It is in the Hinduism we find women were oppressed. Women were not oppressed in the Vedic times, but high status accorded to women in the Vedic society.+

Rig Veda is the only scripture among those of all religions in which the Divine Truths are revealed to women sages also and some of these hymns describing the revelation find a prominent place in the Rig Veda Samhita like the hymn (10.125) (tenth mandala, 125 sūkta or hymn) attributed to the woman sage Vāk Ambriņi. There are more than thirty women sages in Rig Veda with specific hymns associated with them.

In all the Semitic religions,  there is no mention of any revelation to women, and no woman is listed among the prominent disciples of the founders or prophets of those religions.

There are numerous hymns in the Rigveda indicating the high status accorded to women in the Vedic society. Rig Veda (10.27.12) explicitly states that the practice of a lady choosing her own husband was in vogue.

The hymn (10.85), the marriage hymn, explicitly states that the daughter-in-law should be treated like a queen, sāmrājni, by all the family members especially the mother-in-law, husband, father-in-law.

 In Rig Veda (10.85.26) the bride was exhorted to address the assembly; to be asked to address the assembly was regarded as an honor by most of the sages. Women were not oppressed in Vedic times. First, one has to realize the fact that,  Hinduism is not the ancient Vedic religion or Santana Dharma.

It is in Hinduism we find women were oppressed. Women were not oppressed in the Vedic times, but the high status was accorded to women in the Vedic society.

Even today, some orthodox persons deny the right of chanting the Veda to women. However,  the Orthodox cannot cite any authoritative scripture to support their views. Any book in Sanskrit cannot be accepted as scripture or divine revelation.

Women Sages:~ 

Women saints and sages of India have been given less importance, for several reasons obvious to anyone studying history.

In the medieval period, women were confined to homes and according to some moral codes, women were not allowed to study scriptures and chant mantras while mantras were invoked as female deities or Goddesses. 

The Vedic rishis had wives who were learned women and took part in philosophical discussions. The crippling social practices for women, considering them as inferior, unfit for scriptural studies were introduced by male-dominated societies. While women monastics or nuns were introduced in Buddhism; it was not a common practice to have nuns in Hindu monastic orders until recent times.

Sage Sri, Sankara has philosophical disputes and debates with an equally great scholar, Mandana Mishra.  Mishra's learned wife Bharathi served as the umpire.

Sage Sankara says: ~ in Mand.P.351 and also in Vivekachoodamani, that even women can realize the truth if they persist.

Thus, it proves that Sage Sri, Sankara wanted even women to acquire Advaitic wisdom whereas the orthodox Advaitins Bars women to indulge in the path of wisdom. 

Sage Sankara says:~  that even women can realize the truth if they persist. (Mand.P.351 and also in Vivekachoodamani)

Some of the quotations given by these critics are from the period of the sutra books which are dated more than two thousand years later than the Rigveda. Naturally, these critics suppress quotations that speak of the high status of women in the society of the Rig Vedic period and the period of Upanishads.

There is no evidence to support the orthodox claims that Veda bars women to study the scriptures and chant mantras. Women were not confined to homes like Hindu culture. The Vedic culture is different than the Hindu culture.

Hinduism is a group of caste and creed with diverse beliefs and culture diverse rituals and dogmas is nothing to do with ancient Vedic religion or Santana Dharma.   It is an error to identify the Vedic Religion as Hinduism because Hinduism is the non-Vedic belief system.

The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western invaders. That is the genesis of the word `Hindu'. (The Hindu View of Life by Dr. Radhakrishan, p.12).

 When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define the Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship anyone God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow anyone set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.

Confronted by this difficulty, Dr. Radhakrishan realized that Hinduism seems to be a name without any content. Is it a museum of beliefs, a medley or rites, or a mere map, a geographical expression? (The Hindu View of Life by Dr. Radhakrishan, p.11)

The Vedas as a body of scripture contains many contradictions and they are fragmentary in nature. For most Hindus of today, scriptures like the Bhagavad-Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas are more attractive and appealing than the Vedas.

The Gods and Goddesses they worship differ considerably from the Vedic ones. The collection of hymns called Vedas that are written in praise of certain deities by poets over several centuries does not seem to have much significance for the Hindus of today.

Much of modern Hinduism is ‘Puranic Hinduism’. Vedic Gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni, Soma, and the like, whom the Vedic people worshiped, hardly have any significance in present-day Hinduism. The Gods and Goddesses important to the Hindus of today are Ram, Krishna, Kali, Ganesh, Hanuman, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and the respective consorts of the last three, namely, Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Shakti. None of these deities figured prominently in the Vedic pantheon and some of them are clearly non-Vedic. The major Gods of Hinduism like Vishnu and Shiva are non-Aryan in origin. Though they may have belonged to the Vedic tradition they played no major role in the Vedas.

Thus, it is important to bifurcate Hinduism from the Ancient Vedic religion or Santana Dharma the importance of ‘going back to the Vedas’ in order to realize the Vedic religion is nothing to do with the Hinduism, which is based on diverse belief in non-~Vedic Gods, dogmas, rituals, and worship of human being, which is barred by Vedas.

Indian people are sentimentally attached to religion because they have inherited an adulterated version of Hinduism which is founded by the different foundresses of sects and castes from time to time.   Thus, understanding our religion is necessary to realize Vedic Religion or Vedic Religion or Santana Dharma was caste free, temple free, priest free, free of dogmas. :~Santthosh Kumaar  

There is no need to study Advaitic philosophy or others books of Sage Sankara.+

Sage Sankara is a great Gnani of all times. This world owes him a deep debt of gratitude. He not only consolidated the classical values of life but also spiritual wisdom.

Unfortunately, few philosophers in the world are as misunderstood and misinterpreted as Sage Sankara. Ironically, most of the harm came from his admirers and followers of the orthodox Advaitic sect because they propagated rituals as a means to attain lower knowledge which is meant for those who believed in the physical existence (universe or waking)  as a reality.   The orthodoxy is nothing to do with Sage  Sankara’s Advaitic wisdom.

One of Sage Sankara’s missions was to wean people away from the ritualistic approach and to project the Advaitic wisdom (Gnana) as the means of liberation.

He criticized severely the ritualistic attitude and those who advocated such practices. However, the texts that combined rituals with wisdom (jnana_karma_samucchaya) more in favor of the Orthodox position came onto vogue, projecting Sage Sri, Sankara as the rallying force of the doctrine.

Adhyasa Bhashya of Sage Sankara:~

Sage Sankara: ~ 2. The Adhyasa Bashya is remarkable in many ways. It is not a lengthy work; it is less than fifty lines divided into five sections. It is free-flowing writing. Sage Sankara lucidly puts forth his views. While doing so, he does not cite any traditional text or authority in support of his views. He does not denounce or attack any school of thought (vada). He is not propagating a new school of thought or a new argument. He assures that the significance of the initial discussion will be realized in the main commentary, which seeks to restore the true interpretation of the Vedanta tradition as contained in the Vedanta Sutra. Adhyasa Bashya is a rare gem in the field of philosophical texts. Adhyasa Bhashya 

Attaining one's aspirations and expectations by resorting to rituals had caught the imagination of the common people. Sage Sankara advocated wisdom as the sole means for attaining one's goals in life.

Advaitic orthodoxy diluted the rigorous position by combing Upanishad teachings with rituals to make it appealing to the common people.

Sage Sankara viewed this as a distortion of the Upanishad ideals. To play down the prominence given to rituals, Sage Sankara relied on the idea of Avidya He bracketed the ritualistic approach with Avidya and called it an “error”.

Avidya is a word that occurs in Upanishads, though not often. The word Vidya is used to denote effective discrimination and Avidya is the absence of it.

Sage Sankara states wisdom (Vidya) can eliminate ignorance (Avidya),  but the ignorance it eliminates is not real because it has no existence of its own. Once the error is removed the Universe (Brahman) will reveal its own accord.

Sage Sankara explains darkness and light are distinct from each other in their nature and in their functions. Darkness has no existence of its own; it is merely the absence of light. Whereas, the light is positive and helps vision. Darkness and light can neither coexist nor share their functions or nature. Darkness is an error that can be removed.

Sage Sankara states, that the main purpose of the Upanishads is to provide the knowledge(vidya) that will eliminate darkness, and ignorance (Avidya), which is in the nature of “reality transfer” (adhyasa). he thereafter goes on to explain the concept of adhyasa.

Adhyasa, according to Sage Sankara, is not an intellectual construct but a matter of realization.

Sage Sankara says we do it all the time. Adhyasa consists in mistaking one thing and its attributes for another; superimposing one level of reality over the other. This we do every day. The individual experience the world through his senses, mind, and other ways of perception. His experience of the world may be tainted by the defect in his senses or other constraints, internal or external. Nevertheless, that person creates his own set of impressions and experiences and he accepts those subjective experiences as real.

Sage Sankara regards personal realization as independent and convincing evidence. 

Sage Sankara says that an individual’s experience cannot be disputed because the experience he went through was real to him; though that may not be real from the absolute point of view.

Sage Sankara makes a distinction between the absolute view and the relative view of things.

Sage Sankara: -   6. In short, what the person does is, he imposes his transactional experience (relative or dual) over the transcendental (absolute) and accepts the former as real. That subjective experience need not be proved or disproved. However, the confusion it created can be removed by wisdom (vidya). According to Sage Sri, Sankara the world we experience is not absolutely real but it is not false either. The reality is that which cannot be negated and that which is beyond contradiction.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara: - 6.1. Sage Sankara explains that vyavaharika (relative) and paramarthika (absolute) both are real. However, the relative reality is “limited” in the sense it is biologically or mechanically determined and it is not beyond contradictions. The absolute on the other hand is infinite (everlasting and unitary (meaning utter lack of plurality).-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara is careful to point out that the two dimensions – Vyavaharika and Paramarthika- are two levels of experiential variations. It does not mean they are two orders of reality. They are only two perspectives. Whatever that is there is REAL and is not affected by our views. 

Sage Sankara: - 6.2. The Self in the vyavaharika context is saririka (embodied Self ); it encounters the world. However, the Self, in reality, is not saririka; it is absolute, asaririka, and is infinite. The infinite Self, perceived as the limited Self (jiva) is what Sage Sankara calls adhyasa.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara: - 7. The dichotomy between being an individual-in-the-world (jiva) and being originally a pure, transcendental consciousness (atman) is taken by Sage  Sankara as merely superficial. According to Sage Sankara, it is due to avidya that the individual fails to see the nexus between Being and the world. That nexus indicates the oneness underlying the subject-object, inner-outer, and Man-Nature distinctions. All that is required is to remove the error and the universe will shine on its own accord.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara:~ 8. The analogy given in the text is that of a pond that is clear and undisturbed. One can see the bottom of the pond through its still water. When, however, pebbles are thrown into the pond, the water in it is disturbed and the bottom of the pond becomes no longer visible. That bottom, however, is there all the time and it remains unchanged, no matter whether the surface water is disturbed or not. The water in the pond is the transactional world. The bottom of the pond is the transcendental reality. The disturbance created is avidya.-Adhyasa Bhashya

(It is difficult to find an exact English word for adhyasa. It may, among other things, mean “superimposition”,” projection” etc. adhyasa is more comprehensive than that. Sage Sankara, in my view, recognizes three levels of existence, the Absolute, the relative, and the illusory. Adhyasa consists of superimposing one level of existence (relative/illusory) over the other (The Absolute) and accepting the former as true while it may actually be untrue. The absolute (atman) appearing as the limited (jiva) is what Sage Sri, Sankara calls adhyasa. (For more on this please see Adhyasa )-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara:~9.Extending the concept of adhyasa, Sage Sankara says, we superimpose the body, the sense organs, and the mind on the Self (infinite) and we use expressions like: ‘I am fat’, ‘I am thin’, ‘I am white’, ‘I am black’, ‘I stand’, ‘I go’, ‘I am dumb’, ‘I am deaf’, ‘I think’, ‘I am not going to fight’, ‘I shall renounce’ and so on. In this way, we superimpose our mind on the Atman, which is the eternal witness. We do it the other way also by superimposing Self on the mind, the non-Self. According to Sage  Sankara, the relation between mind and 'Self' involves mutual superimposition (itaretara-adhyasa). This relation is false since there cannot be any real relation between the Self and the non-Self. This confusion or adhyasa is innate to us and is a matter of common experience.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara:~10. Sage Sankara says, the purpose of Upanishads is to remove adhyasa or avidya,  and once it is removed, Brahman will shine of its accord, for it is the only reality. This doctrine of Sage Sankara became the nucleus for the development of the Advaita school of thought.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara:~ 11. As regards the rituals, Sage Sankara says, the person who performs rituals and aspires for rewards will view himself in terms of the caste into which he is born, his age, the stage of his life, and his standing in society, etc. In addition, he is required to perform rituals all through his life. However, the 'Self' has none of those attributes or tags. Hence, the person who superimposes all those attributes on the changeless, eternal Self and identifies Self with the body is confusing one for the other; and is, therefore, an ignorant person. The scriptures dealing with rituals, rewards, etc. are therefore addressed to an ignorant person.-Adhyasa Bhashya

 Sage Sankara:~ 11.1. This ignorance (mistaking the body for Self ) brings in its wake a desire for the well-being of the body, aversion for its disease or discomfort, fear of its destruction, and thus a host of miseries(anartha). This anartha is caused by projecting karthvya(“doer” sense) and bhokthavya(object) on the Atman. Sage  Sankara calls this adhyasa. The scriptures dealing with rituals, rewards, etc. are, therefore, he says, addressed to an ignorant person.

Sage Sankara:~  11.2. In short, a person who engages in rituals with the notion “I am an agent, doer, thinker”, according to Sage Sankara, is ignorant, as his behavior implies a distinct, separate doer/agent/knower; and an object that is to be done/achieved/known. That duality is avidya, an error that can be removed by Vidya.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara:~   11.3. Sage Sankara elsewhere explains that, when such acts are performed by a person without desire for the fruits of his actions, by recognizing the reality that there is neither a “doer” nor an “object”, then that instills in him the desire for Brahma-vidya, which takes him closer to Vidya.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Sage Sankara:~   12.  Sage Sankara affirming his belief in one eternal unchanging reality (Brahman) and the illusion of plurality, drives home the point that Upanishads deal not with rituals but with the knowledge of the Absolute (Brahma Vidya) and the Upanishads give us an insight into the essential nature of the Self which is identical with the Absolute, the Brahman.-Adhyasa Bhashya

Remember:~

There is no need to study Advaitic philosophy or other books of Sage  Sankara. Without the realization of one‘s identity with the Self, there shall be no liberation for the Soul. 

That is why Sage Sankara:~  VC Let erudite scholars quote all the scripture, let Gods be invoked through sacrifices, let elaborate rituals be performed, let personal Gods be propitiated---yet, without the realization of one‘s identity with the Self, there shall be no liberation for the individual, not  even in the lifetimes of a hundred Brahmas put together (verses-6)

Liberation cannot be the result of good works, for Sruti itself declares that there is no hope for immortality through wealth.  (Verses -7)

Sage Sankara said: ~ Neither by the practice of yoga nor philosophy, nor by good works nor by learning, does liberation come, but only through the realization that Atman and Brahman are one in no other way. (1) VivekaChudamani v 56, pg 25

Most intellectuals' approach is more practical, and they stuck with the reality of the practical life within the practical world, and they take it as a real therefore it is difficult for them to realize the truth, which is beyond the form, time, and space.

The world is a reality on the base of the ego (you). Whatever one feels as a person is a reality in the world. The world, in which you exist, is present only when the waking experience is present.  

If the world in which you exist is taken as a reality then there is no meaning in seeking the truth, because he has accepted the world as truth.  Once the world in which you exist is accepted as a reality then the experiences of birth, life, and death that happens within the world prevail as a reality.

The seeker has to learn to view and judge the three states from standpoint of the Soul, and the Self, then only he becomes aware of the illusory nature of the world in which he exists (waking).:~Santthosh Kumaar