sTHREE BA:LA:NDHA jADOPA MA:

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. The beauty of following Swamiji's advice is questions like

these become redundant ! :-)

advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

<bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

>

> wHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND sRI sANKARA BHAGAVATPUJYAPA;DA'S

INCLUSION OF WOMEN as not sensitive to the truth and not men IN

>

> Sri Dakshinamurthy Sthothram ?

>

> Thank U

> B

> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 pjoshi99 wrote :

> >happens by reacting to anything as a 'woman'. The moment somebody

> >says something about 'woman' I identify and react. Any chance I

get

> >I remind myself of my 'womanhood' either feel proud about it or

feel

> >sorry for myself. I realised this to be a serious impediment on

the

> >spiritual path where we seek to see 'vision of oneness'. (As a

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear Bhuveneswarji and Padmaji

 

Because for the reason women are women and Men and Men In vyvahara that is

the reason, Adi Shankaracharya having discrimination, from the age of 5

onwards, not like us saying the living being, and even in vyvahar also. That

is the reason, hope you got it. And no so called modern Swamis by any way

can question Acharya, then what about you and I. to me atleast when you

comment about Dakshinamurthi stotram of Bhagawad Padal, and question, it

seems to be really a joke! If you want to analyse somebody like Acharya's

calibre, we should be above him other wise, at least understand what his

teaching is, and Kuturkam will not help here.

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

 

On 12/12/05, pjoshi99 <pjoshi99 wrote:

>

> Hari Om. The beauty of following Swamiji's advice is questions like

> these become redundant ! :-)

> advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

> <bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

> >

> > wHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND sRI sANKARA BHAGAVATPUJYAPA;DA'S

> INCLUSION OF WOMEN as not sensitive to the truth and not men IN

> >

> > Sri Dakshinamurthy Sthothram ?

> >

> > Thank U

> > B

>

> > On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 pjoshi99 wrote :

> > >happens by reacting to anything as a 'woman'. The moment somebody

> > >says something about 'woman' I identify and react. Any chance I

> get

> > >I remind myself of my 'womanhood' either feel proud about it or

> feel

> > >sorry for myself. I realised this to be a serious impediment on

> the

> > >spiritual path where we seek to see 'vision of oneness'. (As a

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

>

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/<http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin\

/>

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Religion and

spirituality</gads?t=ms&k=Religion+and+spirituality&w1=Re\

ligion+and+spirituality&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=0IbDMqJ8nA8f05\

eAJzstKg>

>

Advaita</gads?t=ms&k=Advaita&w1=Religion+and+spirituality\

&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=vzQW0CDYxFxpaHYJAwJiDA> Bhagavad

>

gita</gads?t=ms&k=Bhagavad+gita&w1=Religion+and+spiritual\

ity&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=n0FspvlXQlhcYfiiSGvN9Q>

> ------------------------------

>

>

>

> - Visit your group "advaitin<advaitin>"

> on the web.

>

> -

>

advaitin<advaitin?subjec\

t=Un>

>

> - Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

 

 

 

--

Krishna Prasad

 

.. Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it,

consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary,

sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit.

We Must - Swami Chinmayanada

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Verse # 5 of "Hymn To ShrI DakshiNAmUrthi' under reference is quoted

below:

 

dehaM praaNamapiindriyaaNyapi chalaaM buddhiM cha shuunyaM viduH

striibaalaandhajaDopamaastvahamiti bhraantaa bhR^ishaM vaadinaH .

maayaashaktivilaasakalpitamahaa vyaamohasa.nhaariNe

tasmai shriigurumuurtaye nama idaM shriidakshiNaamuurtaye .. 5..

 

Following is the interpretation of Sw. Chinmayanandaji for this verse:

 

"He who removes all the terrible misconceptions, created by the

deluding play of Maya - in those who, intellectually innocent as a

woman-child-blind-idiot and consider the Reality as their body or

their Prana or their senses or their ever-changing intellect or as

mere void and through error (mis-conception) declare them to be the

only Reality - to Him, the Divine Teacher, Sri Dakshinamoorthy, is

this Prostration."

 

Members of the fair sex can heave a sigh of relief now that Swamiji

has qualified them as intellectually innocent.

 

I have a thought on this verse. I am not sure if it will pass the

stringent test of Sanskrit grammar. Yet, kindly permit me to express

it:

 

It is curious that the word jaDa is combined with strI, bAla and

andha. It is fine if the meaning of idiot or a dull person is read

into jaDa. Should we do that? JaDa also means inert or inanimate.

Why not then understand this part as implying: "I am likened (the

Sanskrit word used is 'upamA') to something feminine, childlike,

unseeing as the blind and also inert or inanimate". Our spiritual

history is replete with such likenings, isn't it?

 

So, can we understand the first two lines as follows?

 

Aham dehaM prANaMapi indriyANyapi ca shUnyaM (iti)

(Aham) strIbAlandhajaDopama asti (iti ca)

bhraAntA bhR^ishaM vaadinaH viduH

 

This can then be explained as follows:

 

The deluded ones understand me as body, vital airs, sense organs, and

void and they also liken me to femininity (masculinity implied),

childlikeness (innocence + the other avastAs of kaumara, yauvana etc.

implied. Also, please recall that 'bAlyAdiSu' appears in another

verse of the same hymn.), unseeing nature (blind to or disinterested

in vyAvahArika) and inanimateness or inertness - which are all

vyAvahArik attributes that have been imposed on Reality some time or

the other.

 

Thus, this could be a classic case of AdhyAropa apavAda.

 

Any thoughts - particularly from you Shri Subrahmanyanji as you are

going to undertake an exposition of this Hymn shortly. Sunderji,

kindly check the grammar.

 

If I am quite off the mark, kindly pardon me. I couldn't resist the

temptation to post this as the Hymn has always been my guiding light

in Advaita. The bewildering interpretations found on the net is

another reason.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhuvaneswar Chilukuri wrote:

> wHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND sRI sANKARA BHAGAVATPUJYAPA;DA'S INCLUSION OF

> WOMEN as not sensitive to the truth and not men IN Sri Dakshinamurthy

Sthothram ?

 

BhagvAn shankara's words are not always in favorable light to women

and people of certain castes.

 

Even though his words are the only systemmatic means available for

understanding the purport of shruti, they are still paurushEya and

subject to the influence of social beliefs, customs and norms of his

times.

 

Secondly, bhagvAn shankara's system is not only a spiritual philosophy

but also a practical methodology to realize that goal. While his

spiritual philosophy may have universal appeal, the other part of his

system i.e. practical methodology is geared to a very specific

audience viz. sannyAsins -- who are considered beyond the varNAshrama

dharma. In shankara's times, usually the brahmin males only took

sannyAsa and therefore others may often find themselves excluded.

 

It was only in response to challenges from vishishTAdvaita and dvaita

systems-- which had more universal appeal -- that later advaitin

AchAryas tried to expand the scope of practical part of advaita

system, but none in a consistent manner. Even today, advaita as

taught by bhagvAn shankara bhagvatpAda remains by and large a path for

sannyAsins. Others interested in his philosophy should be ready to

face the stark fact that this system was not originally designed for

them.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> Verse # 5 of "Hymn To ShrI DakshiNAmUrthi' under reference is

>

>

> It is curious that the word jaDa is combined with strI, bAla and

> andha. >

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

Namste Madathi-Ji:

 

I think the reason for this "upamaa" will make sense if it is

understood in the context of saaMkhya:

 

puruShasya darshanaartha.m kaivalyaartha.m tathaa pradhaanasya |

pa.ngva.ndhavadubhayorapi sa.myogastatkR^itaH sargaH ||

ishvarakR^iShNa saa.nkhya kaarikaa 21 ||

 

Here, prakR^iti is depicted as being blind and carrying the puruSha

on her shoulders.

 

Combine this understanding with the pata~njala yoga suutra "tasya

vaacakaH praNavaH" and then this gets illuminated further.

 

Meaning - The prNava is the reader, the designator of the puruShaa.

 

How this is possible can be understood through the formation of

words themselves. As we know all (most of the) the words

contain "root verbs (vya~Njana)" as "puruSha" and the "vowels svara"

as the "prakR^iti".

 

For example - The ling of word is always designated by the vowel

therefore the "OM" has been represented as the universal prakR^iti

because it encompasses all the sounds (vowels). The word Vijaya -

male (pulli.nga) and vijayaa - becomes female (stril.nga).

 

A classic prkR^iti is mother. We call her "maa", "aaii" and "mom"

in English.

 

It is only through the understanding of various sounds of vowels we

start understanding the root verbs "puruSha". All the

manifestations are jaDa because once the praana (puruSha) departs

from the body what do we have left. "gatavati vaayo dehaa paaye,

bhaaryaa bibhyati tamina kaaye".

 

It is also to tbe understood that without the help of "prkR^iti"

the "purushaa" could not get manifested in the first place.

 

Just some thoughts !!

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Any thoughts - particularly from you Shri Subrahmanyanji as you

are

> going to undertake an exposition of this Hymn shortly. Sunderji,

> kindly check the grammar.

 

Namaste,

 

I am not sure what the question about grammar is! The

interpretation given is very much like that in Sureshvaracharya's

Manasollasa commentary on this stotra. Words may sometimes be used

to fit he meter of the verse or for some other reason, rather than

the gender-specific characteristics; eg mankind includes women!

 

It would be best to wait to discuss the verse in sequence

as suggested.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste.

> >

> > Verse # 5 of "Hymn To ShrI DakshiNAmUrthi' under reference is

> >

> >

> > It is curious that the word jaDa is combined with strI, bAla and

> > andha. >

> > PraNAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

> >

>

> Namste Madathi-Ji:

>

> I think the reason for this "upamaa" will make sense if it is

> understood in the context of saaMkhya:

 

 

Namaste,

 

The explanation appears plausible to a degree. However, if we

cite Gita 15:18, it states -- prakriti is kshara and purusha is

akshara, but the Supreme is Purushottama, beyond both.

 

So, I think we need not read too much into the gender-related

words.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namste Sunder-Ji:

 

By definition "axara" - na xarati iti axaraH.

 

If we intrepret axara is words or axara brahma then a written word

is more reliable than the spoken word. Spoken word dissolves with

the death of sound and is thus limited to one who speaks or/and the

one who hears.

 

In any word pratyaya changes that causes to change the linga but the

root verb remains constant, without any alteration.

 

Therefore, written words carry much more weight than the spoken

words.

 

The next line in 15.18 is also an important clue, where he is the

knowledge, the creator of the knowledge and the preceptor of the

knowledge as well.

 

This also satisfies the puruSha suukta - puruSha e vedam sarvaM

 

Also compare this the statements in shvetaashvatara upaniShada:

 

eko devaH sarvabhuuteShu guDhaH |

sarvavyapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa ||

karmaadhyaxaH sarvarbhuutaadhivaasa: |

saaxii cetaa kevalo nirguNashca || shvetaashvatara 6.11 ||

 

By defination puruSha –

 

puri shete iti puruShaH.

 

puuShu sarvaaShu shete.asau saaxitveneti puruShaH

 

Meaning - The one who is latently sleeping in a given body so he is

the enjoyer of the body. The chairman or "adhiShTaataa"

 

shete means the one lying latent in the body. Thus the enjoyer of

that body is "the pruSha" is not limited to the linga or rather

beyond the apparent linga svaruupa of manifestation.

 

Finally, what we have from lord kR^iShNa is the everlasting

knowledge. His prakR^iti "FORM" died long time ago at the hands of

vyaadha when he was standing at the tree and the vyaadha thought it

to be a deer.

 

Just some thoughts !

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> > <madathilnair> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste.

> > >

> > > Verse # 5 of "Hymn To ShrI DakshiNAmUrthi' under reference is

> > >

> > >

> > > It is curious that the word jaDa is combined with strI, bAla

and

> > > andha. >

> > > PraNAms.

> > >

> > > Madathil Nair

> > >

> >

> > Namste Madathi-Ji:

> >

> > I think the reason for this "upamaa" will make sense if it is

> > understood in the context of saaMkhya:

>

>

> Namaste,

>

> The explanation appears plausible to a degree. However, if

we

> cite Gita 15:18, it states -- prakriti is kshara and purusha is

> akshara, but the Supreme is Purushottama, beyond both.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>