Women, Vedas etc..

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Swami,

Kindly accept my pranams. I went through your wonderful post in detail, and

have some questions/comments that are purely based on logic. I haven't gone

to the extent of quoting the appropriate shruti/smruthi texts as I consider

myself to be ignorant on that front. I am sure learned scholars would do

that. I request all the readers of this post to kindly read the CONTENTS of

my comments and questions. Please DO NOT try to see the tone or the emotion

behind it as I lack expressibility in my writing. Please try to get the gist

alone. Also, no comments are attached to the WRITER, the comments are only

on his WRITINGS, based on the knowledge that I have. Kindly do not hesitate

to correct me if I am wrong at any point.

 

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

 

Adiyen RAmanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

 

Caution: This is a real long mail!

 

>The human being's (man and women) primary duty even before Artha, Kama,

>Moksha is to preserve and propagate the Vedas. In other words DHARMA.

 

 

If this were true, kshudras should have been reciting the Vedas. Vedas are

part and parcel of the knowledge associated with the atman. (In fact there

is a tantric way of performing a nyasam at the belly that will immeidately

make the atman remember all the veda shabdhas. Similarly, when the nyasam is

done at the throat, one loses the

thirst and hunger)

 

>If this primary duty is neglected, or diluted or compromised even a

>slightest bit, then chaos starts, which is another word for KALI YUGA, the

>present times in which we live.

 

 

This was the primary duty of the Brahmanas and not any other varnas.

 

>How to preserve and propagate the Vedas whose form is 'sound' ? Simple.

>Repeat, teach and evolve. Hence the oral tradition of passing on the

>message, mantra, chanting, scriptures, knowledge to the next generation.

>Daily blind repetition without even knowing the meaning was the first duty.

 

 

There was no need to preserve Vedas. I see some inconsistency. If Vedas are

eternal and if Vedas "precede even the Gods", then why should it be

preserved?

 

>1) The Vedic mantras are to be chanted in the same manner of chanting

>in which they are learnt and there is no compromise allowed. The Vedas

>prohibit any change. No human or God has authority to change this.

>Therefore, the ancient Rishis through extensive Tapas and Yoga got divine

>inspiration through the very ;'sound' of the Vedas and the message to

>mankind was " ensure that the grammer, swara etc. are always kept in their

>original pristine format as these are divine

>The celestial carpenter Tvasta had a spat with Indra the king of the

>Gods and without his Guru's help learnt a Vedic mantra composed of

>certain syllables. The mantra had to be chanted in a particular and

>specific manner. The brief meaning of the mantra was "Give me a son who

>will be a slayer of Indra". However,. Due to a slight slip of the

>tongue the mantra being 100% same, the intonation, pitch, inflection

>while chanting got changed by 0.000001%. The entire meaning of the very

>same words became " may Indra become the slayer of my son". !

 

 

Do Vedas CONTAIN information on which pitch, scale and the swarams using

which they have to be recited? Kindly provide the reference. How could same

words become something that differs in the meaning just because those were

recited in a different pitch? It was a slip of tongue that lead to slip in

words and not in anything else. It was like kumbakarna's boon on "Nithyatvam

(immortality/eternity) that he wrongly pronounced as "Nithratvam" that lead

to a sleeping curse.

 

>This is because the Vedic chanting is double edged sword. The same

>mantra can have different meanings for different purposes.

 

Maintaining the Ganam, Jadai, Swaram has been part of the tradition, but not

the pitch.

 

>This implied that for perfect chanting, rigorous unrelentless training

>was critical The person who is responsible for child-bearing therefore

>cannot be expected to comply with this rigour and therefore, man was

>chosen.

>Even if a woman were to practice chanting and was able to sustain the

>practice for long, if by mistake she made the wrong pronunciation, then

>she would be harming her child, and maybe also cause damage to others.

>Such extreme risks should be avoided

 

 

The Gurukulam time period is from the age of 7 till the age of 20. What if

women got married after this rigorous training was over? Once again wrong

pronunciation is different from chanting with different loud voice etc. Even

a male could pronounce it wrong by mistakes.

 

>Who, man or woman is fit for this job ? The man was chosen because women

>had to bear the child and even by the most conservative estimate of

>child-bearing once in a life-time, at least for 6 months during the

>lifetime of the woman she would not be able chant loudly with the child

>inside her.

 

 

This does not substantiate the reason why women can't recite the vedas. Even

if a man

is ill for an year, do you mean to say that he becomes ineligible for

reciting the vedas?

 

>3) To chant the Vedas perfectly meant that the person has to have good

>physical stamina, sustainable over a long period. Why long period? Because

>perfection requires practice and a minimum continuous practice of over 10

>years. Someone had to therefore ensure that the Chanting population

>maintained its stamina throughout the lifetime. And the someone had to be

>from the same chanting category, not any outsider or stranger.

 

 

I don't think physical stamina has something to do with reciting the Vedas.

Let me quote a small story from Mahabharata:

Karnan disguised as a brahmanan and learnt all the asthra vidhyas from Shri

Parasuramar.

One day Parasuramar was sleeping with his head on Karna's thighs. There was

a small bug

that climbed up karna's thighs and bit him. As he was a kshathriya, he bore

the pain, but the blood

flew down and touched Parasuramar's body and he woke up. Seeing karnan

patient enough

on the bug's bite, he found out that he must be a kshatriya and cursed him

that he would

forget all his asthras when he would be about to use them. The reason how

parasuramar found

this out was based on the fact that Brahmanas had no stamina/strength. Due

to the very Satvic food

habits and nature, brahmanas were not marathon runners, but were mentally

strong.

 

 

>4) Further how to ensure continuity forever ? Everyone - man and woman -

>had to contend with sickness, death, old age and other realities. The only

>to ensure this was the procreation as designed by nature so that before

>either or both die the next generation is there to take over the Vedic

>mantle. This brought up the issue of child-bearing etc.

 

 

Agreed. But, why continuity is being discussed here? Are we talking about

the continuity of the

Vedas that are eternal? Moreover, once a child is born, the children(male

ones) are sent to Gurukulam

at the age of 7 years. It is the acharyar in the gurukulam who trains most

of these progenies.

 

>5) How to ensure safe, healthy long living progeny ? Who (man or woman)

>is fit to be the vehicle for this requirement ? Whoever, either man or

>woman was chosen then such a person will not be able to STRICTLY OBEY the

>Vedic Law. Non-Obedience would invite trouble. So judiciously they

>arrived at a decision taking a cue ( elaborated below ) from their source,

>again, the Vedas. They decided that such a person (either man or woman)

>who will take the burden of carrying the child - irrespective whether it

>is a boy or girl will have to be Accorded a higher status to ensure that

>such a person need not STRICTLY OBEY the words of the Vedas ONLY with

>respect to chanting, repeating, propagating. However, the compromise for

>such an relaxation would be that the person , will proactively and actively

>and sincerely support the other opposite category i.e. if man is chosen to

>carry the burden of pregnancy, then he is excused and he has to support

>woman who will do FULL TIME CHANTING, CHANTING AND CHANTING,

>SANDHYAVANDANAM, GAYATHRI AND REARING THE AGNI.

 

 

Inconsistency again. FULL time chanting was only for BRAHMANAS and not for

the Kshatriyas or the Vaishyas.

 

>If women is chosen to carry the burden, then she is excused but she has

>to support man in his duties.

>Either way, man and woman were inter-dependent and one had to

>necessarily support the other who was busy in doing the Chanting.

 

"then she is excused" - from what? The Vedas do not tell that everyone must

recite the vedas.

 

>In the end, the Rishis found that to meet all these stringent demands of

>the Vedas, and since there were only two types of people. (a) male (b)

>female some sort of solution had to be found because if everyone - man and

>woman - STRICTLY OBEYED THE VEDIC DICTUM OF CHANTING then everyone - man

>and woman - would have to say Gayathri, everyone - man and woman - would

>have to wear the Upanayanam, everyone - man and woman - would have to do

>the Sandhyavandanam forever, everyone - man and woman - has to sit in

>front of the fire(Agni) for a minimum of 3 to 4 hours daily, everyone - man

>and woman - will have to do over 25 samskaras, everyone - man and woman -

>will have to do the Shrardam and Pitru works.

 

 

I repeat what I had mentioned above. Most of the above are for the BRAHMANAS

 

Kshatriyas and Vaishyas have other things to do too.

 

>In such a case who will ensure that the food consumed by the chanting

>people is pure, safe; who will ensure that the household of the chanting

>members (everyone - man and woman - ) is looked after; who will care for

>the children ?. Where is the support system to ensure this because only

>a particular class of people could be involved EXCLUSIVELY for this special

>job. Core competency was the key. Imagine in a family, if all the members

>are involved in chanting with the same principles of the Vedas full time?

 

Once again, only BRAHMANAS were involved in chanting with the same

principles of the Vedas FULL TIME.

 

>And since the Vedas had already declared that Gayathri is the starting

>point and nothing can be done without Gayathri and Sandhyavandanam, no one

>(male or female) could start Vedic chanting without these requirements.

>Further the prerequisite for Gayathri and Sandhyavandanam itself was the

>Upanayanam. In turn the primary requisite for Upanayanam was constant

>ability to strengthen the body, mind, inner parts to have capacity,

>capability, aptitude for learning, retaining, repeating, contemplating and

>teaching Vedas - see above

 

"Vedas had already declared that Gayathri" - This is a gross misconception.

Gayathri manthram was introduced by sage VISHWAMITHRA. Vedas donot declare

that Gayathri is the starting and ending point.

 

>Therefore, the person who was involved in chanting had to be segregated

>from the rest of the people (both man and woman) and confined to a ghetto

>called "agraharam" where the person is left to do the duty unhindered,

>without any distraction, disturbance and problem. However, since the

>person also had to have adequate body sustenance, the person should have

>very good props or support systems to co-ordinate all infrastructure,

>ward off problems, be the alter ego, literally the other half. Even now

>there are orthodox agnihotris In villages who do not even take a sip of

>water outside their house and do not eat any other food except those cooked

>by their wife.

 

This is not true. Phalam(fruit) and Ksheeram(milk) do not have any

Dosham(defects).

Shastram says that one can have these from any one's hands. Do you mean to

say

that the agnihotris don't eat even in other agnihotri's house? I see that we

are slowly

deviating from the subject.

 

>Some people might want to argue that this smacks of slavery of the serving

>individual/category to the other, but this is a wrong notion. The farmer

>helps cultivate the grain which I consume sitting in my office in

>Air-conditioned. I pay income tax to the government who subsidize the

>farmer. Whichever way one looks in this world there is one group helping

>the other. Does it mean the helper is the servant and the helped the

>Master? The master may be serving someone higher and so on. The chain of

>inter dependence is innumerable. Everyone - man and woman - has to be

>engaged in something worthwhile. So too one category was designated to

>help the other in maintaining the sanctity of the Vedas.

 

 

If one understands the Shareera-shareeri bhavam, this could be understood

very well.

Servant is different from a slave. A servant serves by will. A slave does it

by order. A

servant helps the master and the master rewards the servant. A wife tries to

make her husband happy and

and the husband protects her. I don't want to get into too much details, but

we know that

the basic design of a female is weak in physical structure while that of a

male is strong(on an average).

Hence, there comes the concept of protection to women by men. Whatever it is

I feel, we are deviating from the subject much more.

 

>The PARAMACHARYAR of Kanchi had a very good example for this EXCLUSIVE

>notion. He maintained that "do we not take care of glass as

>"fragile-handle-with-care-warning" when transporting? Why ? By the same

>reason, should the Rishis not care for maintaining the purity and sanctity

>of the Vedas ? Does this not warrant a distinctly separate, exclusive set

>of people whose SOLE AND ONLY EXCLUSIVE PRESERVE WAS TO CHANT, CHANT AND

>CHANT AND CHANT.?" Closer home, imagine what would happen if the Indian

>Prime Minister or George Bush spent time in making sure their shirts are

>properly washed, or ironed or their meal is properly done or their security

>guard or the pilot all are appropriate and doing their jobs. They cannot

>be disturbed. They have a different job while the support systems are

>there to co-ordinate. Without the support the PM or George Bush will

>collapse and will be an utter failure.

 

 

Again and again, only BRAHMANAS were doing the chanting job full time.

Kshatriyas and Vaishyas had to protect

and improve the financial status of the society.

 

>By contrast women were comparatively with a different disposition.

>Especially, during the 3 monthly days, and also during pregnancy from the

>4th month till the 13th month extensive rest, care, delicate physical,

>mental, emotional handling had to be there. So women could not be subject

>to hard physical Labour or their physical and mental limits stretched

>beyond a point without damaging their internal organs and causing emotional

>instability

 

 

This was the very reason why women did not go out to work. But this

paragraph

has nothing to do with Women not reciting the vedas I guess. In fact, to

counter this point,

if women could master the vedas and the tantrics, they could be free of

pains by chanting some

manthras right?

 

>THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR WHICH ENABLED THE RISHIS TO FIX THE

>TRADITION OF MEN CHANTING AND WOMEN SUPPORTING MEN IN THEIR JOB WAS THE

>SANDHYAVANDANAM WHICH HAD TO BE STARTED AT 3:30 EARLY MORNING, EXACTLY WHEN

>THE SUN WAS IN THE TOP AT NOON AND JUST BEFORE DUSK IN THE EVENING WITHOUT

>LET, WITHOUT BREAK, FOR LIFE.

 

Sandhyavandanam is called as nitya karma(nitya-daily, karma-act/routine).

Like we brush, bath & eat, we should

also do Sandhyavandanam. But, why is this Sandyavandanam not applicable to

women is the question, which

is not answered by this paragraph.

 

>The category of person (either man or woman) who was excused for chanting

>would also be logically excluded from the regimen of Sandhyavandanam. But

>then why should such a person suffer just because nature has decided

>something in their design ? What is the compromise which the Vedas were

>offering ? Some solace ? some comfort ?

>Once again the Vedas promptly came to the rescue of the Rishis. The Vedas

>proclaimed Gayathri (FEMALE) IS the mother of Vedas. .....

>So this without beginning, without birth

>or without end entity called Vedas too has a source i.e. MOTHER a female.

 

 

This is not CORRECT. We have umpteen gayathris. Vishnu Gayathri, Nrusimha

Gayathri etc.

The SANDHYAVANDHANA GAYATHRI is aimed at the Sun, and this was introduced by

sage Vishwamithra. This gayathri is often visualized as a FEMALE devatha.

But, this has nothing

to do with the MOTHER of Vedas. Vedas are equated to the breath of the lord

and hence are as eternal as him, yet under his control.

Also, Mother of Vedas would mean the top of the vedic manthras, but it is

the Thirumanthram that has secured that position. It is a

casual statement, like saying, the queen of the castle! It would just mean

that Gayathri manthra is indeed one of the very powerful manthra.

 

>And to chant the name of all gods, all beings, any Shloka, any chanting,

>any prayer, any worship, suktha, veda parayanam, homam, any Shrardam, any

>ceremony, any function, even before taking the permission of Vinayakar or

>any god, the Supreme Mother's worship had to be done day in and day out.

 

 

Even during the Sandhyavandham, we start with the achamanam, pranayamam that

cleans up the mind and the breath.

During these steps, we only chant the Lord's dwadasa namas before even

starting the Gayathri Japam.

 

>And since it would seem incongruous and silly not to say the least for the

>Vedas themselves to talk about Vedas, the Vedas sheltered under their

>Mother, Gayathri and commanded everyone - man and woman - to reach the

>Vedas only through their MOTHER. And since the MOTHER Gayathri is the

>first mother there is no need for HER to chant her own name. A MOTHER by

>her very stature commands respect and reverence while it is not mandatory

>for her to show the same respect and reverence to others. Someone has to

>be supreme and lead the crowd ? The CEO is the fit person. The CEO for

>Mankind is the Mother of the Vedas the Gayathri. The rest of mankind who

>do the bidding of the mother are the Clerks, workers, supplicants and

>devotees.

 

 

As I had mentioned above, Gayathri being the mother of the Vedas, is a

subject of discussion by itself

and is strongly questionable.

 

>Hence the common saying among Hindus "Mata Pita Guru Daivam". Guru and God

>are also secondary to MOTHER

 

This is not true. When we start reciting the Vedas we say, Hari Om and while

we finish, we say Hari Om.

The order of the "Mata Pita Guru Deivam" does not matter. What it means is

that, MATA introduces us to this world

by giving us this birth and introduces us to our PITA who provides the food

and the shelter for this physical body and

introduces us to the GURU who provides the food for the mind and the soul

and thereby introduces us to the GOD.

 

>Therefore, the woman though not permitted to chant the Vedas is considered

>not inferior but superior.

 

 

We did not discuss much about why women are not permitted to recite vedas.

How could we conclude the same?

Moreover, the question was never about the inferiority or superiority. A man

who mastered the vedas

along with the meanings, would definitely see paramatman in us whether we

are a male, female or even an animal.

So inferiority was never an issue. I feel this deviates a lot from the

subject of discussion.

 

>Looking at it from yet another view point we find that women are honored

>more than the men folk so to say:

 

>a) One of the names of Vishnu worship is called prominently

>SriVaishnavism. The first word is Sri i.e. female. Sri is also the

>prefix for Srinivasa of Tirupati, on whose chest rests the female. HIS

>strength and locus standi is derived from Sri and not the other way.

 

 

We must understand the meaning of SHRI at first.

Reference: Mumukshuppadi - Dwaya artha prakaranam by swamy Shri

Pillailokachariar.

Shriyathe Shrayathe - means who assures protection. According to the

Ramanuja Sampradayam, the holy mother,

piratti, is the purest amongst the jeevathmas with the utmost perfection of

a jeevathma and she stands for the

Karunya Gunam(kindness, magnanimity) of the Supreme lord. Though he feels

proud in having her in his chest,

it is only because she always wanted to stay with him to do kainkaryam to

him for ever has she secured that place.

 

>b) The great Sankracharyars of Kanchipuram worship Kamakshi (female) as

>a primary deity. Moreover, only for the Sankracharya status, the Seers can

>see and bless anyone elder or younger, male or female, except the MOTHER.

>Therefore, once a person is chosen by the Mutt to be the future pontiff,

>has to give up among other things 'seeing' his mother forever. He may see

>his father and the father may also meet him after his ascending the Mutt

>throne. This is because He can bless his father as a human, and once he

>ascends the Mutt seat he becomes impersonal to all, except his Mother. If

>by mistake he sees his mother, he has to come down and prostrate before

>her. Otherwise, all, even his own father has to prostrate before him. The

>Sankracharyar will prostrate only before God and no one else. The only

>human exception is his own mother. Hence his mother is forbidden to see him

>and he is equally forbidden to see her.

 

 

This information seems to be incorrect. The reason behind not seeing one's

own mother

after renunciation is different. Will come to that next. But, let us assume

that one should

not prostrate before his own mother after renunciation, isn't it actually an

insult to a mother

who bore him in her womb for 10 months and bore the pain of giving birth to

him. This seems

to contradict your own statements. Coming back to the renunciation part, a

male who is not married,

i.e a brahmachari, CANNOT renunciate unless his mother gives him the rights.

And the same mother

has the right to revoke his renunciation. This is why the sanyasis do not

see their mother(this is more

in the advaitic/saivic tradition and is not a mandate in the Vaishnavic

tradition). Once married, a male

CANNOT renunciate unless he has at least 3 difference of opinions(that are

defined in the Shastra)

with his wife, or if a wife does not grant him the permission.

 

>c) Take the primary samskara for enabling the male child to start

>chanting the Gayathri, the Upanayanam. The Upanayanam is done by both

>parents. If unfortunately, the boy does not have a mother, then the father

>alone cannot transmit the Gayathri mantra and perform Upanayanam in the

>absence of his wife. Therefore, utmost care is to be taken to ensure the

>safety, health, growth, well being of the women.

>The father (male) is denied this privilege. So the supreme importance

>is given to the Female/woman for mankind's welfare

 

>THAT IS WHY DURING UPANAYANAM, THE VEDAS HAVE DICTATED THAT THE MOTHER

>SHOULD BE PRESENT AND THE WOMEN OF THE HUSBAND ALONGWITH THE GURU, THE

>CHILD IS PRESENT ENCLOSED INSIDE THE CLOTH. THE MOTHER REPRESENTS AT

>THAT MOMENT GAYATHRI AND SUPERVISES THE WHOLE CHANTING TO ENSURE THAT

>THE GURU AND THE FATHER ARE INDEED DOING THE CORRECT CHANTING. THAT IS

>THE ONE AND ONLY TIME THE FEMALE HEARS THE GAYATHRI. THAT IS ALSO THE

>FIRST AND LAST TIME THE SON DOES ABHIVADAM TO THE MOTHER AS HIS OWN

>MOTHER PLUS MOTHER GAYATHRI. HE TELLS HER HIS GOTRA, HIS NAME, HIS

>LINEAGE ETC. AND SHE ACCEPTS IT AND THEN DEPARTS OUT OF THE SACRED

>ENCLOSURE TO HER ABODE IN HEAVENS.

>WITHOUT THE WOMAN INSIDE THE SACRED ENCLOSURE, THE GAYATHRI CANNOT BE

>TRANSMITTED AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF VEDAS ARE RENDERED NULL AND VOID.

>SUCH IS THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE GIVEN TO THE MOTHER

 

 

If the father is dead, does the mother have the right to perform upanayanam

to her son? NO WAY.

It is equality sir. You seem to suddenly fall towards supporting the women

while dropping the other gender midway:)

Why a mother is included in this step is that in every auspicious ritual the

wife(if alive) has to be present for a husband to perform the ritual.

 

>d) There were sundry reasons also for women being chosen for a different

>calling. The Vedic chanting, Sandhyavandanam etc. were to be performed

>bare chested. Most temple priests and pooja etc. are done with the torso

>being left bare with the Sacred thread shown prominently. Also, since the

>thread was considered Sacred, while attending to nature's call and on some

>other occasions, the thread had to be worn differently in a safe manner.

>Performing this while wearing a 9 yard saree with upper cloth etc. would be

>somewhat unfair to women folk.

 

 

Sir, once again, I think this information is incorrect. There is a concept

called Yoga-Veshti Dharanam.

One must NOT expose their bare chest except before the lord. One must wear a

uttariyam along the

lines of the sacred thread and cover it. AT NO COST, should the BRAHMA-KNOT

of the Yagnyopaveedham

be exposed to anyone, and if that happens, one loses all the tapas i.e the

powers gained by following the

proper sandhyavandhanams and agnihotrams.

 

>Women are therefore referred in Vedic parlance as "Dharma patni". There is

>no word as "Dharma-pati". She is the wife of Dharma i.e.that which is

>upright. She is the supporter of Dharma and since her opposite is engaged

>in Dharma, she too is putting her bit and helping.

 

 

Forgive me, but I have to say something on this too. Dharma-patni does not

mean

the wife of Dharma. It means the patni who supports the husband in the

rituals. A man who is married

does not have the right to perform agnihotram if his wife is dead. So, the

agnihotra yogyadha is given

to a husband by his wife. Similarly, if a husband is dead then the wife has

no yogyadha even to attend some

auspicious celebrations. So, it is equality.

 

>Coming to our modern day, can someone say why are there no women in the

>fire fighting agencies, in military (there is a small percentage everywhere

>in Western modern nations, but this is still a miniscule percentage as an

>exception, not an active force to reckon); in oil rigs; in diamond mines;

>as engine drivers; cab drivers; long distance lorry drivers; Not because

>of some chauvinistic discrimination, but because these are not the natural

>potentialities of women. Their forte as per the ancient Indian Rishis etc.

>was in pushing, encouraging, urging man and children to the Vedic path.

>Physically, they may be wife, sister, mother, but their real purpose is to

>represent Gayathri to goad man to do his job diligently.

 

 

This does justify to some extent why women need not work. But, I feel, this

has nothing to do with

women chanting the vedas.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There was a small typo as usual in the previous mail. Instead of SAMYAM, I

wrote as NYASAM. My apologies for the mistake.

 

Adiyen RAmanuja DAsan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan