Barren Mothers

[Guest guest]

dear shri sudarshan,

Sri Alavandar's argument appears to have been meant to score over the

conceited and arrogant AkkiyAzhwan, challenging him to refute apparently

irrefutable propositions, and not to seriously term every mother with a

single son as barren. the next argument, about no woman being a pativrata,

should also be taken in the same spirit.

regards, dasan, sadagopan

-

sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002

Hema Narayana <hemanarayana; Narendiran Krishnan

<knaren73

Cc: <tatachar; <sadagopaniyengar

Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:31 PM

Re: Re: Barren Mothers

 

 

>

> Dear Madam,

>

> Thank you for quoting the scriptures to establish that

> my beloved mother is a "barren woman".

>

> Going by what you have said, I suppose Kausalya the

> mother of Rama too is a "barren woman". Totamba, the

> mother of Swami Vedanta Desikan too qualifies as a

> "barren woman".

>

> Although I would never ever belong in the exalted

> company of Sri Rama or Sri Desikan, I can at least say

> that my own late, beloved "thAyyAr" -- a noble

> SriVaishnavite lady who underwent "bharannyAsam" under

> the present "azhagiya-singar" and who is hence now a

> "vaikunta-vAsi" for sure -- she must be in good

> company there amongst other eminently "barren women"

> such as TotAmba.

>

> Many thanks for your enlightening explanation.

> Rgds,

>

> dAsan,

> Sudarshan

>

>

> --- Hema Narayana <hemanarayana wrote:

> > Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya namaha

> > Pranams

> >

> > In response to the mail written by Sri.Sree Krishna

> > Tatachar , I would like to give the explanation from

> > the article that appeared in Sri Ranganatha Paduka a

> > year ago about Sri.Yamuna's Statements.

> > " According to sastras the crow and the banana tree

> > are barren, because they beget just a

> > single offspring . while the crow gives birth to

> > only a single baby crow through a single egg. like

> > wise each banana tree yields just a single bunch of

> > bananas. By this standard , since you too are

> > mother's only son, your mother can very well be

> > termed barren

> > this is an extract from an article "A Debate with a

> > difference " by Sri Sadagopan Iyengar, Coimbatore ,

> > Sri Ranganatha Paduka.

> >

> > Adiyal

> > Hema Narayana

>

>

>

> ______________________

> India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

> Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

 

Respected Sri Sudharshan swami,

The outrage expressed by you in your reaction to `mother is barren'

is absolutely right and logically tenable. This is one more reminder

of how we have lost the sap but clung to the shell. Without going

into the sustainability of the statement in the context quoted,

fearing the eruption of another controversy (for which I seem to have

a penchant) let me express what immediately strikes my mind. I write

the following in the hope that you, as one whose ability to look

beyond what actually strikes the eye which is well demonstrated in

your writings, would be willing to know (or had already known) how

statements such as these have actually been used in arguments.

 

`My mother is barren' is one of the pet premises that Bhagavad

Ramanuja takes up often along with `Devadatta is this or that'

assumptions whenever he gets down to deeper explorations into

grammatical equations between words in order to take the versions of

purvapakshins to task. For instance, in order to establish that the

concept of Jeevan mukhthi is untenable, he says it is self-

contradictory like `my mother is barren'. If you say that your mother

is barren, that is un-sustainable because she as one who has given

birth to you can not be barren. Similarly if you say that you can get

Release while you are in your body, it is un-sustainable and self-

contradictory, for the very fact that you are still inside the body

shows that you are embodied and embodiment and Release (as happens in

Jeevan mukhthi) can not co-exist.

 

Coming to the context that provoked your noble self, the right way to

interpret that would be to apply the logic that Ramanuja followed to

arrive at the implication of `That thou art'. He has dedicated

considerable space and explanation on how to arrive at the actual

import of words that signify more than one attribute, by means of

grammatical equation. His theory is that whenever any two different

attributes are mentioned which are not capable of being consistently

applied to the one and the same thing, it has to be accepted that one

of the two words can not have the main and natural significance and

that both the words have to be applied. For instance in the

sentence, `the man of vAhika ( vAhika is to be interpreted as a

person who is outside the vedic religion) country is a `go'', the

word `go' actually means ox. But here the quality of the ox comes to

be attributed to the man. Whenever the special attributes are

mentioned, the thumb rule is to read its meaning in the context of

the main attribute of the subject.

 

In the term that invited your outrage, Sir, the main idea that she is

a mother in indestructible. It therefore calls for linking the other

attribute(s) to the main idea. That she is a mother can not be

disputed irrespective of whether she is the mother to one child or

many children. So the motherhood is not under scrutiny here. Since

she is a mother, she can not be called as barren is another fact that

can not be disputed. It therefore comes to centre around how many

children she has. Since motherhood and unbarren-ness are indisputable

facts, the emphasis lies on begetting many children. At the same time

the absence of more than one child does not go against the first two

indestructible facts. What is deduced in the statement is `abundance'

in the number of children.

 

This is understandable in a society that placed importance

on `growth' in all spheres. As one who is well versed in taittriya

upanishad, you know for yourself how the emphasis is on `annam'. The

very first level explanation given to a beginner- learner of this

Upanishad is that one must grow more food and feed more people. That

was the beginning of an agrarian society. At a spiritual level,

begetting more sathputraa; means gifting the world with more learned

beings who would serve the world in different ways. This is

comparable to the many noble services that man is expected to do

for the sake of loka-kshemam. What immediately comes to my mind is

the vachan in Mahabharatha which says that by planting a 100 trees, a

man gets the benefits of having begotten 10 sathputra; Should we then

conclude that it is better to plant 90 trees and beget one

sathputhran to get that punya or plant 1000 trees to get the punya

of having given birth to 100 children. Did Gandhari be called a

punyavathi for having got 100 children? The emphasis in the above

vachan is clearly on promoting tree plantation and conservation.

 

Similarly, the emphasis in the barren women vachan is not on just

giving birth to one child or two children, but on giving birth to as

many children who prove to be noble persons. In your case, Sri

Sudharshan swami, you have proved to be equivalent of 10 sathputhra;

or even more by your noble service for the cause of Sanatana dharma.

That is why your beloved and reverential mother had with foresight

remained content with just one child. My prostrations on her feet!!

 

Regards.

 

 

, sadagopaniyengar

<sadagopaniyengar@v...> wrote:

> dear shri sudarshan,

> Sri Alavandar's argument appears to have been meant to score over

the

> conceited and arrogant AkkiyAzhwan, challenging him to refute

apparently

> irrefutable propositions, and not to seriously term every mother

with a

> single son as barren. the next argument, about no woman being a

pativrata,

> should also be taken in the same spirit.

> regards, dasan, sadagopan

> -

> sudarshan madabushi <mksudarshan2002>

> Hema Narayana <hemanarayana>; Narendiran Krishnan

> <knaren73>

> Cc: <tatachar@a...>; <sadagopaniyengar@v...>

> Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:31 PM

> Re: Re: Barren Mothers

>

>

> >

> > Dear Madam,

> >

> > Thank you for quoting the scriptures to establish that

> > my beloved mother is a "barren woman".

> >

> > Going by what you have said, I suppose Kausalya the

> > mother of Rama too is a "barren woman". Totamba, the

> > mother of Swami Vedanta Desikan too qualifies as a

> > "barren woman".

> >

> > Although I would never ever belong in the exalted

> > company of Sri Rama or Sri Desikan, I can at least say

> > that my own late, beloved "thAyyAr" -- a noble

> > SriVaishnavite lady who underwent "bharannyAsam" under

> > the present "azhagiya-singar" and who is hence now a

> > "vaikunta-vAsi" for sure -- she must be in good

> > company there amongst other eminently "barren women"

> > such as TotAmba.

> >

> > Many thanks for your enlightening explanation.

> > Rgds,

> >

> > dAsan,

> > Sudarshan

> >

> >

> > --- Hema Narayana <hemanarayana> wrote:

> > > Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya namaha

> > > Pranams

> > >

> > > In response to the mail written by Sri.Sree Krishna

> > > Tatachar , I would like to give the explanation from

> > > the article that appeared in Sri Ranganatha Paduka a

> > > year ago about Sri.Yamuna's Statements.

> > > " According to sastras the crow and the banana tree

> > > are barren, because they beget just a

> > > single offspring . while the crow gives birth to

> > > only a single baby crow through a single egg. like

> > > wise each banana tree yields just a single bunch of

> > > bananas. By this standard , since you too are

> > > mother's only son, your mother can very well be

> > > termed barren

> > > this is an extract from an article "A Debate with a

> > > difference " by Sri Sadagopan Iyengar, Coimbatore ,

> > > Sri Ranganatha Paduka.

> > >

> > > Adiyal

> > > Hema Narayana

> >

> >

> >

> >

____________________

__

> > India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

> > Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony