[t'venkatam] women & vedic recital: Sow.Jayasree Saranathan's rejoinders

[Guest guest]

--- jasn sn <jayasartn wrote:

> (Note:- The following mail is purely an academic and

> intellectual exercise and not meant to offend

> anyone or anyone’s beliefs. )

 

 

Dear Sow. Jayashree Saranathan,

 

Your doughty rejoinders are all quite enjoyable. Do

not worry about "offending anyone" (at least on the

T'venkatam Group and least of all me). I'm an eternal

student in these matters and never claim certainty of

knowledge.

 

My views on this particular matter (as described in my

earlier postings) are, I confess, heavily influenced

by the Kanchi "paramAchAryA's" book "deivattin-kural".

I lean towards his views not so much because they are

orthodox or traditional as because they seem to me

reasonable, balanced and very persuasive.

 

You have many rejoinders but let me address only two

of what I think are the most important as below:

 

(1) (QUOTE) I would rather re-frame the question as

> ‘should the women need to recite the vedas as men

> do, when they can scale better spiritual heights

than men?’ This question is expected to be read along

> with the frustration that a seeker of truth gets

when put under constraints solely for having been born

as a woman. (UNQUOTE)

 

I think you have yourself hinted the answer to your

question above!

 

To the question ‘should the women need to recite the

vedas as men do, when they can scale better spiritual

heights than men?’, my bland answer is, "No, there is

no need for women to recite the Vedas in order to

scale "better spiritual heights than men". AndAl is a

shining example.

 

With regard to the matter of feminine "frustration"

which you bring up, well, what can one say? I can only

offer an analogy by way of explanation even if it

might seem less than accurate to you.

 

It is futile, I think, to get "frustrated" with

Nature. The nightingale and the humming-bird are both

equally beautiful specie of birds. The former sings

beautifully but cannot hum as well as the latter. On

that account, should the nightingale get "frustrated"?

It is in the nature ("svabhAva/svarUpa") of the

nightingale to sing and it's in the nature of the

humming-bird to hum. The nature of men is suited to

"hum" the Vedas just as the nature of women is suited

to "singstUthi-s", "stOtra-s" or "prabhandham".

 

The "frustrated" nightingale can, or course, if it so

badly wants it (and out of a sense of misplaced

"frustration"), try its hand (should I say voice?) at

"humming"... but then what exactly is it trying to

prove and to whom? It might, in fact, only attract all

the wrong kinds of attention to itself! No one would

turn to it then for the beautiful music they have to

come to expect from its nature -- i.e. the

"svarUpa/svabhAva" of a nightingale. Instead, it would

at best only have curiosity-value. People would

perhaps to flock to see it only because they have

never in the world come across a

"humming-nightingale"! And, I might as well tell you,

the only thing worse than a "singing-humming-bird" is

a "humming-nightingale"!

 

Let me give you yet another thought to chew upon:

 

Way back in the 1970s in India, there was a movement

to encourage women to take to cricket. Many talented

women in various parts of the country were found. Some

of them were indeed outstanding cricketers. Today,

womens cricket is international. Lots of tournaments

are played everywhere. Lots of money in it too! There

are more talented women-cricketers in the world today

than there were ever before in history. But just go

and ask any young cricket enthusiast anywhere in the

villages, towns and cities of India the question --

which form of cricket he enjoys more, women's or men's

cricket? The answer will always be "Men's cricket, of

course!". Ask your own kid-brother (if he's a

cricket-bug!) to name a single woman international

cricketer of today... I bet he will be unable to

recall a single one!

 

Why? Is it because of any gender-bias against

women-cricketers? No. Is it because of any prejudice

against women? Not really. Is it because there is some

deep-seated unwillingness to accept women as being

equally as talented as men in the game? No.

 

The real reason is, it is all a matter of "svabhAva"

or "svarUpa"... and that is a rather indefinable but

inherent quality in the game which makes it more

attractive to watch it when played by men. Please do

not hastily conclude from my explanations that I'm

being male-chauvinistic. Please have an open mind.

 

Now taking up your other point below:

 

(2) The crux of the issue therefore is ‘experience’

and> the qualifying statement is that women or men in

> nayaki bhava are more prone to realising this

> experience. It is on record that Bhagavad Ramanuja

> had commended that Andal was equivalent to 10

azhwars.

 

 

I could'nt agree with you more on this one. I

personally consider AndAl the best "AzhwAr" of all

(although she is not one among them technically

speaking). Reading her "tiruppAvai" to this day gives

me joyous goose-pimples all over! Whenever I read

AndAl's stanzas or Peria-AzhwAr's stanzas where he

imagines himself to be Yasodha, I find myself secretly

wishing I could be a woman-lover or mother myself! (So

much for my "male-chauvinism"!)

 

There is no doubt in my mind at all. When it comes to

"bhakti" as an experience, you women-folk are endowed

by Nature to enjoy it more intensely and more

genuinely than we men.

 

Thanks and regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

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