Folklore is just tales without basis ? [ Was Renuka-Yellamma ]

[Guest guest]

Satish wrote : "The story of Renuka running into Yellamma's house

is

a folk tale without much basis."

 

Now this is an interesting extraction with regards to Folklore:

 

"The science of Folklore is an historical science, historical

because

it seeks to throw the light on man's past, a science, because it

endeavours to attain this goal not by speculation or deduction from

some a priori principal but by the inductive methods used in all

scientific research.

 

Nowadays is it accepted that folklore helps us in the fields of

ethnology, pre-history, modern natural science, psychical research

"

Even more intimate is the connection of folklore and religion, more

particularly the so called natural ie non dogmatic, non-revealed and

usually but imperfectly organized, religions of the semi-civilised

and of classical antiquity, but to a certain extent also the great

monotheistic religion. Invirtually all known religions a constant

strife has been known to be going on between those desirous of

reducing the folklore elements to the very minimum, considering it

incompatible with their concept of true religion, and those others

claiming that, while a religion thus purged of the popular element

may serve well enough the needs of select spirits, the educated, it

will never satisfy the people.

 

B.A Botkins write " If we admitted no impediments to a marriage

of

true minds between folklore and history, the product of their union

would be folk history… a history, also in which the people are

the

historians as well as the history telling their own story in their

own words – Everyman's history, for Everyman to read"

 

He further believes that folklore and social history

are "inextricable bound up with each other, and are not simply

common

ground but one and the same ground. Thus folklore materials are of

great importance to us as a source of socio-cultural history.

 

It is observed that folklore records " an expression of genuine

desires, aspirations, genius, emotions and thoughts of a people. A

reconstruction of the early history and civilization of Bengal is

only possible by a critical study of the folklore, folk rites, and

practices which prevail even today in different part of the

country."

Prof D.C Ganguly writes that "the general character of folk

culture

which was developed in our village is simplicity, sincerity,

sensibility to human needs; and a general background of spiritual

thinking without any complicated philosophical speculation. It is

also marked by a childish love of nature and childish love of GOD

–

though frequently expressed in a very crude and superstitious

irrational forms"

 

Extraction from Historical studies in the Cult of the Goddess Manasa

( A socio-cultural study ) by Dr Pradyot Kumar Maity

 

 

So my question is can we just brush aside and say "a folk tale

without much basis "?

[Guest guest]

, "N. Madasamy"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> So my question is can we just brush aside and say "a folk tale

> without much basis "?

 

IMHO, this particular one. A single look at the map of India with

state borders and rivers is enough to brush this aside.

 

Or else we can assume that Renuka ran from Parashurama for a couple

of hundred miles before getting caught.

Hmmm.. Parashurama was unable to catch her for that long?

Interesting, isnt it?

[Guest guest]

"So my question is can we just brush aside and say "a folk tale

without much basis "?"

 

IMHO, this particular one. A single look at the map of India with

state borders and rivers is enough to brush this aside.Or else we can

assume that Renuka ran from Parashurama for a couple of hundred miles

before getting caught.Hmmm.. Parashurama was unable to catch her for

that long? Interesting, isnt it?

 

Yes! satish it is indeed Interesting. Stories from the Mahabaratha

too sometimes the scenes too seems impossible, and yet it is being

widely accepted. Why is that so?

[Guest guest]

, "N. Madasamy"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

>

> Yes! satish it is indeed Interesting. Stories from the Mahabaratha

> too sometimes the scenes too seems impossible, and yet it is being

> widely accepted. Why is that so?

 

You have any specific scenes in mind?

 

Depends on who says too. For example you may have a tendency to

believe in something said by your guru, but not in something said by

someone you dont know well.

 

This may not be relevant: Dont think I am brushing aside the story

because it involved an outcaste women. Mathangi Herself is addressed

sometimes as Chandali and all orthodox upasakas worship Her.

[Guest guest]

"You have any specific scenes in mind?"

 

Not right at this moment. Im still with my Goddess Manasa book. LOL.

 

"Depends on who says too. For example you may have a tendency to

believe in something said by your guru, but not in something said by

someone you dont know well."

 

Agreed. Isn't this what it should be. We should listen to what our

guru tells us. But believe is another thing. We need to question if

we think the story is not logical only then believe can take root. I

am being told, reject what you believe is not right.

 

"This may not be relevant: Dont think I am brushing aside the story

because it involved an outcaste women. Mathangi Herself is addressed

sometimes as Chandali and all orthodox upasakas worship Her."

 

Thank you for clarifying it for us. I personally believe we should

not just ignore folklore, but to take note and find an understanding.

No matter how ridiculous the story maybe, there may be some basis to

it. As we know once words are being spread via mouth, there is always

the tendency for people to exaggerate to suit their need. This is why

I think for one to undertake any study on a particular Goddess, we

need to understand the difference between a scholarly and devotional

approach.

[Guest guest]

I also find that answer particularly interesting,

since if we are taking literal interpretations of

scriptures, it is far more possible for a woman to be

on the run from someone for two hundred miles than

just about ANYTHING Krishna or Shiva did, never mind

when you get into talking monkeys (hanuman) or guys

with elephant heads (ganesh). Yet many fundamentalists

insist that these stories MUST be taken as literal

truths. How silly.

 

Love

Swami

 

--- "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy

wrote:

> "So my question is can we just brush aside and say

> "a folk tale

> without much basis "?"

>

> IMHO, this particular one. A single look at the map

> of India with

> state borders and rivers is enough to brush this

> aside.Or else we can

> assume that Renuka ran from Parashurama for a couple

> of hundred miles

> before getting caught.Hmmm.. Parashurama was unable

> to catch her for

> that long? Interesting, isnt it?

>

> Yes! satish it is indeed Interesting. Stories from

> the Mahabaratha

> too sometimes the scenes too seems impossible, and

> yet it is being

> widely accepted. Why is that so?

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

http://antispam./tools

[Guest guest]

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> I also find that answer particularly interesting,

> since if we are taking literal interpretations of

> scriptures, it is far more possible for a woman to be

> on the run from someone for two hundred miles than

> just about ANYTHING Krishna or Shiva did, never mind

> when you get into talking monkeys (hanuman) or guys

> with elephant heads (ganesh). Yet many fundamentalists

> insist that these stories MUST be taken as literal

> truths. How silly.

 

What is more silly is that there are people who claim they are

Swamiji's with the least amount of respect to Hindu divinities.

 

Renuka is born a human woman. That She is human, is acknowledged in

the folk tale itself. Read it again. Krishna is a superhuman being,

being an avatara of Vishnu. Shiva isnt human. Neither are Hanuman or

Ganesh.

 

Before making such statements it will help if you take care to

properly read.

 

 

It is surprising that you stoop to such level of immense disrespect

for Hindu divinities just because you want to call a group as

fundamentalist.

From what you post I find it hard to believe that you are a Swamiji.

I often wonder if you are a fundamentalist muslim in the garb of a

Swamiji.

Your posts on another thread and your responses to Omprem seem to

be filled with utter hatred and you add "Love" at the end to cover

that up.

 

SA.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I want to thank Satish and DB for supplying some additional

information on this topic. Much thanks.

 

I find the story very interesting. Although many folkloric tales and

also many scriptures have their grounding in some facts, I find the

metaphors to be most useful and challenging.

 

In this story, I wonder what it is saying that an upper caste woman

who is pure is transformed and ends up with the head of the lower

caste woman after seeing something sexual and having her son kill

her. She lives but she is changed, in particular her head, perhaps

her mind is changed. Also, the lower caste woman for her act of

kindness and protectiveness ends up with the head of the upper caste

woman.

 

Here, too is the mystery: what part of the body contains the essense

of the self? For me it would be the head. However, in this story the

figure with the body of the upper caste woman but the head of the

lower caste woman goes "home" to the upper caste husband. Clearly the

story is saying that it is the body of the woman that is her true

self.

 

Would the same be true of a man? Where does the self reside?

 

Anyway, I recently found a Goddess statue in a small shop, it has the

head and upper torso of a woman and the body of a lion. It reminded

me of Sekmet the Egyptian Goddess, except that Sekmet has the head of

a lion and the body of a woman. It also reminded me of Durga,

because, although this Goddess figure is not holding any weapons, Her

torso seems to be dressed in leather armor and Durga sometimes is

pictured riding on the back of a lion. (Usually a tiger, I know, but

sometimes a lion) And that puts the female figure above and almost

one with the feline figure. I cannot say which Goddess is being

depicted in this sculpture, but I really like it.

 

Thank you also, DB for your encouragement on my job search. With the

help of Devi all is well and I must stay in faith. I'm sure something

good will happen.

 

Blessings,

 

prainbow

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prainbow ...

 

You write, *** in this story the figure with the body of the upper

caste woman but the head of the lower caste woman goes "home" to the

upper caste husband. Clearly the story is saying that it is the body

of the woman that is her true self. ***

 

I don't think this is quite correct. Renuka is worshiped as a

disembodied head; not a beheaded body (the body without a head is

Lajja Gauri). Renuka-Yellamma is still a very popular devi, and is

most frequently portrayed as a head without a body. Renuka (i.e. her

head) returned home with the body of an outcaste woman (with the

implication that the body isn't what matters).

 

Both Renuka and Yellamma become devis. Metaphorically, that seems

(to me, at least) to suggest that when they overcame the divisions

and categories of the world of Maya, they became as one with the

Divine. Is that not the end goal of any sadhana?

 

Also, from a Tantric point of view, I would say the message is

abundantly clear: It is *not* the self (body) that you were born in

that determines your status, but what you do with that self (i.e.

what you do with your head; sadhana, etc). As Kochu has pointed out

more learnedly and eloquently than I am able, the Brahmin is made

not born. The idea of a highly adept Brahmin sadhika suddenly

finding herself attached to an outcaste body forces "caste snobs" to

face an important truth: It's not what you are that counts, but what

you have achieved.

 

*** Would the same be true of a man? Where does the self reside? ***

 

I am not sure that a man-female dichotomy is intended here, nor does

it help clarify the tale's message. Again, in Tantra (unlike

Vedism), female gender is no bar to spiritual advancement; and in

Shakta varieties of Tantra, it's considered an advantage. Once

again, the individual is not judged by what they are (i.e. low caste

or high caste; female or male), but but who they are (i.e., what

they have accomplished as a sadhak).

 

That's my interpretation at least.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

, "prainbow61" <paulie-

rainbow@u...> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> I want to thank Satish and DB for supplying some additional

> information on this topic. Much thanks.

>

> I find the story very interesting. Although many folkloric tales

and

> also many scriptures have their grounding in some facts, I find

the

> metaphors to be most useful and challenging.

>

> In this story, I wonder what it is saying that an upper caste

woman

> who is pure is transformed and ends up with the head of the lower

> caste woman after seeing something sexual and having her son kill

> her. She lives but she is changed, in particular her head, perhaps

> her mind is changed. Also, the lower caste woman for her act of

> kindness and protectiveness ends up with the head of the upper

caste

> woman.

>

> Here, too is the mystery: what part of the body contains the

essense

> of the self? For me it would be the head. However, in this story

the

> figure with the body of the upper caste woman but the head of the

> lower caste woman goes "home" to the upper caste husband. Clearly

the

> story is saying that it is the body of the woman that is her true

> self.

>

> Would the same be true of a man? Where does the self reside?

>

> Anyway, I recently found a Goddess statue in a small shop, it has

the

> head and upper torso of a woman and the body of a lion. It

reminded

> me of Sekmet the Egyptian Goddess, except that Sekmet has the head

of

> a lion and the body of a woman. It also reminded me of Durga,

> because, although this Goddess figure is not holding any weapons,

Her

> torso seems to be dressed in leather armor and Durga sometimes is

> pictured riding on the back of a lion. (Usually a tiger, I know,

but

> sometimes a lion) And that puts the female figure above and almost

> one with the feline figure. I cannot say which Goddess is being

> depicted in this sculpture, but I really like it.

>

> Thank you also, DB for your encouragement on my job search. With

the

> help of Devi all is well and I must stay in faith. I'm sure

something

> good will happen.

>

> Blessings,

>

> prainbow

[Guest guest]

"Renuka is worshiped as a disembodied head; not a beheaded body (the

body without a head is Lajja Gauri). Renuka-Yellamma is still a very

popular devi, and is most frequently portrayed as a head without a

body. Renuka (i.e. her head) returned home with the body of an

outcaste woman (with the implication that the body isn't what

matters)."

 

I some of the Mariamman temple I know, they have the main Devi [ with

body and head ] and just a head [ without the body ] infront of her,

and we prayed to both of them as "Maha Mariamman". In the Nageshwari

Temple I frequent here in KL, they have the snake pit on the

background and just a woman's head [ on the ground ]infront of it.

And the priest told me, this is Mariamman too. The Priest is a

disciple of the Omshakti Movement in India.

[Guest guest]

"From what you post I find it hard to believe that you are a Swamiji.

I often wonder if you are a fundamentalist muslim in the garb of a

Swamiji. Your posts on another thread and your responses to Omprem

seem to be filled with utter hatred and you add "Love" at the end to

cover that up"

 

Is this absolutely necessary? To me its more of a character attack.

Once you start doing such, it truly reflect your own. If we disagree

on certain issue, why cant we be more diplomatic about it? We have a

saying which goes : if you point on finger at another, three is

pointing back at you.