Guest guest Posted November 30, 2005 Report Share Posted November 30, 2005 She resides in the penal law. By punishing sinners She corrects them and leads them on to righteous paths. - Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy, Commentary on the Sri Lalita Sahasranama, 1962 , "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...> wrote: > > > dandanitishthA : Dwelling in Justice > > The Devi Pr. Says, "Because she leads to certainty men who wander into > good and bad ways by restraining and by soothing them, she [Devi] is > called Dandaniti [justice] > > > BhAskararAya's Commentary > Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 So she's in accordance with the Bible then, per Kochu. , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > > > she will not spare the rod and spoil the child > > Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote: She resides in the penal law. By punishing sinners She corrects them > and leads them on to righteous paths. > > - Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy, Commentary on the Sri Lalita > Sahasranama, 1962 > > > > , "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...> > wrote: > > > > > > dandanitishthA : Dwelling in Justice > > > > The Devi Pr. Says, "Because she leads to certainty men who wander > into > > good and bad ways by restraining and by soothing them, she [Devi] > is > > called Dandaniti [justice] > > > > > > BhAskararAya's Commentary > > Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > Personals > Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. > Lots of someones, actually. Try Personals > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 I am afraid it is NOT so. No Hindu Godform (which is the reflection of ultimate formless attributeless one) is "vengeful" as in the Abrahamite religions. The Godheads will only intervene to guide you in the right direction, not to "punish". Being a reflective form when evil is projected towards she/he/it; she/he/it reflects it back. This is the principle of Karma as well. The reflecting back is for one to know one's own mistakes and then to take corrective action and not to "punish". The Paternal religions speak of punishment. But Hindu religions compare the Godform to Mother who never ever looses the love for the child and at the same time give lessons to the child so that she/he can develop properly as and when needed. The rod is NOT used as a punishing tool but as a gentle goad to goad one back in the right direction. Maybe I am being foolish. But that’s my view. Mary Ann <buttercookie61 wrote: So she's in accordance with the Bible then, per Kochu. , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > > > she will not spare the rod and spoil the child > > Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote: She resides in the penal law. By punishing sinners She corrects them > and leads them on to righteous paths. > > - Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy, Commentary on the Sri Lalita > Sahasranama, 1962 > > > > , "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...> > wrote: > > > > > > dandanitishthA : Dwelling in Justice > > > > The Devi Pr. Says, "Because she leads to certainty men who wander > into > > good and bad ways by restraining and by soothing them, she [Devi] > is > > called Dandaniti [justice] > > > > > > BhAskararAya's Commentary > > Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > Personals > Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. > Lots of someones, actually. Try Personals > > > Visit your group "" on the web. Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 excellent interpretation of mother. thanks & pranams asokan Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2005 Report Share Posted December 1, 2005 Yes, I have read/heard of this distinction between discipline and punishment, but to children, such distinctions are often lost, esp. when most "discipline" is done by unenlightened people. BTW this Dr. who is being quoted in the translations of the LS, is he Hindu? He's the one that used the word "punishment." In looking up "discipline" in the dictionary (an old verson of The Oxford English Dictionary), I see that in reference to religion the word "penal" is mentioned, and it was also mentioned in the posted tranlations. The word "penal" means "of or belonging to punishment." It is also called "corrective." I would not imply or say that you are foolish, Kochu. I think you rightly recognized something that is there. BTW "vengeful" acts aren't the only kind of violent acts. Mary Ann , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > > I am afraid it is NOT so. No Hindu Godform (which is the reflection of ultimate formless attributeless one) is "vengeful" as in the Abrahamite religions. > > The Godheads will only intervene to guide you in the right direction, not to "punish". Being a reflective form when evil is projected towards she/he/it; she/he/it reflects it back. This is the principle of Karma as well. > > The reflecting back is for one to know one's own mistakes and then to take corrective action and not to "punish". The Paternal religions speak of punishment. But Hindu religions compare the Godform to Mother who never ever looses the love for the child and at the same time give lessons to the child so that she/he can develop properly as and when needed. > > The rod is NOT used as a punishing tool but as a gentle goad to goad one back in the right direction. > > Maybe I am being foolish. But that's my view. > > > > > Mary Ann <buttercookie61> wrote: > So she's in accordance with the Bible then, per Kochu. > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz> > wrote: > > > > > > she will not spare the rod and spoil the child > > > > Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote: She resides in the penal > law. By punishing sinners She corrects them > > and leads them on to righteous paths. > > > > - Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy, Commentary on the Sri Lalita > > Sahasranama, 1962 > > > > > > > > , "NMadasamy" > <nmadasamy@s...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > dandanitishthA : Dwelling in Justice > > > > > > The Devi Pr. Says, "Because she leads to certainty men who > wander > > into > > > good and bad ways by restraining and by soothing them, she > [Devi] > > is > > > called Dandaniti [justice] > > > > > > > > > BhAskararAya's Commentary > > > Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personals > > Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. > > Lots of someones, actually. Try Personals > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2005 Report Share Posted December 2, 2005 *** BTW this Dr. who is being quoted in the translations of the LS, is he Hindu? *** Yes; he was a prominent physician and academic, as well as an accomplished and devout Sri Vidya upasaka. If you look back through the archives, I've posted his background info a few times. *** He's the one that used the word "punishment." *** As I've noted in the past, Dr. S's commentaries have to be understood in the context in which he intended them to be read. Forty-odd years ago, his book appeared in a tiny print run intended principally for other Sri Vidya upasakas, most of whom would have had at least a rudimentary working knowledge of Sanskrit and a broad familiarity with the broad conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of Hinduism. In that sense, at least, I have done him a disservice: By making his comments available online and bringing them to a worldwide audience, I have also astronomically increased the odds of his words being misinterpreted and misunderstood by those approaching him without the cultural and philosophical background he would have assumed in writing his commentary. *** In looking up "discipline" in the dictionary (an old verson of The Oxford English Dictionary), I see [...] *** But that is taking the analysis in the wrong direction. The way to arrive at a better understanding of Dr. S's meaning is not to explore the etymology of the English term he employed as an approximation in his commentary. Rather, in fairness, we must look back to the original Sanskrit terminology and the Hindu understanding of its meaning. Kochu's post further up this thread provides exactly that, with clarity and precision. *** I would not imply or say that you are foolish, Kochu. I think you rightly recognized something that is there. *** Quite right. Kochu's original post and his follow-up were very far from foolish, as serious reflection will readily reveal. His post provides not just "something that is there" in the commentary but in all likelihood the *entirety* of the contextual, cultural and spiritual meaning assumed in Dr. S's gloss on the LS's text. IMHO, it is always a mistake to approach scripture and commentary with a pre-conceived social agenda rather than an open willingness to meet and understand the work on its own terms, and in its proper cultural and historical context. When we are dealing with the Lalita Sahasranama, the Bible, the Quran, or any other scripture, we are almost always met with material that can be twisted to any use, if we are intent on using it advance our own agenda. Thus Jesus's radical message of unconditional love and inclusion can be twisted to exclude women and homosexuals from the priesthood, or to justify attacking abortion clinics. The Quran can be read as a document that liberates women (see the work of Fatima Mernissi), or as one that grievously circumscribes their lives (see the work of most modern fundie mullahs). Likewise, every Hindu scripture can be read as concealing patriarchal oppression and violence ... but only if we are more interested in promoting our own ideas and agendas rather than we are in appreciating the scripture's actual content and meaning. aiM mAtangI namaH , "Mary Ann" <buttercookie61> wrote: > > Yes, I have read/heard of this distinction between discipline and > punishment, but to children, such distinctions are often lost, esp. > when most "discipline" is done by unenlightened people. BTW this Dr. > who is being quoted in the translations of the LS, is he Hindu? He's > the one that used the word "punishment." In looking up "discipline" > in the dictionary (an old verson of The Oxford English Dictionary), > I see that in reference to religion the word "penal" is mentioned, > and it was also mentioned in the posted tranlations. The > word "penal" means "of or belonging to punishment." It is also > called "corrective." > > I would not imply or say that you are foolish, Kochu. I think you > rightly recognized something that is there. BTW "vengeful" acts > aren't the only kind of violent acts. > > Mary Ann > > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz> > wrote: > > > > I am afraid it is NOT so. No Hindu Godform (which is the > reflection of ultimate formless attributeless one) is "vengeful" as > in the Abrahamite religions. > > > > The Godheads will only intervene to guide you in the right > direction, not to "punish". Being a reflective form when evil is > projected towards she/he/it; she/he/it reflects it back. This is the > principle of Karma as well. > > > > The reflecting back is for one to know one's own mistakes and > then to take corrective action and not to "punish". The Paternal > religions speak of punishment. But Hindu religions compare the > Godform to Mother who never ever looses the love for the child and > at the same time give lessons to the child so that she/he can > develop properly as and when needed. > > > > The rod is NOT used as a punishing tool but as a gentle goad to > goad one back in the right direction. > > > > Maybe I am being foolish. But that's my view. > > > > > > > > > > Mary Ann <buttercookie61> wrote: > > So she's in accordance with the Bible then, per Kochu. > > > > , sankara menon > <kochu1tz> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > she will not spare the rod and spoil the child > > > > > > Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote: She resides in the penal > > law. By punishing sinners She corrects them > > > and leads them on to righteous paths. > > > > > > - Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy, Commentary on the Sri Lalita > > > Sahasranama, 1962 > > > > > > > > > > > > , "NMadasamy" > > <nmadasamy@s...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > dandanitishthA : Dwelling in Justice > > > > > > > > The Devi Pr. Says, "Because she leads to certainty men who > > wander > > > into > > > > good and bad ways by restraining and by soothing them, she > > [Devi] > > > is > > > > called Dandaniti [justice] > > > > > > > > > > > > BhAskararAya's Commentary > > > > Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2005 Report Share Posted December 2, 2005 Dear all: Most people approach any statement of the scriptures with their own agenda. When the words are clear they say it is secret code language. When Scriptures say things that are inconvenient, they just ignore it. Like it says that Brahmins are not allowed to cross oceans and if you do you loose caste. I also read somewhere that the Brahmins, on behalf of some scholar who had crossed the ocean, approached the Shringeri Shankaracharya to see whether there was any exception. He denied and said IF you are following scriptures there is no exception. But still namesake Brahmins who have crossed ocean still strut around claiming superiority. For them it is "convenient" to forget their own pontiff's decree. Similarly, worship at sandhyAs is mandatory for a Brahmana. Many do not do it or combine two or three sandhyas into one. With no scriptural sanction!! Yet its "convenient". When questioned it is “convenience”. “I have to work no?” So the scriptures are interpreted and misinterpreted to suit convenience. That is why I never get into hairsplitting arguments. I have what my guru told me and it takes the place of all scriptures. Guruvaakya is paramount. Just because I interpret certain scriptures in a particular way, It does not mean that I follow that to the letter. Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: *** BTW this Dr. who is being quoted in the translations of the LS, is he Hindu? *** Yes; he was a prominent physician and academic, as well as an accomplished and devout Sri Vidya upasaka. If you look back through the archives, I've posted his background info a few times. *** He's the one that used the word "punishment." *** As I've noted in the past, Dr. S's commentaries have to be understood in the context in which he intended them to read. Forty-odd years ago, his commentary appeared in a tiny print run intended principally for other Sri Vidya upasakas, most of whom would presumably have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of Sanskrit and a broad familiarity with the broad conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of Hinduism. In that sense, at least, I have done him a disservice: By making his comments available online and bringing them to a worldwide audience, I have also astronomically increased the odds of his words being misinterpreted and misunderstood by some who are approaching him without the cultural and philosophical background he would have assumed in writing his commentary. *** In looking up "discipline" in the dictionary (an old verson of The Oxford English Dictionary), I see [...] *** That is taking the analysis in the wrong direction. The way to arrive at a better understanding of Dr. S's meaning is not to explore the etymology of the English term he employed as an approximation in his commentary. Rather, in fairness, we must look back to the original Sanskrit terminology and the Hindu understanding of its meaning (Kochu's post, further up this thread, provides exactly that with clarity and precision). *** I would not imply or say that you are foolish, Kochu. I think you rightly recognized something that is there. *** Quite right. Kochu's original post, and his follow-up, were very far from foolish, as serious reflection would reveal. His post provides not just "something that is there" in the commentary but in all likelihood the *entirety* of the contextual, cultural and spiritual meaning assumed in Dr. S's gloss on the LS's text. IMHO, it is always a mistake to approach scripture and commentary with a pre-conceived social agenda rather than an open willingness to meet and understand the work on its own terms, and in its proper cultural and historical context. When we are dealing with the Lalita Sahasranama, the Bible, the Quran, or any other scripture, we are almost always met with material that can be twisted to any use, if we are intent on using it advance our own agenda. Thus Jesus's radical message of unconditional love and inclusion can be twisted to exclude women and homosexuals from the priesthood, or to justify attacking abortion clinics. The Quran can be read as a document that liberates women (see the work of Fatima Mernissi), or as one that grievously circumscribes their lives (see the work of most modern fundie mullahs). Likewise, every Hindu scripture can be read as concealing patriarchal oppression ... but only if you are more interested in promoting your own ideas and agendas rather than appreciating the actual content and teachings. aiM mAtangI namaH Personals Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. Lots of someones, actually. Personals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.