Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 Kathirasan <kathirasan has sent the following question: Are women considered inferior to men? Shankara says in Vivekacudamani, Verse 2, that it is rare to be born as a male. And he also states that women should not take Sannyas in Brahma Sutras. Why is it so? If the Atman is beyond qualities, why is it that so much emphasis is given to qualities? I would like to request the list members to discuss on this subject. Thanks a million. Kathi ==================================================== Note from the List Moderator: Kathi has sent me this posting and requested my opinion whether the above question is controversial. I believe that the question is genuine and it is an appropriate subject matter for our discussion. My sincere thanks to Kathi for raising this issue. Few years back, I attended a management training program on "How to deal with difficult people?" At the end of the training, I understood that there are no "difficult people" in this world and I lacked the ability to deal with people. People are just people! Similarly, issues are just issues and our imagination (Maya) fabricate the controversies. When the ignorance is removed, the controversies disappear and the issues become an illusion. I am quite confident that members will be able to apply their discriminating intelligence (Viveka) during their deliberations. Thanks again for your cooperation and understanding. Ram Chandran List Moderator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 Dear Kathi: This is something that, being a woman in this lifetime I've looked at often and I do not know if we can find any answers in the scriptures. Perhaps this is one question that needs to be pondered from experience and from the 'teacher within'. Obviously, all is 'atman' and it can not be 'inferior' to be born as a woman. One of my theories on this subject is that there are certain qualities that seem to be inherent within the mind of males and females, though there are exceptions to everything I am looking at this in general terms. Women being of a more intuitive and nurturing nature simply did not have to work so hard at 'enlightenment' they simply accepted that truth and contentment came from within - from love and flowing with life. Men being more concerned with making things happen and being of a more aggressive nature would be more inclined to want to make enlightenment happen. It could be as simple as not including women back then in the quest for enlightment as it is for not including women in the 'sports bar' game night ritual. My other theory is that on this journey to 'oneness' all of our 'stuff' comes up - to be looked at and hopefully, dealt with - control, power and sexual issues seem to be leading contenders in the issue contest. Today, we see many incidents of abuse by 'spiritual teachers'. I myself, have been on the receiving end of abusive behavior by a male spiritual teacher. I don't believe that this man started out with the intention to use his position in this manner - I think that his 'stuff' was there for him to deal with but that the power (he is able to manipulate his kundalini rather easily) has gone to his head and he just can't see with balance anymore. I do not believe that this situation is unique to today - I believe power, control and sex were issues from the moment we left the 'satya' yuga - which is all of recorded history. As wonderful as the Vedas, Brahman sutras, Upanishads etc. are they were all written in a time when issues were present. These writings would reflect the issues in some way and control of knowledge and power through knowledge were present even 5000 years ago. I would bet that if we were to find the teachings that predate even the Vedas - the teachings that come from the 'Satya Yuga' we would not find such references to women. On a positive note I also think that because women were not allowed into the 'inner sanctuaries' of male philosophies and ceremonies that women were able to take the so-called 'crumbs' and work these principals down to their essence and be within that belief in contentment and bliss. I have a funny picture in my mind as I write this - I am thinking of life 4,000 years ago in a small village and it is a night for the men to have a big religious ceremony. They have fasted for days, trained and studied for weeks and will go off to do their ritual. The women are very happy not to have had to cook for a few days, with an amused smile they send their ever so intense men off on their quest and happy that the male energy will be gone for the night - they light a fire, drink some herbal tea, listen quietly to the sounds of God in nature and slip every so gently into the bliss of oneness. Just my thoughts of this matter. Linda Ram Chandran [chandran] Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:08 AM Advaitin List Forwarded Message from Kathirasan Ram Chandran <chandran Kathirasan <kathirasan has sent the following question: Are women considered inferior to men? Shankara says in Vivekacudamani, Verse 2, that it is rare to be born as a male. And he also states that women should not take Sannyas in Brahma Sutras. Why is it so? If the Atman is beyond qualities, why is it that so much emphasis is given to qualities? I would like to request the list members to discuss on this subject. Thanks a million. Kathi ==================================================== Note from the List Moderator: Kathi has sent me this posting and requested my opinion whether the above question is controversial. I believe that the question is genuine and it is an appropriate subject matter for our discussion. My sincere thanks to Kathi for raising this issue. Few years back, I attended a management training program on "How to deal with difficult people?" At the end of the training, I understood that there are no "difficult people" in this world and I lacked the ability to deal with people. People are just people! Similarly, issues are just issues and our imagination (Maya) fabricate the controversies. When the ignorance is removed, the controversies disappear and the issues become an illusion. I am quite confident that members will be able to apply their discriminating intelligence (Viveka) during their deliberations. Thanks again for your cooperation and understanding. Ram Chandran List Moderator. ------ Did you know that we have over 85,000 e-mail communities at Onelist? Come visit our new web site and explore a new interest ------ Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 Linda Callanan wrote: > > "Linda Callanan" <shastra > > Dear Kathi: > > This is something that, being a woman in this lifetime I've looked at often > and I do not know if we can find any answers in the scriptures. Perhaps > this is one question that needs to be pondered from experience and from the > 'teacher within'. > > Obviously, all is 'atman' and it can not be 'inferior' to be born as a > woman. One of my theories on this subject is that there are certain > qualities that seem to be inherent within the mind of males and females, > though there are exceptions to everything I am looking at this in general > terms. Women being of a more intuitive and nurturing nature simply did not > have to work so hard at 'enlightenment' they simply accepted that truth and > contentment came from within - from love and flowing with life. Men being > more concerned with making things happen and being of a more aggressive > nature would be more inclined to want to make enlightenment happen. It > could be as simple as not including women back then in the quest for > enlightment as it is for not including women in the 'sports bar' game night > ritual. > > My other theory is that on this journey to 'oneness' all of our 'stuff' > comes up - to be looked at and hopefully, dealt with - control, power and > sexual issues seem to be leading contenders in the issue contest. Today, we > see many incidents of abuse by 'spiritual teachers'. I myself, have been on > the receiving end of abusive behavior by a male spiritual teacher. I don't > believe that this man started out with the intention to use his position in > this manner - I think that his 'stuff' was there for him to deal with but > that the power (he is able to manipulate his kundalini rather easily) has > gone to his head and he just can't see with balance anymore. I do not > believe that this situation is unique to today - I believe power, control > and sex were issues from the moment we left the 'satya' yuga - which is all > of recorded history. As wonderful as the Vedas, Brahman sutras, Upanishads > etc. are they were all written in a time when issues were present. These > writings would reflect the issues in some way and control of knowledge and > power through knowledge were present even 5000 years ago. I would bet that > if we were to find the teachings that predate even the Vedas - the teachings > that come from the 'Satya Yuga' we would not find such references to women. > > On a positive note I also think that because women were not allowed into the > 'inner sanctuaries' of male philosophies and ceremonies that women were able > to take the so-called 'crumbs' and work these principals down to their > essence and be within that belief in contentment and bliss. I have a funny > picture in my mind as I write this - I am thinking of life 4,000 years ago > in a small village and it is a night for the men to have a big religious > ceremony. They have fasted for days, trained and studied for weeks and will > go off to do their ritual. The women are very happy not to have had to cook > for a few days, with an amused smile they send their ever so intense men off > on their quest and happy that the male energy will be gone for the night - > they light a fire, drink some herbal tea, listen quietly to the sounds of > God in nature and slip every so gently into the bliss of oneness. > > Just my thoughts of this matter. > > Linda > to my understanding: the personality appears to be predominantly male or female; the soul is both; and the spirit is both and neither. so, what is the essence of one's nature? modern jnanis like Ramana and Ramakrishna didn't discriminate against women studying vedanta or taking sannyas. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 >.to my understanding: the personality appears to be predominantly male or female; the soul is both; and the spirit is both and neither. so, what is the essence of one's nature? modern jnanis like Ramana and Ramakrishna didn't discriminate against women studying vedanta or taking sannyas. Namaste Hello, So hum, Sivo hum, Ayam Atma Brahman - and many other mantras tell us that we are beyond the personality, beyond the designation of male and female in essence we are Brahman. The personality is one of the karmic sheaths we need to work through to reach the essence of self. We are fortunate to be living in an age where a soul encased in a female personality can study vedanta and take sannyas vows. Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship and Siddha Yoga not only have female monks but also have female personalities leading both groups. Namaste, Linda ------ Ideas on how we can improve ONElist? Check out the Suggestion Box feature on our new web site ------ Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 hello again. i've been on the no-mail option while finding another, more convenient e-mail address. i should thank ram chandran for encouraging me to post again. and thanks to the list members for letting me to rejoin the discussions after an absence of several months. unfortunately, the absence has done nothing to alter my disqualification from any authority on these topics. i want to say a little on the subject of gender. first, with ramakrishna, it seems to me that his nondiscrimination is much qualified here: "discriminate against women studying vedanta or taking sannyas." in these two things alone? his famous "women and gold" is a very androcentric way to describe temptations since it assumes the male body as standard. this is a minor point, and please, i hope i'm not coming across as bellicose. more generally, the question of whether there are inherent gender identities is, to me, interesting. i think a good argument can be made that any assignment of characteristics according to gender is a linguistic and not a natural (or biological) one. for example, does a y chromosome offer a material basis for the comment that men are "more motivated"? or, is the y chromosome called into being as a result of prior, gender polarizing conceptions of men and women? i more readily say "yes" to the second question because it emphasizes the constructedness of materiality, which i think fits nicely with advaitin. in other words, male, female, chromosome, hormone (or any biological or cultural word or explanation for gender) . . . they don't exist until called into existence by some linguistic system that is inherently artificial. this renders gender distinctions artificial since they're at the level of language, a level that must be transcended. i'm not qualified to speak specifically on scriptual issues, although i too am vexed by the presence of gender even in the qualification of words like "monks" or "sanyasis." how does one recognize "a soul encased in a female personality"? or, should one say "encased in a female body"? and how is the distinction between bodies (or personalities) made? the decision to divide bodies dichotomously according to gender looks, to me, purely arbitrary. thanks for your patience and for reading my writing, and i hope this message is not too simple-minded. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 unfortunately, i've read my previous message and seen something that was not just what i wanted to say. i'll try to say it better. the gendered body exists prior to the subject's recognizing it (in a linguistic system) but not prior to the nondifference between the subject and brahman. this renders the gender distinction, whether linguistic or material, artificial. however, seeing the gender distinction as an element of language is consistent with seeing all materiality as constructed and artificial. any allowance that the physical body makes a difference assigns materiality some kind of primacy over, and maybe legitimacy in relation to, language. but this question is always prior to the subject's recognition of it but subsequent to identification with brahman (even if this is prior to a subject's realization of identification). the only answer to the question is, gender makes no difference materially and no difference linguistically precisely because it is recognizable only by either means. i'm sorry to belabor this point. thanks again for your patience. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 1999 Report Share Posted March 2, 1999 In many societies there has been (or still is) a culturally determined difference between men and woman. Interestingly, the Canary Islands originally had a culture of equality but both culture and religion were destroyed by the Spanish. Regarding Self, there is no gender-difference. If sadhana is considered as the way to remove what prevents to see what IS (Self-realization), it is quite possible that with a large culturally determined gender-difference, sadhana has to reflect this difference and this could explain the ancient advice for women not to take sannyas in Brahma Sutras. As in modern society many of the gender prejudice (almost) has disappeared, it has become obvious that if there is any difference, it is minimal and probably still based on outdated values. Because all direct paths (of which Self inquiry is one) require a mature mind, there isn't the least difference in gender. Yet the issue always reminds me of the fact that what is called "highest rank" seems to contain only male realizers. This state is known in some jivan muktas, the Buddha attained it and also the Gnostic Hermes Trismegistus (there may be more). Rosicrucians call it the end of transfiguration. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 Linda Callanan wrote: > Hello, > > So hum, Sivo hum, Ayam Atma Brahman - and many other mantras tell us that we > are beyond the personality, beyond the designation of male and female in > essence we are Brahman. The personality is one of the karmic sheaths we > need to work through to reach the essence of self. > > We are fortunate to be living in an age where a soul encased in a female > personality can study vedanta and take sannyas vows. Yogananda's > Self-Realization Fellowship and Siddha Yoga not only have female monks but > also have female personalities leading both groups. > > Namaste, > Linda hariH OM! yes, moreover, Yogananda also reported on the yogini Ananda Mayi-Ma being herself a jnani. Ramakrishna also worshipped his wife, Sarada Devi, as an embodiment of Kali--herself thus also a jnani. Ramana said that his mother, Alagamma, achieved mahasamadhi at the time of her death. And beyond this, the ashram's cow Lakshmi was said to achieve Self-realization upon her death as well--not only a female, but a soul in the body of an animal (this may sound fantastic, but if Ramana said it was so, i have full faith that it indeed was). re the time of Adi Sankara, the prevailing opinion that women were not candidates for the study of the vedas was so entrenched in their minds, that for him to claim anything different would have been futile and would have cast such doubt on the people, it would have undermined the rest of his doctrine. also, his reasoning may have been based on the following: perhaps if/when a jivatma incarnates as a female (necessarily alternating between genders in each incarnation, for the vital purpose of exposure to the total spectrum of the human experience), there isn't the pressing need to study scriptures since she's inherently more connected to the soul via the intuitive faculty being more operable and not veiled by the otherwise [aggresive] male concrete/analytical reasoning mind. (this is not to say that any soul incarnate in a female body, who did in fact take up the study of vedas and/or the ashram of sannyas, was *not* inherently centered in the soul, but rather that such undertaking further ameliorated its dharma.) namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 "f. maiello" <egodust Ramana said that his mother, Alagamma, achieved mahasamadhi at the time of her death. And beyond this, the ashram's cow Lakshmi was said to achieve Self-realization upon her death as well--not only a female, but a soul in the body of an animal (this may sound fantastic, but if Ramana said it was so, i have full faith that it indeed was). Harsha: And indeed when Sri Ramana was asked about these incidents he was quite specific in his answers leaving nothing to imagination. The recorded conversations with Ramana ("Talks" and "Day by Day" are a treasure house of wisdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 "f. maiello" <egodust writes: << re the time of Adi Sankara, the prevailing opinion that women were not candidates for the study of the vedas was so entrenched in their minds, that for him to claim anything different would have been futile and would have cast such doubt on the people, it would have undermined the rest of his doctrine. >> hello again. this was an interesting message. i want to respond but don't feel completely confident in my ability to do so. to me, this excerpt suggests that all teachings are subservient to the prevailing ideologies of their time, and it leads me to a disturbing impasse. if it's so that the issue of gender was second-nature and therefore not available as an aspect of a adi sankara's teachings, then teachers are always so limited by their time that anything they say needs the permission of prevailing ideologies and could be said by anyone at that particular moment in history. if, however, teachers are able to transcend and challenge prevailing ideologies, then the question remains why gender was not among those challenged. once the issue of what a culture will and won't allow is introduced, i think it leads to the view that any kind of spiritual teaching is simply a cultural byproduct. at bottom, it's clear to me that teachings always are couched in a system of language that is symptomatic of a culture. it's impossible for any teachings (verbal or even nonverbal) to escape this limitation, but i'm less sure whether an individual jnani can be a transcenedent figure while s/he operates in a culturally limited system of language. what you've written above seems to claim just that by saying that adi sankara had gender-transcendent principles but had to keep them to himself because no one else would understand. but this begs the question, what aspects of his teachings were challenging or subversive to their time, and why was gender different from these? Linda: I do not know if it would be as much a matter of 'no one else would understand' or a matter of working with those who could, by cultural dictates, be allowed to participate. As unenlightened or dualistic it may appear - if all teachers waited for the perfect soil an awful lot of knowledge would be lost as there would be no one to share in the knowledge. << also, his reasoning may have been based on the following: perhaps if/when a jivatma incarnates as a female (necessarily alternating between genders in each incarnation, for the vital purpose of exposure to the total spectrum of the human experience), there isn't the pressing need to study scriptures since she's inherently more connected to the soul via the intuitive faculty being more operable and not veiled by the otherwise [aggresive] male concrete/analytical reasoning mind. >> to say that a jivatma incarnates either as female or male and that those two choices carry inherent differences assumes that the "total spectrum of human experience" divides neatly into male and female poles which exclude one another, that gender difference is unavoidable, and that the gender of the psyche must match the sex of the body. i'm not sure, but it also may imply that a nonincarnate jivatma exists as a whole that nevertheless always contains polarized gender aspects. Linda: the entire universe (that is beyond the creative source) is based on polarity. I do think that the nonincarnate jiva or atman does exist as a whole but when it moves into a physical body the polarity exists - as in Siva/Shakti, Yin/Yang, Positive/Negative. I do not think that the whole spectrum of human experience divides neatly into male and female poles as we all contain aspects of both within our psyches, in other words it is not black and white but more grey. However, the ultimate goal is the uniting of these poles and we can't unite something that doesn't exist. thank you for listening. i hope i'm not belaboring a point intemperately. maxwell. Namaste, Linda ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement ------ If you like orange and blue, then you will love our new web site! Onelist: Fostering connections and information exchange ------ Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 "f. maiello" <egodust writes: << re the time of Adi Sankara, the prevailing opinion that women were not candidates for the study of the vedas was so entrenched in their minds, that for him to claim anything different would have been futile and would have cast such doubt on the people, it would have undermined the rest of his doctrine. >> hello again. this was an interesting message. i want to respond but don't feel completely confident in my ability to do so. to me, this excerpt suggests that all teachings are subservient to the prevailing ideologies of their time, and it leads me to a disturbing impasse. if it's so that the issue of gender was second-nature and therefore not available as an aspect of a adi sankara's teachings, then teachers are always so limited by their time that anything they say needs the permission of prevailing ideologies and could be said by anyone at that particular moment in history. if, however, teachers are able to transcend and challenge prevailing ideologies, then the question remains why gender was not among those challenged. once the issue of what a culture will and won't allow is introduced, i think it leads to the view that any kind of spiritual teaching is simply a cultural byproduct. at bottom, it's clear to me that teachings always are couched in a system of language that is symptomatic of a culture. it's impossible for any teachings (verbal or even nonverbal) to escape this limitation, but i'm less sure whether an individual jnani can be a transcenedent figure while s/he operates in a culturally limited system of language. what you've written above seems to claim just that by saying that adi sankara had gender-transcendent principles but had to keep them to himself because no one else would understand. but this begs the question, what aspects of his teachings were challenging or subversive to their time, and why was gender different from these? << also, his reasoning may have been based on the following: perhaps if/when a jivatma incarnates as a female (necessarily alternating between genders in each incarnation, for the vital purpose of exposure to the total spectrum of the human experience), there isn't the pressing need to study scriptures since she's inherently more connected to the soul via the intuitive faculty being more operable and not veiled by the otherwise [aggresive] male concrete/analytical reasoning mind. >> to say that a jivatma incarnates either as female or male and that those two choices carry inherent differences assumes that the "total spectrum of human experience" divides neatly into male and female poles which exclude one another, that gender difference is unavoidable, and that the gender of the psyche must match the sex of the body. i'm not sure, but it also may imply that a nonincarnate jivatma exists as a whole that nevertheless always contains polarized gender aspects. thank you for listening. i hope i'm not belaboring a point intemperately. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 mpw01 wrote: > > <mpw01 > > "f. maiello" <egodust writes: > > << re the time of Adi Sankara, the prevailing opinion > that women were not candidates for the study of the > vedas was so entrenched in their minds, that for him > to claim anything different would have been futile > and would have cast such doubt on the people, it > would have undermined the rest of his doctrine. >> > > hello again. this was an interesting message. i > want to respond but don't feel completely confident > in my ability to do so. to me, this excerpt suggests > that all teachings are subservient to the prevailing > ideologies of their time, and it leads me to a > disturbing impasse. if it's so that the issue of > gender was second-nature and therefore not available > as an aspect of a adi sankara's teachings, then > teachers are always so limited by their time that > anything they say needs the permission of prevailing > ideologies and could be said by anyone at that > particular moment in history. if, however, teachers > are able to transcend and challenge prevailing > ideologies, then the question remains why gender was > not among those challenged. once the issue of what a > culture will and won't allow is introduced, i think > it leads to the view that any kind of spiritual > teaching is simply a cultural byproduct. at bottom, > it's clear to me that teachings always are couched in > a system of language that is symptomatic of a > culture. it's impossible for any teachings (verbal > or even nonverbal) to escape this limitation, but i'm > less sure whether an individual jnani can be a > transcenedent figure while s/he operates in a > culturally limited system of language. what you've > written above seems to claim just that by saying that > adi sankara had gender-transcendent principles but > had to keep them to himself because no one else would > understand. but this begs the question, what aspects > of his teachings were challenging or subversive to > their time, and why was gender different from these? > i see your point and generally agree, with one caveat. the bulk of Sankara's teaching, based as it is on advaita vedanta, was indeed challenging and 'subversive' relative to the prevailing ideology of the time--if not to this day as well. however, the matter of gender was [and still is] such an emotionally charged subject, that it took twelve centuries hence before the society in India [as well as the in U.S.] was able to address it objectively. consider further that the vedas speak clearly to the fact that not only women but also non- brahmins are exempt from the right to study the sastras, which Sankara instinctively knew he didn't have the capability to over-ride. his interest at the time was mainly to restore faith in the vedas, which were in fact critically challenged by a misguided interpretation of buddhism--deriding the doctrine of sanatana dharma, based as it is on the mono- and polytheistic concepts of siva, visnu, brahma, isvara, atman, and brahman-- all having their place on the ladder of the evolution of the jiva. > << also, his reasoning may have been based on the > following: perhaps if/when a jivatma incarnates as a > female (necessarily alternating between genders in > each incarnation, for the vital purpose of exposure > to the total spectrum of the human experience), there > isn't the pressing need to study scriptures since > she's inherently more connected to the soul via the > intuitive faculty being more operable and not veiled > by the otherwise [aggresive] male concrete/analytical > reasoning mind. >> > > to say that a jivatma incarnates either as female or > male and that those two choices carry inherent > differences assumes that the "total spectrum of human > experience" divides neatly into male and female poles > which exclude one another, that gender difference is > unavoidable, and that the gender of the psyche must > match the sex of the body. i'm not sure, but it also > may imply that a nonincarnate jivatma exists as a > whole that nevertheless always contains polarized > gender aspects. Linda said, in response to this, "I do not think that the whole spectrum of human experience divides neatly into male and female poles as we all contain aspects of both within our psyches, in other words it is not black and white but more grey." quite so...as i alluded to in an earlier post: "the personality appears to be predominantly male or female." that is, one or the other predominates, while its counterpart is more receded, yet very much present. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 mpw01 [mpw01] Wednesday, March 03, 1999 7:37 PM advaitin Re: Forwarded Message from Kathirasan <mpw01 "f. maiello" <egodust writes: << i see your point and generally agree, with one caveat. >> i think your response is helpful because it shows better how the time-specific culture influecnes the teachings (restore faith in the challenged vedas). it's still a dilemma in some ways, however, to account for the specific cultural contexts of teachings when their limitations appear clear in retrospect. maxwell. Harsha: I think some excellent points have been made in this discussion. There is not necessarily a dilemma here. "Teaching" is after all just a pointer and not the "Real Thing." While some aspects of the "pointer", that is, the "teaching", are in a cultural context, the "Thing in ItSelf" that is pointed to - is beyond time and space itself. That is known through Direct Perception into One's Own Nature. All teaching is ultimately illusory. The strength of attachment to culture, religion, thoughts, feelings, concepts, memory, and interpretations of perception constitutes the individual identity. When it is absorbed into the Self it takes everything else with it. Everything resolves into the Great Silence. _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 "f. maiello" <egodust writes: << i see your point and generally agree, with one caveat. >> i think your response is helpful because it shows better how the time-specific culture influecnes the teachings (restore faith in the challenged vedas). it's still a dilemma in some ways, however, to account for the specific cultural contexts of teachings when their limitations appear clear in retrospect. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 1999 Report Share Posted March 3, 1999 << Linda: the entire universe (that is beyond the creative source) is based on polarity. I do think that the nonincarnate jiva or atman does exist as a whole but when it moves into a physical body the polarity exists - as in Siva/Shakti, Yin/Yang, Positive/Negative. I do not think that the whole spectrum of human experience divides neatly into male and female poles as we all contain aspects of both within our psyches, in other words it is not black and white but more grey. However, the ultimate goal is the uniting of these poles and we can't unite something that doesn't exist. >> this is also very interesting, and i wish i could respond to it with competence. is the entire universe based on polarity, or is the construct of polarity imposed on the universe artificially? i think you're saying that polarity is an inherent component of materiality and that any material or corporeal thing will incorporate versions of polarities and will reflect one end of a pole more than the other. if, however, jiva exists as a whole, then in what sense is polarity relevant to it? the idea of unity already assumes polarity when unity is the reunion of poles. to me, it seems like the ultimate goal, rather than uniting poles or unity, would be the transcendence of polarity, the realization that there are no poles and no union of poles to begin with. this seems especially true when polarity always seems to accrue gendered overtones. << Linda: I do not know if it would be as much a matter of 'no one else would understand' or a matter of working with those who could, by cultural dictates, be allowed to participate. >> this still begs the question, why was gender impenetrable among cultural dictates, or is it that no cultural dictates may be challenged by a teacher? thank you for listening. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 1999 Report Share Posted March 4, 1999 mpw01 [mpw01] Wednesday, March 03, 1999 7:39 PM advaitin Re: Forwarded Message from Kathirasan Hello Maxwell, Good points. I also do not consider myself an authority simply a seeker. It is my understanding that until one is enlightened the 'full spectrum' of God/Creation will remain a mystery. The universe which is a creation of God does function through polarities. I don't know if one could say that the polarity is imposed artificially since the universe itself is Maya illusion/magic (ie., artificial). It appears that the polarity exists to keep the illusion in existence. Of course, the goal is to transcend the duality or polarity I believe that in order to transcend we must become part of. The Vedas and the Upanishads are filled with references to the 'cosmic ocean' which can be viewed as creation itself. If our souls are considered as a drop of the cosmic ocean and we look at how a raindrop falls into the ocean to become one with the ocean it is the same process for the soul. We do not transcend we become part of thereby merging the duality or polarity. <mpw01 Maxwell >this is also very interesting, and i wish i could >respond to it with competence. is the entire >polarity imposed on the universe artificially? i >think you're saying that polarity is an inherent >component of materiality and that any material or >corporeal thing will incorporate versions of >polarities and will reflect one end of a pole more >than the other. if, however, jiva exists as a whole, >then in what sense is polarity relevant to it? the >idea of unity already assumes polarity when unity is >the reunion of poles. to me, it seems like the >ultimate goal, rather than uniting poles or unity, >would be the transcendence of polarity, the >realization that there are no poles and no union of >poles to begin with. this seems especially true when >polarity always seems to accrue gendered overtones. << Linda: I do not know if it would be as much a matter of 'no one else would understand' or a matter of working with those who could, by cultural dictates, be allowed to participate. >> Maxwell >>this still begs the question, why was gender impenetrable among cultural dictates, or is it that no cultural dictates may be challenged by a teacher? Linda Until scientists in the Middle Ages discovered that the sun was the center of the universe the Western world believed the earth was the center. This despite the fact that ancient vedic records indicated differently. Cultural beliefs do not of course indicate truth and moves at its own pace. It is not impenetrable just generally far behind spiritual truth but not necessarily religious truth. Over the course of history there have been teachers that challenged cultural dictates - Buddha and Christ are two examples. We are fortunate at this time to be living when teachings are challenging and being challenged. while we are pleased with this process there are many who are very upset over all of the challenges to cultural dictates - I imagine that the order of society has always tried to stay static for the sense of safety that lack of change appears to bring. Thank you for the dialogue. Linda thank you for listening. maxwell. ___________ Message envoye depuis http://www.ifrance.com ou 3615 IFRANCE iFrance : Hebergement gratuit-Emails gratuits-Internet sans abonnement ------ We have a new web site! Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services ------ Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin 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.