Women & chanting vedas- 3

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

The analysis of the verse 10-34 of Gita is continued

to probe into whether there exists some other meaning

to this verse.

The Lord as being the origin of Birth in this context

is easy to understand. But why does He tell about

Himself as being Death in the context of telling who

He is among women?

 

Thinking about the two great epics, we seem to get

closer to the core idea. Is it because the Lord swung

into action as Lord of Death when the women were

wronged?

 

When Sita was abducted, Valmiki merely goes about

narrating how the incidents had happened and how Sita

was distressed. Then Jatayu enters the scene and is

badly wounded. She goes near him, holds him and does

‘rodhanam’ (crying) saying so many words. Ravana then

lifts her up by her hair… At this juncture Valmiki

says that when Ravana did this act (of holding her

aloft by her hair), Brahma devan remarked happily,

“kaaryam mudindhadu” (the job is over), implying that

Ravana’s fate is now sealed. The other other-worldly

beings such as kinnara etc also rejoiced that Ravana’s

end had come. They didn’t seem to comment like this

when Sita was abducted. At that time everyone was

watching in stunned silence. The act of touching

Sita’s hair and lifting her by holding it seems to be

an act of grave offence to signify that there would be

no going back in Rama’s resolve to kill him. It is

note-worthy that Rama let go kakasura who harmed her

mortally in her private part, but he didn’t do that to

Ravana whose committing of an affront on Sita’s

dignity was a shade physically lesser than what

kakasura had done. The sookshumam seems to lie in

hair!

 

Why I am led to think like this is because similar

dreadful end was foretold by Draupadi when she made a

vow of not tying up her hair till the kauravas were

vanquished and Dhuryodhana’s blood smeared on her

hair. Probably elders who are more conversant with

practices of olden days may be able to shed more light

on the sookshumam of woman’s ‘aLaga-bhAram’.

 

The purpose of the above narration is to stress the

point that the Lord does not take kindly on acts that

affect woman’s dignity, safety and probably the 7

qualities that have found mention in His own song.

Whenever such qualities (mEdha, vAk, speech etc) are

exhibited, there has been no hindrance to their

seeking of lofty Principles. To substantiate this, let

me quote what sage Yajnavalkya said to his wife.

 

Yajnavalkya was too happy to hear Maitreyi ask him

what leads to deathlessness. He says, “you have always

been very dear to me and what you say now makes you

dearer still”, and continues to unravel the Eternal

Knowledge to her. If it had been mandatory for anyone

to learn swadhyaya as antecedent to inquiry into

Eternal knowledge, how could Yajnavalkya had given it

to his wife? Of the different pramanas that Bhagavad

Ramanuja had quoted, why did he not consider this one?

In practice, this antecedent clause bars not only

women, but also men from taking up direct inquiry –

something what we all do today.

 

With advancement of kali yuga, the first notable

casualty is vedadhyayana. One can count the number of

persons learning the karma khandam as Ramanuja thinks

is required for further abhyasa. If he has meant it to

be a strict rule, then not many men, leave alone

women, are entitled to do the meditation on Brahman.

 

On arriving at this thought, I felt I need to know

Ramanuja’s mind better. Elsewhere - in 3 places in

brahma sutra-bhashya to be precise - Ramanuja had said

something, but practised something else in his own

life. (I request the readers not to consider my

language as an affront on him. This is an intellectual

exercise which I took to Ramanuja in Melkote when I

was not convinced why he chose to give an explanation

like this, while he could have as well spoken like

Shankara in his interpretation of the sutra.)

 

One area is the interpretation on who a shudra is.

Though Ramanuja defines a shudra as one ‘who is

grief-stricken’, he preferred to fall in line (in sri

bhashyam) with the sutrakara who said that shudrahood

comes by caste.(“shudras by caste are not entitled to

Brahma vidhya” - 1-3-33) But in practice, Ramanuja

never barred anyone from learning / knowing

thirumanthram or sat vishayam.

 

Another area where he wrote something and preached

another is in determining whether the jiva has any

freewill. In his commentary to Brahma sutra, he does

speak about jiva’s own ‘volition’ at the initial stage

– only as a logical consequence in the context without

producing any pramana to substantiate this. For,

theoretically, vedopanishads do not support the idea

of freewill to the jiva. There is no case built for

the conditions that can determine what this initial

stage that he has in mind. He does not explain what

defines the initial stage and what factors contribute

to spontaneity of will of the jiva. This ideological

dilemma is tempered down in Vedartha sangraha (124)

where he talks about god conferring on the jiva

‘spontaneously a holy disposition of will and

intellect’. Further later, the granthas like

Srivachana bhooshanam and Mumukshuppadi which reflect

his grooming and thought harp on the virtues of

shedding ‘swa-shakthi’, that is shedding of freewill

and glorification of absolute subservience to god.

 

Yet another area where the transformation in thought

is found, is in his composition of Vaikuntha gadhyam

glorifying the Lord in Form. But all along his sri

bhashya, he had heavily relied on pramanas on formless

god (Brahman). There was a heavy accent on the

metaphysical aspects of the inquiry, than on a god of

form. It strikes the attention of the reader of

Vedartha sangraha, that wherever he speaks about a god

with form, he relies on quotes by telling that the

sutrakara says like this. But later he seems to have

been so convinced about propagating the idea of god

with form, for the sake of common man to worship.

 

So that leaves only with this chanting of vedas. Did

Ramanuja foresee that a time would come when the

ashrama dharma would collapse at least with reference

to learning at a gurukul? Probably not, considering

the fact that it was only with the advent of Macaulay,

the education system changed in this country. But he,

with far-sight must have made some amends somewhere –

to suit the changing conditions.

 

Thus my concern about the bar on women to chant to

vedas transformed into a larger concern, as his

notions seem to affect all and sundry who do not take

up vedic learning. Then what is his prescription for

people of our times and of future? With this thought

in mind, I was standing in front of him in Melkote

with my eyes closed.

 

“Is it right to say that women should not recite

vedas?

Is it right to de-bar countless people like me who

are willing to learn about the nature of Brahman,

mainly because we have not had formal ashrama-type

training? Sollum. Neer sollum.”

 

(to be continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.