Women & chanting vedas- 3

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAY NAMAH..

 

I have been reading an interesting subject "Women & chanting Vedas.."

Various logical arguments have been put up, but I humbly believe that

Gita has a reply while interpreting teachings of great gurus,

Ramanujachary, Raman etc. It says: "Tasmaat shastram pramaanam.." I

think, we should avoid applying our measurement of today's

surroundings. See, our shaastras have not banned women from "MUKTI",

they have presented 18 puraans for all of us. Every one is entitled

to have a deep in the Ganges. But if I want to be a doctor and

practice medicine professionally, I have got to get MBBS or other

degree first and then I can go for specialization course. Any road

goer can not stand up on the road crossing and start regularizing

traffic by giving side, he must be necessarily a traffic constable or

inspector appointed by the authority. Only qualified and licenced

engineers or architects can prepare and submit building plans and

thereby

practise as architects and engineers and nobody else can either get

licence to practise or do the profeession. So there are numbers of

such examples of man made rules, regulations and laws in our society

to regulate it. If we formulate our constitutions, rules,

regulations, laws; should we not 'permit' Him to have His

constitution, regulations, rules and laws ? He created man & woman.

See, there is no discremination between the two as there is the same

"aatma" in man what the woman has. But the 'shukshma' difference is

in respect of their bodies.

 

One has got to accept that there is fundamental physical difference

between the two. A woman concieves, can a man do ? Both have vocal

coard, but still there is a difference between their voice. Can there

be a similar quality of voice of Ms Subhalaxmi and Pandit Jasraj ? Why

don't we object to this descriminations ? You are sitting in a large

auditorium and suddenly light goes off and some one speaks on a loud

speaker, you will immediately know as to the speaker is a woman or a

man. So we have got to accept that there is a difference between man

and woman. Communist theory or political consideration of equality

would not work there. I cannot expect rice to grow on Punjab land and

wheat to grow on West Bengal land. There are perfact rules of nature.

The groom sits on an elephant and not on donkey or monkey, though all

have the same aatma inside them. We forget our arguments of eqality

there..!

 

Then why do we fight for breaking the rules of God who does not permit

chanting of Vedas ?! And over and above, as I said earlier,

'Shaashtras' do not prohibit women to attain "mukti", "aatma-kalyaan"

or climbing the highest peak in spiritual upliftment. But He has

worked out the routes for man and woman to reach their targets. Two

trains depart from Hawra (Calcutta) everyday for Mumbai- one via

Nagpur and another via Pune. You have a reservation in a train via

Nagpur train: Coach No. 4, Berth No.10. Now if you go to a train via

Pune, with a ticket for the Coach No. 4, Berth No.10; will the TT

permit you to travel by that train despite your arguments with him,

"See, I have a reservation for Mumbai,

coach no.4, Berth No. 10.. I have paid for that and why don't you

allow ?" He would simply say, "Sir, it is true that you have a

reservation ticket for the same coach, but it is for the train which

goes to Mumbai via NAGPUR, and not via PUNE... see, that train is on

the another platform, you can go there and can travel by that train

though both are going to Mumbai only.

 

Shaashtras do not stop us from going and reaching to Mumbai, but both

trains are different like our physical bodies. Man can chant Vedas

because his reservation is in the train via Nagpur, women can chant

and study 18 "puraanas" and reach Mumbai by the train via Pune. Both

trains reach and bring to Mumbai, however subject to your

reservation, of course !

 

I am, therefore, of the humble opinion that women should restraign

themselves from chanting Vedas. At least I am practising this and

both my daughters do not chant Vedas following aagya of our Guruji

while taking mantra-diksha..

 

Let me humbly clarify that I am not at all expert on the subject.

However, your beautiful article on the subject attracted my attention

and I have attempted to participate in the discussion. I shall be

very happy to see if the discussion continues by experts..

 

Regards.

 

-Bharat Sukhparia

Advocate,

Jamnagar-361001 (Gujarat)

bsukhparia (AT) rediffmail (DOT) com

 

 

 

 

 

 

jasn sn <jayasartn > wrote:

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.The analysis of the verse 10-34 of Gita is

continuedto probe into whether there exists some other meaningto this

verse.The Lord as being the origin of Birth in this contextis easy to

understand. But why does He tell aboutHimself as being Death in the

context of telling whoHe is among women?Thinking about the two great

epics, we seem to getcloser to the core idea. Is it because the Lord

swunginto action as Lord of Death when the women werewronged? When

Sita was abducted, Valmiki merely goes aboutnarrating how the

incidents had happened and how Sitawas distressed. Then Jatayu enters

the scene and isbadly wounded. She goes near him, holds him and

does‘rodhanam’ (crying) saying so many words. Ravana thenlifts her up

by her hair… At this juncture Valmikisays that when

Ravana did this act (of holding heraloft by her hair), Brahma devan

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

thatRavana’s fate is now sealed. The other other-worldlybeings such

as kinnara etc also rejoiced that Ravana’send had come. They didn’t

seem to comment like thiswhen Sita was abducted. At that time

everyone waswatching in stunned silence. The act of touchingSita’s

hair and lifting her by holding it seems to bean act of grave offence

to signify that there would beno going back in Rama’s resolve to kill

him. It isnote-worthy that Rama let go kakasura who harmed

hermortally in her private part, but he didn’t do that toRavana whose

committing of an affront on Sita’sdignity was a shade physically

lesser than whatkakasura had done. The sookshumam seems to lie

inhair!Why I am led to think like this is because similardreadful end

was foretold by Draupadi when she made avow of not

tying up her hair till the kauravas werevanquished and Dhuryodhana’s

blood smeared on herhair. Probably elders who are more conversant

withpractices of olden days may be able to shed more lighton the

sookshumam of woman’s ‘aLaga-bhAram’.The purpose of the above

narration is to stress thepoint that the Lord does not take kindly on

acts thataffect woman’s dignity, safety and probably the 7qualities

that have found mention in His own song.Whenever such qualities

(mEdha, vAk, speech etc) areexhibited, there has been no hindrance to

theirseeking of lofty Principles. To substantiate this, letme 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

alwaysbeen very dear to me and what you say now makes youdearer

still”, and continues to unravel the EternalKnowledge to her. If it

had been mandatory for anyoneto learn

swadhyaya as antecedent to inquiry intoEternal knowledge, how could

Yajnavalkya had given itto his wife? Of the different pramanas that

BhagavadRamanuja had quoted, why did he not consider this one?In

practice, this antecedent clause bars not onlywomen, but also men

from taking up direct inquiry –something what we all do today.With

advancement of kali yuga, the first notablecasualty is vedadhyayana.

One can count the number ofpersons learning the karma khandam as

Ramanuja thinksis required for further abhyasa. If he has meant it

tobe a strict rule, then not many men, leave alonewomen, are entitled

to do the meditation on Brahman.On arriving at this thought, I felt I

need to knowRamanuja’s mind better. Elsewhere - in 3 places inbrahma

sutra-bhashya to be precise - Ramanuja had saidsomething, but

practised something else in his ownlife. (I request the readers not

to consider mylanguage as an affront on

him. This is an intellectualexercise which I took to Ramanuja in

Melkote when Iwas not convinced why he chose to give an

explanationlike this, while he could have as well spoken likeShankara

in his interpretation of the sutra.)One area is the interpretation on

who a shudra is.Though Ramanuja defines a shudra as one ‘who

isgrief-stricken’, he preferred to fall in line (in sribhashyam) with

the sutrakara who said that shudrahoodcomes by caste.(“shudras by

caste are not entitled toBrahma vidhya” - 1-3-33) But in practice,

Ramanujanever barred anyone from learning / knowingthirumanthram or

sat vishayam.Another area where he wrote something and

preachedanother is in determining whether the jiva has anyfreewill.

In his commentary to Brahma sutra, he doesspeak about jiva’s own

‘volition’ at the initial stage– only as a logical consequence in the

context withoutproducing any pramana to substantiate this.

For,theoretically, vedopanishads do not support the ideaof freewill to

the jiva. There is no case built forthe conditions that can determine

what this initialstage that he has in mind. He does not explain

whatdefines the initial stage and what factors contributeto

spontaneity of will of the jiva. This ideologicaldilemma is tempered

down in Vedartha sangraha (124)where he talks about god conferring on

the jiva ‘spontaneously a holy disposition of will andintellect’.

Further later, the granthas likeSrivachana bhooshanam and

Mumukshuppadi which reflecthis grooming and thought harp on the

virtues ofshedding ‘swa-shakthi’, that is shedding of freewilland

glorification of absolute subservience to god.Yet another area where

the transformation in thoughtis found, is in his composition of

Vaikuntha gadhyamglorifying the Lord in Form. But all along his

sribhashya, he had heavily relied on pramanas on formlessgod

(Brahman). There was a heavy accent on themetaphysical aspects of the

inquiry, than on a god ofform. It strikes the attention of the reader

ofVedartha sangraha, that wherever he speaks about a godwith form, he

relies on quotes by telling that thesutrakara says like this. But

later he seems to havebeen so convinced about propagating the idea of

godwith form, for the sake of common man to worship. So that leaves

only with this chanting of vedas. DidRamanuja foresee that a time

would come when theashrama dharma would collapse at least with

referenceto learning at a gurukul? Probably not, consideringthe 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 tovedas transformed into a larger

concern, as hisnotions seem to affect

all and sundry who do not takeup vedic learning. Then what is his

prescription forpeople of our times and of future? With this

thoughtin mind, I was standing in front of him in Melkotewith my eyes

closed. “Is it right to say that women should not recitevedas?Is it

right to de-bar countless people like me whoare willing to learn

about the nature of Brahman,mainly because we have not had formal

ashrama-typetraining? Sollum. Neer sollum.”(to be

continued)_______________________________Declare

Yourself - Register online to vote

today!http://vote.------------------------

Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from .

Register

anything.http://us.click./J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM--~->

 

Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go

to:Oppiliappan/<*> To from

this group, send an email

to:Oppiliappan<*> Your use of

Groups is subject to:Send instant

messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

I wonder whether the basic thrust of my mails (4 mails

in all) has indeed made itself felt.. First, the very

rules of doing Vedaadhyayanam are such that not even

men of today will be qualified to do. Second, like

many practices of previous yugas (like animal

sacrifices to name the most important one)which have

lost relevance in Kali yuga in there being no right

persons to do them (there are pramanas to this

effect), the extinction of ashrama dharma renders

vedhadhyayanam in the original way, out of reach for

many. It is in the background of this, an attempt has

been made to find out what best replaces

vedaadhyayanam (in the 4th mail). One can find a

similar replication in the growth of temples and

temple-worship in Kali yuga, in that temples are

replicas of YAga-shalas of previous yugas.

 

jayasree saranathan

 

--- ravi sukhparia <ravi_sukh2000 wrote:

 

> SRIMATHE RAMANUJAY NAMAH..

>

> I have been reading an interesting subject "Women &

> chanting Vedas.." Various logical arguments have

> been put up, but I humbly believe that Gita has a

> reply while interpreting teachings of great gurus,

> Ramanujachary, Raman etc. It says: "Tasmaat shastram

> pramaanam.." I think, we should avoid applying our

> measurement of today's surroundings. See, our

> shaastras have not banned women from "MUKTI", they

> have presented 18 puraans for all of us. Every one

> is entitled to have a deep in the Ganges. But if I

> want to be a doctor and practice medicine

> professionally, I have got to get MBBS or other

> degree first and then I can go for specialization

> course. Any road goer can not stand up on the road

> crossing and start regularizing traffic by giving

> side, he must be necessarily a traffic constable or

> inspector appointed by the authority. Only qualified

> and licenced engineers or architects can prepare and

> submit building plans and thereby practise as

> architects and engineers and nobody else can

> either get licence to practise or do the

> profeession. So there are numbers of such examples

> of man made rules, regulations and laws in our

> society to regulate it. If we formulate our

> constitutions, rules, regulations, laws; should we

> not 'permit' Him to have His constitution,

> regulations, rules and laws ? He created man &

> woman. See, there is no discremination between the

> two as there is the same "aatma" in man what the

> woman has. But the 'shukshma' difference is in

> respect of their bodies.

>

> One has got to accept that there is fundamental

> physical difference between the two. A woman

> concieves, can a man do ? Both have vocal coard, but

> still there is a difference between their voice. Can

> there be a similar quality of voice of Ms Subhalaxmi

> and Pandit Jasraj ? Why don't we object to this

> descriminations ? You are sitting in a large

> auditorium and suddenly light goes off and some one

> speaks on a loud speaker, you will immediately know

> as to the speaker is a woman or a man. So we have

> got to accept that there is a difference between man

> and woman. Communist theory or political

> consideration of equality would not work there. I

> cannot expect rice to grow on Punjab land and wheat

> to grow on West Bengal land. There are perfact rules

> of nature. The groom sits on an elephant and not on

> donkey or monkey, though all have the same aatma

> inside them. We forget our arguments of eqality

> there..!

>

> Then why do we fight for breaking the rules of God

> who does not permit chanting of Vedas ?! And over

> and above, as I said earlier, 'Shaashtras' do not

> prohibit women to attain "mukti", "aatma-kalyaan" or

> climbing the highest peak in spiritual upliftment.

> But He has worked out the routes for man and woman

> to reach their targets. Two trains depart from Hawra

> (Calcutta) everyday for Mumbai- one via Nagpur and

> another via Pune. You have a reservation in a train

> via Nagpur train: Coach No. 4, Berth No.10. Now if

> you go to a train via Pune, with a ticket for the

> Coach No. 4, Berth No.10; will the TT permit you to

> travel by that train despite your arguments with

> him, "See, I have a reservation for Mumbai,

> coach no.4, Berth No. 10.. I have paid for that and

> why don't you allow ?" He would simply say, "Sir, it

> is true that you have a reservation ticket for the

> same coach, but it is for the train which goes to

> Mumbai via NAGPUR, and not via PUNE... see, that

> train is on the another platform, you can go there

> and can travel by that train though both are going

> to Mumbai only.

>

> Shaashtras do not stop us from going and reaching to

> Mumbai, but both trains are different like our

> physical bodies. Man can chant Vedas because his

> reservation is in the train via Nagpur, women can

> chant and study 18 "puraanas" and reach Mumbai by

> the train via Pune. Both trains reach and bring to

> Mumbai, however subject to your reservation, of

> course !

>

> I am, therefore, of the humble opinion that women

> should restraign themselves from chanting Vedas. At

> least I am practising this and both my daughters do

> not chant Vedas following aagya of our Guruji while

> taking mantra-diksha..

>

> Let me humbly clarify that I am not at all expert on

> the subject. However, your beautiful article on the

> subject attracted my attention and I have attempted

> to participate in the discussion. I shall be very

> happy to see if the discussion continues by

> experts..

>

> Regards.

>

> -Bharat Sukhparia

> Advocate,

> Jamnagar-361001 (Gujarat)

> bsukhparia

>

>

>

>

>

>