ludicrous, not that it's inherently bad or weak but to *just* reduce them is not good. I have also seen how vedic "aryans" used to celebrate war or celebrate ambition but by puranic period, ambition wasn't much followed or pleasure wasn't focused but this is just a gravely misunderstanding and lack of familiarity with dharma prescribed in dharmashastras, puranas. This leads to idea on how Bhakti "made" hindus weak and lack critica thinking but laughably, the greatest warriors of India, be it Maharana Pratap, Cholas and Chelas or Marathas all were...puranics lol and hell, southern empire literally tried validating their dynasty to the legendary Ikshvaku lineage. Not to say, Many major mathematical discoveries also done in India were also done by people who didnt believe in this postmodern bs.

Anyways, enough of rant and back to point.

This leads me to Idea that Indra is repeatedly mocked in Itihasa and Puranas but its a no. Mockery is done if I only selectively mock just one guy. Puranas show the good, bad in lila form of every deity, human, rishi. It's not puranics thought to make Indra a punching bag. And even if we go by feats, Ravana and Hiranyakashipu won against Indra due to HAX (It's like- one guy is immortal and second is ufc heavyweight champion. Second one is stronger but first one wins because of condition, not of martial abilities).

And even Shiva, Mahadev also has story of losing control over Mohini and Vishnu doing a shady tactic with Vrinda, This is even "worse" because according to such, Puranas are also the same scripture that gives them the supreme status. And even Brahma who did the worst deed of them all with Saraswati episode lol.

Also, Krishna also calls himself as Indra among devas, there are SO many glories made by Sri Krishna himself dedicated to Indra and even while describing Lord Rama's combative or physical attributes, most common deity used is- INDRA.

Is Indra rather made fun of in current day hindus? Yes but you know who else is? Narada. You know who else is misunderstood in current day? Ravana being whitewashed and Karna. This doesnot mean Shastras are wrong.

The final point is- Such ideas are given life to with a hatred(albeit strong word) or failure to understand Puranas. I will really advise if people can understand hindi, to go watch some lectures of Nigrahacharyas( be it answers to questions or just general lectures). He will explain you how to truly understand Puranas and understand the unravel their layers. And if you have a prior guru, then that's fantastic too!

(So, yea, I also didn't use AI. if any of you feels compel to accuse me of. )

Seems like an obvious interpolated junk or maybe translation error. I could be wrong but can any learnt clarify this story or its authenticity?

This is something that is frequently brought up in this server and also perhaps, the second biggest question raised by atheists(behind the good ol' proof for god).

I have seen people here use complex answers complications with stuff like free will and stuff but the thing is, It's simple.

It's karma. And karma is anaadi i.e. without beginning . And karma is fair. A good beloved loving God full of auspicious world will create a fair world and karma is anaadi and karma is fair. And if God does interfere in this world, it is fair. The overall karmic account is maintained and balance is overall restored, literally Lord Vishnu's primary job duh...

Now I would like to clarify that this DOESNOT mean we should not have a justice system because everyone suffers cuz of their karma cuz that's a dharma prescribed by shastras and also an integral point, we can't know karma. We can't know what he did and we know, inactivity when you're capable to stop adharma is adharma too.

Now one may say- "It isn't a good answer. A kid died because of his past karma." People need to understand such questions will never find a emotionally satisfactory answer and emotionally satisfactory answer and philosophical precise are different. It sucks we can't fly like superman but the emotional answer is different from rigor.

And I will counter argument that a kid died and a materialistic or atheistic guy saying " well he's finished. He doesn't exist blah blah blah" is worse answer emotionally as it can be interpreted as his life was for nothing and he died just like that.

And a bit of a rant, this also talks about much of Indian atheists are troll about. They are just trolls and never serious critiques. Most will lazily copy pasta western atheistic critiques without reading a single doctrine, let alone expecting them to master mimansa, sanskrit and darshana lol.

Few days ago, I had made a post about how proof for god is impossible. There will always be valid objections, adjacent explanations to "God" or leaps through reasoning.

But now, I concluded that a belief in God can be perfectly rational. Now, before I talk about the core argument. I want to elaborate a bitt on - Rational. Now, I feel indian atheists(from my experience) have used a monopoly over this and use it for science and their beliefs in science. It starts with superstition and then over extend this to a belief in God as "irrational".

Rationality is NOT just science. It's much more than just science. It's acting in accordance to evidence given or provided, it is to act with logic and reason than emotions. That is rationality. Science is not the entirety of rationality.

Now, another fact is that humans have an epistemic limitations. It is something both the western philosophers and indians are in harmony with. Nyayikas have well explored the limitations of pratyaksha and anumana and even shabda pramana(although, it is more nuanced in case of shastras/scriptures).

Now, to demand an absolute "proof" is not really in vein with what has already been established. A better idea is to reason well enough and give compelling logic.

Even, a person who once heard about cracking knuckles lead to arthritis and reasoned it with- "hmmm, there is a sound that pops up when I twist my fingers and crack them. Surely, it must be leading to my joint deterioration" .

This is RATIONAL! For what the sphere of knowledge that person had, he genuinely reasoned and reached what he believed was a compelling enough argument for him to believe that cracking leads to arthritis (it isn't a perfect example as that person could search and research about this).

Now, god is no empirical being. His "domain" lies in philosophy entirely(and also history given religion and their claims).

Now, with that- If a person finds that a philosophy reasons and coheres well, then that belief in God is rational. If the person feels like the philosophy of madhvacharya for example and how he explains the universe, it's apparent "unfairness", then that guy's belief in Vishnu is rational in my opinion.

Ofcourse, everyone's rationality differs and everyone has a different "threshold" after which they could be convinced. Some guys might just get convinced over a youtube video and some guys will never be convinced

Now, one argument against this could be- Nazism is a coherent philosophy. Does this mean belief in nazism is rational?

The answer is no because nazism also makes a bold claim within sphere of empirical study of genetics and it is proven to be false in that sphere.

To believe in religion is Not irrational because everyone really reasons. To some, their reasoning behind god is very simpleton(could be everything has a creator. Universe has a creator ie god) or to some it could be a more nuanced argument.

Now, one critical flaw could be- well an avg religious person don't reason about their gods. So clearly, an avg religious person is irrational right? Well not exactly. It's more so about trusting the authority.

Is it irrational for a kid to believe in his parents that beer leads to health problems? Just like how We put our trust in nasa scientists finding alien life in this universe, similarly, an avg religious person can put their epistemic authority regarding god to a religious guru.

Another explanation is experiential. Specifically for hinduism which is pretty clear about experiences in God than compare to traditional islam. Just like how it is rational for someone to walk carefully on a wt floor, it is rational for tulsidas to believe in God's existence because he "saw" them.

Now note: this field has a problem and its apparently very clear. Adjacent explanations(oh well tulsidas story could be a myth added to prove his legitimacy or it could be a hallucination) exists and are very compelling but TO THAT PARTICULAR PERSON, it is rational.

Now does this mean running from demons when you are sleep deprived is rational? Well at that moment, it could be. On a retrospect, there's a clear cause.

With tulsidas for instance, maybe even on retrospect, the meeting with hanumana and rama was as real as seeing a tree in forest.

Well pardon for some informally written arguments but that's my general idea.

So, modern day hindus have developed a disdain towards dharmashastras. To some, it is the injunction of their sampradaya(like trika for example afaik) or it is personal disagreement regarding certain verses of dharmashastras, be it on woman, shudras, social order etc.

But I present a pascal wager and attempt to prove WHY it is much more rational and beneficial to follow and believe in the authority of dharmashastras than to not.

Scenario A) Dharmashastras are indeed true.

If one followed them- The person will gain spiritual merits, no cosmic spiritual degradation and be closer to moksha and live a fruitful life adhering to dharma. Hence a vastly positive benefit.

If one didn't follow them- You range from absolutely screwed to somewhat good position after death. If you lived a chaotic and indisciplined life, then you are screwed. If you lived a life with a mix of adhering to dharma and adharma, you are in a mixed position ultimately. So its a neutral to a negative position.

Scenario B) Dharmashastras are not true and interpolated scriptures.

If you followed them- You still get merit. Of what? The yajnas, devotion to lord and a strict disciplined and restrained life that you lived. Even if one may argue manusmriti is filled with misogyny, it still contains chapters where emphasis on devotion and dharma is given. So even if they are not true, you would still benefit overall. So it's a positive to a neutral position.

If you didn't follow them- it's a very "meh" or same as the scenario A didn't follow. Really depends upon how you lived.

Now, one counter argument could be-

I can live a fruitful life adhering to dharma, devoted to lord without manusmriti? And the answer is- maybe? Well, you would still benefit a lot more following manusmriti and doing the rest as said and not to say, you are not Prahlada who can bypass ritual injunctions with his bhakti. You aren't. That's the truth.

And it's a very high risk scenario where if you succeed, you will get the same benefits from the person who adhered to dharmashastras.

Now the purpose of this post is to describe the risk to reward of dharmashastras. Ofcourse, this isnt the sole reason and shallnot be the primary cursor to persuade someone to follow dharmashastras. But it's more of a fun thought experiment about why it's more rational to follow dharmashastras.

Ofcourse, the authority of dharmashastras is established by the prior acharyas of reputed sampradayas.

A common atheistic objection is that what's the proof that God exists? And people have spent and grappled with this idea for a loong period of time. But I feel, a proof for god's existence can never exist.

There's roughly 3 ways to prove God's existence-

Experiential-Ones own subjective mystical experiences with God.

Empirical- which can be roughly divided into scientific proof for god's existence AND historical proof.

Philosophical-Philosophical arguments showcasing god exists.

And NONE of them works to prove god definitively. There's not a single full stop argument one can create out of this.

Experiential's main problem is that it is...subjective and hard to truly verify.

A christian couple prays to jesus as their child battling cancer is on her deathbed but suddenly, in few days, the child is healed.

A hindu wife prays to vishnu to save her husband, who just had a nasty accident and the husband survives.

Yet none of them can definitively prove that either Jesus or vishnu exists.

Although, oddly enough...experiential is the best shot given in Hinduism, God does respond to prayers(even though, the likelihood is so low as we are not Prahlada or Draupadi).

Second is empirical. God by itself is defined as someone outside the domain of sciences(I would plead people to read Vishnu Purana Book 1 ch 2 that gives a succinct view of god's nature). Hes completely independent, not made of "matter" and by definition is a scientific evidence not possible for god.

It's like asking what's the scientific evidence for the laws of logic. It maynot be a perfect analogy, so treat it more as a pedagogical rhetorical example to prove why scientific evidences fail.

A sub section of empirical is archaeological or historical evidences. And...the thing is- We can't prove god exists from there too. Muhammad exists as a real historical figure yet we cant infer that Allah existed. Similarly, even if we prove that bhagwan Rama or krishna existed, we still cannot definitively prove that they were vishnu avatara, there lilas were true etc etc.

It's simply not possible to prove that x exists--->x is divine.

Third is philosophical. Arguments such as fine tuning, contingency argument, "objective morality", kalam cosmological argument yet none can prove god exists simply because- A logical consistency doesn't imply it must exist in reality. It's simply not possible.

Any philosophical arguments of God shall exist necessarily can simply be countered by "brute fact".

Even the Advaita vedantins iirc, have made it clear that brahman can't be accessed by strictly logic alone.

And hence, I believe a proof for god existence can simply just not...exist.

But this DOESNOT mean that a belief in God's existence is irrational. Well that is for another post exploring why a belief in God is...rational.

Before anything, I will like to say- Maryada Purushottam is not what one projects to it. Maryada purshottam is adherence to dharma, dharma as prescribed by shastras, Not what one's individual opine about what "ideal man" should look like.

Uttara kanda is highly debated and many reputed scholars like rambhadracharya have propagated idea of it being a later addition. And this is a very common "cop outs" towards the question of why Rama left Sita.

But even if we grant uttara kanda not to be an interpolation. It still doesn't deter anything from Rama being a maryada purushottam.

I think, it comes with a rather narrow view towards what our itihasa. Ramayana is NOT just valmiki ramayana. Ramayana also has ananda ramayana, adbhuta ramayan, bhushundi ramayana, yoga vasishta etc. now sure, valmiki one is the most authoritative of it all BUT this doesn't mean the ramayana I listed are not useful.

They are very much so useful to understand the nuances of bhagwan's lilas.

I think anyone who has doubts about Rama "controversial" moments in uttara kanda is answered in great detail in Padma Purana and Ananda Ramayana.

How many of you even knew the fact that rama gave a secret visit to Sita when Luva Kusha were born? Yes, these events are only to be understood with Ananda Ramayana. It's like a "Behind the scenes" where the events are explained in greater details.

This is going to pull a lot of nerve but I will say this again--- Hinduism is NOT a feminist religion and you can't be a hindu AND feminist. If you are a feminist, the best is to be atheist/agnostic than be a hindu or religious and I plead the mods to pls not delete this.

Now, there has been an influx of post modern revisionism done with this sort of thing about how Hinduism is such a "Feminist religion" with love stories like Vishnu/Lakshmi or Shiva/Parvati but they DONOT prove hinduism is feminist.

Before everything, I would like to clear what feminism means and the definition is taken from the website of UN Women.

• Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.
• A feminist is someone who holds and acts on the simple belief that all women and girls should have equal rights and the same opportunities as men.

 

And Hinduism disagrees with this, especially the second point. See, what feminism argues is to maximise someone's agency over their life, it aims for the fact that woman and man are equal and should get equal opportunities. There's no proper telos as to what the meaning of life is and it aims for maximal personal autonomy.

Hinduism has a different framework. Here, we have a proper telos--- Moksha and our scriptures are to teach us live and abide by dharma and attain moksha and not waste our life. What should be argued is whether the metaphysics of vedanta, karma and moksha exists or not and not the "ethics" or "let woman live their life" because our ethics is derived from the philosophical enquiries and is built to maximise spiritual upliftment.

I think people need to understand that Feminist is not the only objective way or the only "truth" of this world regarding gender norms. You can respect woman AND also not be a feminist. In fact, if you accept hindu framework and its telos. Feminist is the one which is actually anti woman as their ideals degrades a woman's spiritual journey. I hope, my point is laid out good.

Now, enough of this and I will now show actual scriptural references why they are incompatible.

First, I shall list down references from Dharmashastras. I have seen quite a good amount of "neos" dismiss them as interpolations or that they are "smriti" and thus, could be rejected in our modern times. Here is my post on problem of interpolations and the major problem with such arguments.

Response to that is simple.While it is true that the knowledge and scriptural injunctions of smritis are context, time and place dependent. THAT CONTEXT is given by shastras only. Not by you or me. By shastras. Ashwamedha yajna is not prescribed in kaliyuga. So many yajnas used by kings of previous yugas are not recommended. This is an example of how shastras themselves teach how the knowledge of context and time change.

Also gita "He who discards the scriptural injunctions and acts under the impulse of desire attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme goal. 16.23 is enough for people to dismiss the dharmashastras.

So, I will give three dharmashastras opinion. Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya and Gautama .

From Manusmriti->

>

This goes against feminism and its ideals btw. We need to understand that feminist by default doesnt have any sort of importance to one's lineage. But hinduism absolutely has. We need to do pind daan, antim samskara of our ancestors and one of our fundamental dharma is towards our lineage and bloodline. Feminism doesnt care for lineages. See, another mismatch?

>

I will clarify that this is about protection for woman. Just like how a son protects even his elderly father. And obviously, a man is naturally stronger than woman. So, it is the job for husband to protect his wife from any external threats. Manu explains this here-

>

Theres a clear assymetry. A wife's job is to serve her husband and the husband's job is to guard and protect her wife like a "mentor".

>

This also goes against Feminism as it clearly restricts woman from doing certain things. Even if these things "make" sense, this verse calls for restriction for freedom of woman and thus, is anti feminist.

Next up from Gautama Dharmasutra- They are from the 18th chapter if someones curious

>

>

This is just a paraphrasing or re-articulation from the manusmriti.

Now, from Yajnavalkya-- All references are from chapter 1.7/8 only.

>

A pativrata stri is one of the most beautiful and highly respected person in the three worlds really. A pativrata stri is a wife whos totally dedicated to her husband. Every wife should aim to be like that. Completely faithful. Ofcourse, a husband is also to be faithful to his wife but polygamy is allowed for husband. Yes, there is an example of draupadi but its a very extreme example and even then, the pandavas were from one bloodline only.

>

"She must be intent on doing what is pleasing and beneficial to her husband; she must keep the house clean with sweeping and smearing, have a steady mind, and remain under his control (Vashavartini)."

>

This is about the results of a husband abandoning a faultless wife.

Now I will try to post references from itihasa. Particularly Ramayana.

>

This is from Ayodhya Kanda, 24.26-27. You cant use any interpolation argument cuz only bala kanda and uttara kanda are contested. All the other Kanda are not contested. The context is when Ma Kaushalya is so devastated that she wants to join Rama in exile but Bhagwan Rama reminds her of her duty.

>

>

These are from Ayodhya Kanda chapter 117, verse 23-24.

>

This is by Ma Sita btw. Ayodhya Kanda 118. 2

Next reference I will tell is from Devi Bhagavatam. And it is a shakta purana btw. Book 9 is where you will find the references. I couldnt find one where I could clipboard them. SO apologies for that.

A common argument by neos is that "hindus worship shakti or feminine energy." Yes we do but god is above any sort of gender first of all. And just because we worship doesnt mean it is our dharma to do what the gods do.

And secondly, Shakta ISNT entirety of Hinduism. Vaishnavism DOMINATES hinduism. So, it doesn't prove that much.

Next up is from Sruti. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.7

>

Now, its a bit complicated because this is a ritual injunction. And not following rituals is very dangerous obviously for the lineage. And so, if a wife does not follow the rituals rules, even then, the "beating" is the last option to choose. So, there's no contradiction to that verse that I showed earlier about the punishment for abandoning or violating a faultless wife.

Now did you observe the grave assymetry here? On one hand, if a woman is of bad character, Husband can marry a new one, he can discipline her but the vice versa is not recommended. She can definitely object but the power dynamics is fundamentally not "feminist ideals" sort of symmetry between couples.

Now, I will also like to quote Sripad Madhvacharya and Mahabharata tatparya nirnaya. Btw, even if you are a Smarta. The opinions on veda adhikara and dharmashastras legitimacy is agreed upon across both smarta and tattvavaada.

>

>

Note: Veda adhikara is not the only way for spiritual upliftment. You can get moksha by following what Veda vyasa wrote for us. And BG 9.29-32 also affirms that everyone is attainable for moksha.

This is from ch 1 verse 49-51. Now, A common objection is that "Rishikas wrote Vedic mantras and were seer of mantras" but there is no contradiction cuz the Rishi yoni is a different yoni than a human yoni. Also, rishis are not human yoni.

>

>

Also, Please don't come with the argument that they are interpolated material. No they really are not interpolated. Also, just because rishis have human children doesnt mean they are humans as you can read. Rishis has all sorts of off springs in the puranas(Refer bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana. Also, Rishi Kashyap is an example. We need to think of it as more "spiritual" and its more complicated.

Now, on a final note- I will like to say that there are countless verses that showcase that Woman should be respected, loved, husband shouldnt violate her and how child bearing should be consensual(altho its a must). Woman are special just like how man are but there dharma is different. They have a great responsibility of bearing child, that is a sacred role.

And just because verse says that woman should be loved respected honoured doesnt mean the text is feminist. It proves that woman can be respected and you can respect woman and not be a feminist.

Abortion is also something most feminist argue FOR. Hinduism is strictly against it. Our duty towards our lineage is one of the most fundamental duty of a human being and there's more metaphysical aspect on why abortion is prohibited.

If you do aim to critique hinduism. I think the best way is to challenge the very foundational metaphysical "premise" like karma, moksha and brahman, vedas etc because our ethics is derived from that.