Money greed and sexual-lustfulness are such terrible forces, that they have overpowered even the most advanced of souls. Here therefore under Mai-ism the most difficult examination has been treated rather leniently and it should be enough that man passes with grace marks. It is enough that the man is true to his wife and that he gets money honestly in fairways without indulging in hundred s of ways of lying and cheating and defrauding, and that he makes it a point to spend a certain proportion of his wealth for deserving religious charitable purposes, etc. At this stage, Mai-ism does not mind his remaining infatuated with his wife, and trying his best to be wealthy enough, to be living in full comforts by honest and fair methods and without resorting to systematized cheating methods, that have lost their sting, in modern times, being in common prevalence.
Mai-ism is for using the terms “Money-greed and sexual lustfulness ” and not the centuries old expressions ” Kanaka कनक and Kantaa कांता ” or ” Kaanchan कांचन and Kaamini कामिनी “. It is not the woman that is the source of temptation, but it is the lustfulness in man. Mai-ism thinks it is an ungratefulness to denounce the sex of Man’s mother, sister and daughter. A woman is in no way a grater degrading force than man, if at all we study the black side of a man and woman’s relations. However, there has been never such a thing as man’s downright condemnation. These centuries old expressions have led the prejudiced modern minds to infer , that the scriptures were written for “Man” alone , that the scriptures writers were averse to womankind and believed women to be a foreign undeserving inimical element for religious progress, and that Saints in the past evaded the very shadow of a woman. These views are quite ill-founded. All the same, both the sides are to be blamed. The moderners have not seen how much worshipful reverence the Saints and or Scriptures have shown to deserving women, especially to “mothers” and “satees”(chaste life sacrificing true wives). On the other hand, it has to be sorrowfully admitted that few or no saints have taken pains to raise protest against such deprecating expressions, nor have they made the point clear, while they left volumes of teachings after them. Why should they have left it necessary, for their followers, to write long comments, stating, ”No, no; our Guruji had no hatred towards women”?? I was once assailed by a highly educated woman, who quote a Saint’s words “ Dhol, Dadama, Shudra, Pashu, Naari, Voh sab Tadana ke Adhikaari (the drum, the blowing trumpet,, the menial, the animal and the women, work best under “beating”).I tried my every defense saying “beating “ in the case of a women meant here is only an unpleasant but effective appeal to her heart , that a “Nari”, a woman, in said quotation means a bad woman.”
She left me with hatred-ful face gesturing saying “Were all dictionaries then burnt”? She meant, “Why not be explicit and say specifically “a bad woman”?? Why whole sale condemnation of womankind? “We mean the same thing” is an attitude of a deceptive roguery. It is not fairness. It is like passing over one false currency note in the midst of many, hiding a true one for substitution, in case of a protest is raised. Let Mai-ism at least be free from the contamination of this centuries old condemnation. The Founder of Mai-ism cannot keep his one foot in milk and another in curd. He has to speak one way or the other, on such an extremely important issue about womankind as whole, even though he may be wrong. Perhaps some saints in the past did not make much of the expressions (so many of them), because they knew woman was safest with her infatuating powers against such parrotry. Let the woman enslaved have a forceful eye opening , or at least, a vent in words. It is only a small word pinch only , which even women, if they think sexlessly and religiously , may not mind or may even appreciate, understanding full well what the saints and scriptures really meant. The crudeness has however to be admitted and should entirely cease, at least for Mai-ists.
Mai-istic eye towards woman is not that of chivalry and appreciation of beauty, engaging manners, softness, tenderness and sexual sentiments or emotions. It is not again that of vengeance towards man, in return of the man’s subjugation of woman in the past. Mai-istic eye is that of mercifulness, sacrificing, service-fullness and sacredness of mother, which almost every woman is, like a fruit bearing tree that suffers heat and cold, frost and rain, for the nourishment of the world itself. As between man and woman, Mai-ism wants to develop true understanding of mutual indispensability and in-competitive co-operative spirit of reciprocal love and service. The question of superiority, equality and inferiority is entirely irrelevant. Mai-ism insists on the sublimation of that natural human emotion known as “sex attraction”. Let the whole sale benefit of man folk on its looking upon the woman-folk , as comprised of mothers , sisters and daughters , be not lost. Mai-ism wants man to love and serve all women and not of any particular relationship or category alone.
So many saints, it cannot be denied, were indebted for they were , to their “Mothers”. So Many Ashrams were ably conducted for public spiritual welfare, through the assistance of women. Paramahamsa was declared to be In carnation by a woman, a Sanyaasini. Should we not be ashamed of man’s ungratefulness, while using expressions of wholesale denunciation??
Of course for a worldly man, it may not be possible for him to be agreed to the highest ideal of looking every woman to be a mother, but then, let the understanding be clear , as under:
A woman is poison when approached with lustfulness, and is a nectar when viewed with a feeling of motherliness. The woman that pulls man more and more towards worldliness, is a venom, whereas the woman that gives him a spiritual, moral and virtuous life is a nectar. The woman that pulls man towards Godlessness, enjoyment and selfishness, is venom, whereas , the woman that takes him to God-ward-ness, self-control and selflessness, is a nectar. The woman that makes man more attached to his parents, Gurus, benefactors, helpers, destitute and the needy is the nectar. The woman that makes man a slave of her infatuation and grind mill bullock for increasing requirements of the family, is a venom. The woman who sits on man’s head and through the strings of her infatuations rides him as a camel and satisfies her thirst with the water in the camel’s belly, if need arises is a venom.
Why are people so very fond of short misleading formulae in Religion? when they would be exhausting their brains with hair splitting over-two-penny worth worldly matters?? Neither infatuation, nor denunciation. Such expressions have been a plum-feather, which no man professing to be religious has failed to crown himself with. Mai-ism however takes strong objection thereto. Just as service and love have been there, but not religionised, so here too, it is not that the idea of looking upon woman as mother is not there but it has not been religionised. Mai-ism religionises Love and Service, and the trying of one’s best to look upon every woman as mother.
The yet greater humiliation is to be seen in that woman has been bracketed with wealth, as if both were of an equally degenerating order, calling them both, temptations, as per old religious belief. There is however earth and sky difference. Whereas the former is with reference to matter and materialism, the latter means a much subtler and nobler fight of living spirits and living forces .Wealth itself has no craving to conquer any man and to fell any special joy and blessedness in being with a certain man. Money temptation is murderous, women temptation is suicidal. The former arises from wickedness and cruelty, the latter from weakness and misplaced lovingness. A greedy man impoverishes the world and creates repulsion. Lustful man has at least one chance in a thousand of reaction in the spiritual direction. Lustfulness abates with the passing of years, but the greediness increases with age.
In the first place, don’t denounce “woman”. If at all you do, don’t bracket with wealth. It is only one sided and blind man’s judgment. When you reach that high stage of spirituality when non-attachment becomes goal of your Sadhana, you have to practice for attainment of proofness against sex attraction. But that you can as well do, without denunciation and hatred. Condemnation is wrong remedy and a harmful teaching. It is great injustice that such a parrotry should be repeated John, Dick or harry, or by envious members in a family, to break the happy blending of a husband and a wife , or by an evil eyed friend , of if for no serious reasons, at least for slighting and belittling , be the speaker a drunkard, or a pauper or profligate. This misunderstood and misinterpreted religious licence given to men against women stands entirely cancelled, rejected and even condemned, under Mai-ism.