Advaita for women...

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

 

Reading Vivekachudamani, the second verse after the invocation, it is

stated:

 

jantuunaaM narajanma durlabham ataH puMstvaM tato viprataa

tasmaad vaidikadharmamaargaparataa vidvattvam asmaat param

aatmaanaatmavivechanaM svanubhavo brahmaatmanaa saMsthitiH

muktir no shatajanmakoTisukR^taiH puNyair vinaa labhyate. 2

 

Human nature is the hardest of creaturely states to obtain, even more

so that of manhood. Brahminhood is rarer still, and beyond that

dedication to the path of Vedic religion. Beyond even that there is

discrimination between self and nonself, but liberation by persistence

in the state of the unity of God and self is not to be achieved except

by the meritorious deeds of hundreds of thousands of lives. 2

 

Besides the fact that this may or may not be an accurate translation,

I would like to ask the list about different angles of thought on the

fact that birth within a male body seems to have more " possibilities "

for spiritual growth (at least as long as one believes to be the body)

as indicated in this classic work by Sri Shankara.

From the scriptural point of view, how is the best way to think about

and understand this statement? (note: Sri Ramana, for example,

translated this work an ommited this statement about " being born in a

male body " ).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Blessings to All (females and males alike),

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna,

 

 

 

An interesting (and provocative!) question.

 

 

 

Three thoughts occur to me before the more knowledgeable members intervene.

Firstly, that this is a legacy of the older dualistic sAMkhya philosophy, in

which the male is considered to be puruSha while the female is prakRRiti.

Secondly, that it is simply a practical fact that it was the richer, more

independent and educated male who was in the position to be able to

disappear off and study, meditate etc, later becoming a mendicant, roaming

around naked and begging food! Thirdly, that the language is just expedient,

common usage as we still use terms such as 'chairman' rather than the more

pc 'chairperson'. I note that the next verse uses the word 'manuShyatvaM'

which can still mean the status of being a man (as opposed to a woman) but

also refers more generally to a human being.

 

 

 

Irrespective of the precise reasons, the question is along the lines of

discussions on caste. We all know that everyone and everything is only name

and form of the non-dual brahman. Treating anyone as 'different' from

another is only due to ignorance, consciously or unconsciously and should

not be the cause of concern.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Mouna

29 September 2007 00:58

advaitin

Advaita for women...

 

 

 

Dear All:

 

Reading Vivekachudamani, the second verse after the invocation, it is

stated:

 

 

Besides the fact that this may or may not be an accurate translation,

I would like to ask the list about different angles of thought on the

fact that birth within a male body seems to have more " possibilities "

for spiritual growth (at least as long as one believes to be the body)

as indicated in this classic work by Sri Shankara.

From the scriptural point of view, how is the best way to think about

and understand this statement? (note: Sri Ramana, for example,

translated this work an ommited this statement about " being born in a

male body " ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

 

> Three thoughts occur to me before the more knowledgeable members

intervene.

> Firstly, that this is a legacy of the older dualistic sAMkhya

philosophy, in

> which the male is considered to be puruSha while the female is

prakRRiti.

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

May we know the source (kArika or sutra) for this legacy of sAMkhya

philosophy? I am hearing this definition for the first time and

sounds very strange! :-))

 

Or am I reading it wrongly? According to my understanding in sAMkhya

purusha is the name for consciousness and prakriti is called matter.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Mauna-ji :

 

Indeed a 'provocative' question involving both gender and caste !

Smile :-)

 

However , let me assure at the outset ,In Advaita Pilosophy , as my

guru maharani Smt. Lakshmi deviji always explains to me " 'there is

absolutely no distinctions based on Caste , Creed and Gender . "

Smt. Lakshmiji herself is very learned and well versed in Advaita

Vedanta and used to give discourses on Srimad Bhagwad Gita and other

scriptures in the Nanganallur temple in Chennai , India - she

herself is an ardent devotee ( sisya) of Swami Dayanandaji and

Swami Parmathanandaji. She is my web Guru Rani! She has now

relocated to Sringeri, Karnataka , to enjoy a life of Peace ,

Quitetude and Spiritual pursuits ! So there you have - A beautiful

example of A woman and her devotion to Advaita Vedanta! Smile :-) WE

have other women in this group as well equally devoted to the study

of Advaita - Smt. Durgaji and smt. Padmaji !

 

now , Maunaji - EVERY VERSE HAS A LITERAL MEANING AS WELL AS AN

ESOTERIC MEANING - In Sanskrit , we call these by the names of

Lakshyartha and Padartha ! By Padartha , we mean the 'literal

meaning' and by 'lakshartha' we mean 'indicative ' or derivative

meaning .

 

Kalidasa says:

" Vaagarthaviva Sampruktau Vaagartha Pratipatthaye

Jagath Pitarau Vande Parvati Parameshwaram

 

As a word and its meaning are inseperable, So are the Parents of

this world, Parvati and Parameshwara, whom I salute.

 

So, strictly speaking you are right ! It looks like the author of

the verse ( attributed to Shankara Bhagvadapada ) of Viveka

chudamani seems to suggest a few criteria 1) one you have to be born

in a human body ( which excludes plants /animals ) and in a man's

body ( which excludes women) and finally a brahmin ( which on the

face of it seems to suggest a Class connotation)

 

You must remember when the 'time' and the context in which these

verses were written ! IN THE GOOD OLD VEDIC AGE ,only men were

alloweed to perform Karma kanda ( vedic rituals ) . Performance of

thse vedic rituals were a prequisite before you could undertake deep

scriptural study like Veas / upanishads etc ... and those who

performed these rituals had to undergo 'upanayanam' ceremony ( the

sacred thread ceremony) which in those days only caste Brahmins

were entitled to ! By definition , memstruating women did not take

part in performing vedic rituals or wear The sacred thread !

 

But this is not the whole story . Only , men could undertake the

Sanyasa order - WHICH MEANS - a woman because the virtue of her

being a Mother etc , would never ever reitire to the forest !

 

But times have changed , so have perspectives ! Now , the

qualifications for Studying Veanta are only two fold - The desire to

LEARN ABOUT TRUTH ( JIGYASU) AND THE DESIRE FOR LIBERATION (

MUMUMUKSHU).... NO OTHER QUALIFICATION IS NEEDED - YOU NEED NOT BE

BORN INTO A BRAHMIN CASTE , DOES NOT MEAN IF YOU ARE A WOMAN OR A

MAN .

 

and the Definition of 'Vairagya' and 'sanyasa' itself has undergone

dramatic changes . please listen t Sri Paramarthanandaji's guru

purnima discouse on the subject of 'Sanyas' - mind blowing!

 

And Adi shankara bhagvadapada himself was a higly evolved soul.Do

you remember Ubhayabharati , Mandana Mishra's wife ? Please read the

entire exchange between Mandana Misra's wife Ubhayabharati and Adi

shankara bhagvadapada at the following link that will explain to you

how the Acharaya held women in high esteem so much so he installed

a Srichakra for Ubhayabharati at the Sringeri Sharadhamba temple!

 

http://www.geocities.com/absolut_ism/shankarabio.htm

 

Shankara bhagvadapada was a Devi worshipper ! If you would read all

the Devi stotras he has composed on the various goddesses , you will

know , mouna , how he worshipped Goddesses !

 

Moreover , a Sanyasi is one who severs all his bodily connections

with his relatives ! But , our beloved Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada

even performed the 'last rites' of His Mother Aryambaal , MUCH TO

THE AMAZEMENT OF THE SANYASIS OF HIS DAY !

 

iN vaishnavism , we have 'Aandal' , the famous woman saint . Among

the Saivites, you have Karaikal Ammaiyaar and Auvaiyaar etc TO name

a few women saints . In the Brihadaranyaka upanishad is mentioned

the names of two famous women saints Gargi and Maitreyi ! Then we

have THE FOLLOWING rISHIKA ( FEMALE RISHIS ) a list complied by our

beloved Member Ken Knight

The following references to Rishikas in Rigveda may be of

interest also: (compiled by Ken Knight)

 

http://www.advaitin.net/MayainVedas.pdf

 

RshikA:

 

GhoshA (Kakshivati, Rgveda 10, 39),

Sraddhã (KAmAyanI,10, 151),

SikatA (NivAvarI, 9, 86),

Agastya-svasãA(10. 60),

SArpa rAjñI (10, 189),

IndrasnushA(Vasukra-patniI 10, 28),

GodhA (10, 134),

Nadi (3,33),

LopAmudrA (1, 179),

ViSvavArA (AtreyI , 5, 28),

VAk (AmbhranI, 10, 125),

YamI (VaivasvatI, 10, 10),

SASvatI (AngirasI, 8, 1),

SaramA (DevaSunI, 10, 108),

SUryA (SAvitri, 10, 85).

SachI (PulomI, 10, 159),

JuhU (Brahma-jAyA, 10, 109),

DakshinA (PrajApatyA 10, 107),

Aditi (DAkshAyanI, 10, 72),

RAtri (Bharadvaji, 10,127),

RomaSA (Brahma-vAdiinI, 1, 126 and 1 27) and

ApalA (8, 7)

 

 

So, maunaji - The study of Advaita is open to one and all

irrespective of Caste , Creed and gender . The only two

qualifications needed are Viveka and VAIRAGYA ! Vairagya itself

subject to many interpretations .

 

In the olden days , Sanyasis were not allowed to cross the seven

seas - it was considered an 'offence ' but now we have Swamijis

travelling all over the world and giving spiritual discourses . tHE

POINT IS 'TRUTH IS ETERNAL' and everyone regardless of gender ,

caste , status , has a 'right' to know the 'Truth' ! Advaita by

definition means 'oneness' - where there is oneness, where is the

question of otherness ?

 

The shivananda ashram has many women preachers . i AM SURE THE

CHINMAYA MISSION IS ALSO HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION!

 

anyway ,

 

Devi herself says :

 

yaM kAmaye taM--tamugraM kRNomi tambrahmANaM taM RSiM taM sumedhAm

 

Those men ( includes all beings ) whom i wish to protect , those

beings i empower ( tam ugram- very powerful, shakti shali )them the

most. Such men are endowed with powers like Creator Brahma ,

Knowledgeble rishis ()( full of paroksha jnana) and are blessed with

wisdom and intuition. ( medha shakti)

 

Thanx , Mauna for providing me an opportunity to dpen my views on a

subject that is very close to my heart !

 

i bow down to the 'medsa' shakti in all beings!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinyaka-ji,

 

 

 

I cannot provide any reference. I entirely agree that it sounds strange. You

are certainly correct regarding consciousness and matter and, indeed, my own

knowledge about sAMkhya does not extend much further. The background is that

this was effectively the explanation that was given for splitting up the

mixed groups of attendees at the school to which I belonged (many years ago

now) into separate groups of men and women. They suggested clearly

differentiated roles for men and women based upon this spurious division. I

will try to find out more if you wish but cannot really be of further help

from my own memory. I seem to recall that Sri ProfVK knows rather more about

sAMkhya - perhaps he can add something. (But we must remember that this is

not really an appropriate topic for the group so let's keep it fairly light

and short!)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

<<

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

May we know the source (kArika or sutra) for this legacy of sAMkhya

philosophy? I am hearing this definition for the first time and

sounds very strange! :-))

 

Or am I reading it wrongly? According to my understanding in sAMkhya

purusha is the name for consciousness and prakriti is called matter.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

>>.

 

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

7474/stime=1191066216/nc1=4507179/nc2=4776367/nc3=4763758>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> I cannot provide any reference. I entirely agree that it sounds

strange. You

> are certainly correct regarding consciousness and matter and,

indeed, my own

> knowledge about sAMkhya does not extend much further. The

background is that

> this was effectively the explanation that was given for splitting

up the

> mixed groups of attendees at the school to which I belonged (many

years ago

> now) into separate groups of men and women. They suggested clearly

> differentiated roles for men and women based upon this spurious

division. I

> will try to find out more if you wish but cannot really be of

further help

> from my own memory. I seem to recall that Sri ProfVK knows rather

more about

> sAMkhya - perhaps he can add something. (But we must remember that

this is

> not really an appropriate topic for the group so let's keep it

fairly light

> and short!)

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

Thanks much for your explanation. My question was more related to

your quoting of the terms used sAMkhya philosophy. It has got

nothing to do with gender issue **et al**!

 

IMHO purusha and prakriti of sAMkhya has got nothing to do with

gender.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namste,

 

Brahman is formless.

 

Where is the question of gender????

 

To study shastras and advaita vedanata, what matters iis the readiness of the

upadhi - (mam/Woman), and tIvratvam to receive the atmajnana taught by the

teacher.

 

Please study the interesting and mind boggling arguements of brahmavadini

Gargi( a woman student) and Sage Yajnavalkya in Brihadranyaka Upanishad.

 

with prayers

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

 

oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Astavakra Gita says

 

"

Sukhe Dukhe nare naryam sampatsu ca vipatsu ca,

viseso naiva dhirasya sarvatra sama-darsinah

"

 

The wise sees no difference between happiness and misery, man and

woman, fortune and misfortune.

 

 

In Tripura Rahasya where Dattatreya while teaching Parusarama gives the

example of Hemalekha who guides her husband towards realization of the

Self.

 

Pranams,

Ravi

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Before I start posting anything, let me confess that I am a novice, so I would

request the learned elders of this group to pardon any inaccuracies in my post

and kindly point them out.

 

I myself had this doubt about Shankara's statements when he says that " manhood

is rarer " , since any path of spiritual progress, by its very nature, has to be

above gender. However I guess that is a byproduct of his times, that he decided

not to give diksha to women (please let me know if this is wrong, since there

might be contrary evidence I might be unaware of).

 

However, this hardly means there is lesser scope for spiritual progress for

women within Advaita. It is only the physical body which has a gender, whereas

the sukshma and kaarana shariras have none, and the atman of course is

genderless.

 

So, technically, there should not be any difference whether a man or woman is

going forward with a spiritual sadhana. I think, the difference is introduced

more to balance the social order of things. Just like after Ashoka's rule, the

entire youth in India wanted to opt for monk-hood, which collapses the social

system, certain rules prescribed for men and women help regulate the social

order. This is not to mean that a person is persecuted for following a spiritual

path of one's choice. Hence, Vedic rites, vaada (arguments like the ones are

done by Sri Shankara) etc. are prescribed for men, whereas devotion, sevaa etc.

are recommended for women.

 

That is my humble take on this situation. If there is any mistake, please point

it out.

 

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mouna <maunna wrote: Dear All:

 

Reading Vivekachudamani, the second verse after the invocation, it is

stated:

 

jantuunaaM narajanma durlabham ataH puMstvaM tato viprataa

tasmaad vaidikadharmamaargaparataa vidvattvam asmaat param

aatmaanaatmavivechanaM svanubhavo brahmaatmanaa saMsthitiH

muktir no shatajanmakoTisukR^taiH puNyair vinaa labhyate. 2

 

Human nature is the hardest of creaturely states to obtain, even more

so that of manhood. Brahminhood is rarer still, and beyond that

dedication to the path of Vedic religion. Beyond even that there is

discrimination between self and nonself, but liberation by persistence

in the state of the unity of God and self is not to be achieved except

by the meritorious deeds of hundreds of thousands of lives. 2

 

Besides the fact that this may or may not be an accurate translation,

I would like to ask the list about different angles of thought on the

fact that birth within a male body seems to have more " possibilities "

for spiritual growth (at least as long as one believes to be the body)

as indicated in this classic work by Sri Shankara.

From the scriptural point of view, how is the best way to think about

and understand this statement? (note: Sri Ramana, for example,

translated this work an ommited this statement about " being born in a

male body " ).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Blessings to All (females and males alike),

Mouna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chat on a cool, new interface. No download required.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vaibhav:

 

In the Vedic times and even later, the terminology of " Purusha " need

not necessarily a reference to " male " and it can be safely stated as

a reference to mankind (human). It is strange that no one seem to

have a problem with respect to words in English language (also

western religions) huMAN, woMan, perSON, chairMan, chairwoMan, etc.,

Even in modern times such problems do exist and we have to agree that

the bottom line is the problem with respect to LANGUAGE of expression!

 

The Vedantic philosophy only focuses on the 'spirit' and the role of

the spirit when it takes different ROLES - some of them could be male

roles and others female roles. The Hindu religion always provided an

equal number of Devis for the Devas - the Trinity of male gods

(Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma) are equally matched by the trinity of

female goddesses - Parvathi, Lakshmi and Saraswati. The equality is

further emphasized by showing the integration of Sakthi and Shiva in

the form of Arthanareeswarar.

 

Let us not mix with the social and cultural practices with religion

and philosophy. Also members should note that it is beyond the scope

of this list to discuss all the social evils and issues.

 

Further we should remind ourselves the fact that Sankara had twin

roles to play - the philosopher and the rejuvenator (reformer) of

Hinduism.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

>

> I myself had this doubt about Shankara's statements when he says

that " manhood is rarer " , since any path of spiritual progress, by its

very nature, has to be above gender. However I guess that is a

byproduct of his times, that he decided not to give diksha to women

(please let me know if this is wrong, since there might be contrary

evidence I might be unaware of).

>

> However, this hardly means there is lesser scope for spiritual

progress for women within Advaita. It is only the physical body which

has a gender, whereas the sukshma and kaarana shariras have none, and

the atman of course is genderless.

>

[Guest guest]

Krama System was poineered by three female gurus.

 

Virendra

 

Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu wrote:

Namste,

 

Brahman is formless.

 

Where is the question of gender????

 

To study shastras and advaita vedanata, what matters iis the readiness of the

upadhi - (mam/Woman), and tIvratvam to receive the atmajnana taught by the

teacher.

 

Please study the interesting and mind boggling arguements of brahmavadini Gargi(

a woman student) and Sage Yajnavalkya in Brihadranyaka Upanishad.

 

with prayers

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Lakshmi-Ji:

 

Could you give what was Acharya's position on this?

 

Thanks,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu

wrote:

>

> Namste,

>

> Brahman is formless.

>

> Where is the question of gender????

>

> To study shastras and advaita vedanata, what matters iis the

readiness of the upadhi - (mam/Woman), and tIvratvam to receive the

atmajnana taught by the teacher.

>

> Please study the interesting and mind boggling arguements of

brahmavadini Gargi( a woman student) and Sage Yajnavalkya in

Brihadranyaka Upanishad.

>

> with prayers

> Lakshmi Muthuswamy

>

>

>

> oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not

web links.

>

>

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

we should also remember that sri ramana often praised the

capabilities of women as sadhakas and violated the laws restricting

them from studying the sastras, among many other laws he violated at

the time, including the entire concept of varna.

 

he helped his mother achieve full realization upon her shedding the

mortal coil.

 

this was also achieved with another female--a cow!--named lakshmi;

whom ramana confirmed also achieved full enlightenment.

 

ramakrishna's wife, sarada devi was also considered a jnani. he

worshipped the kali aspect in her.

 

as was anandamayi-ma.

 

then we have the meaning behind one of the most misunderstood and

mysterious emblematic personas in all of esotericism; that of the

goat of mendes, called baphomet, whose cabalistic decoded name

is " sophia, " which refers to the ancient greek goddess of wisdom.

 

and then we have the symbolism regarding the mystery of the mysteries

in the search for the holy grail, which conceals the crowning glory

of all metaphysics.

 

____________

 

the buddhi aspect (female/intuitive) is located in the right

hemisphere of the cebral cortex;

the manasic aspect (male/reasoning) is in the left.

 

the more one meditates, the more the buddhi is developed.

 

from this we can see that when the jivatman incarnates as a female,

it's natural propensity is to function through the buddhi.

conversely for the male.

 

biologically the female constitution is predominately governed by the

strong xx chromosome matrix; whereas the male is of the weaker xy.

 

inferences from the above, as well as other related dynamics, reveal

how the male is energetically driven to overcome an inherent anxiety

due to his being that much less naturally connected to or in touch

with his spiritual nature (his antahkarana is by birth less developed

as opposed to the antahkarana of the soul incarnated in a female

bmc).

 

in light of this, the advantage for the jivatman taking a male body

is that its rate of growth is much greater than if it took a female

body. the sacrifice however is also greater. because the jivatman

as male is by nature more discontent; as well as (per statistics

shown) more prone to inflictions in the personality and character

makeup: more suseptible to psychological problems, addictions, crime,

self-centeredness, sexual perversions, and gluttony (thirst for

power, money, respect and fame).

 

this is according to theosophy: tenfold is the growth rate while a

soul is incarnate vs discarnate. discontentment is the key factor

involved.

 

virtually every human, regardless of gender, deserves the deepest

respect simply because they're burdened with the ongoing inner combat

of the Beast, known as the Mind. such a curse is a blessing in

dusguise!

 

males are burdened or cursed that much more, encouraging a higher

rate of growth; while females are more naturally inclined to reflect

the divine, both in countenance and demeanor.

 

it is in the natural order of things for the soul to undergo the full

gamut of the human experience; and it is the decision [of the soul]

as to when it will take on what gender. since one [gender] or the

other has a vital role to play in the macroscopic purpose of the

soul's evolution, to therefore judge an individual as accelerated or

backward is, in the last analysis, a complete waste of time and

energy.

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

This is the first time I am responding to any question in this

list. I am an advaita novice. So please forgive any mistakes in my post.

 

I am currently reading Swami Chinmayananda's excellent book on

" Talks on Sankara's Vivekachoodamani " . I read up the explanation of

this sloka.

 

Swamiji says that to tread on the path of Jnana, masculine

qualities of the heart and head are needed. And these are Viveka,

Vairagya, etc. The Sadhaka must be able to stand up like a true man

against the weaknesses of his mind. As Swami Vivekananda, another

great Jnani puts it, " it is a man-making religion that we need " , " the

older I grow, the more everything seems to me to lie in manliness " , etc.

 

Feminine qualities are needed to walk on the path of Bhakti. Women

are very lucky, that they can easily develop Bhakti.

 

Om Tat Sat

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> Dear All:

>

> Reading Vivekachudamani, the second verse after the invocation, it is

> stated:

>

> jantuunaaM narajanma durlabham ataH puMstvaM tato viprataa

> tasmaad vaidikadharmamaargaparataa vidvattvam asmaat param

> aatmaanaatmavivechanaM svanubhavo brahmaatmanaa saMsthitiH

> muktir no shatajanmakoTisukR^taiH puNyair vinaa labhyate. 2

>

> Human nature is the hardest of creaturely states to obtain, even more

> so that of manhood. Brahminhood is rarer still, and beyond that

> dedication to the path of Vedic religion. Beyond even that there is

> discrimination between self and nonself, but liberation by persistence

> in the state of the unity of God and self is not to be achieved except

> by the meritorious deeds of hundreds of thousands of lives. 2

>

> Besides the fact that this may or may not be an accurate translation,

> I would like to ask the list about different angles of thought on the

> fact that birth within a male body seems to have more " possibilities "

> for spiritual growth (at least as long as one believes to be the body)

> as indicated in this classic work by Sri Shankara.

> From the scriptural point of view, how is the best way to think about

> and understand this statement? (note: Sri Ramana, for example,

> translated this work an ommited this statement about " being born in a

> male body " ).

>

> Thanks in advance.

>

> Blessings to All (females and males alike),

> Mouna

>

[Guest guest]

Rajeshji :

 

Namaste ! Rajesh , pl kindly go and read my post number 37481 where

i have quoted the Gita verse ch 9 , verse 32 . You are right on

target , POOJYA gURUDEVJI gives a similar explanation for the term

WOMEN , SHUDRA AND VAISHYA , where he defines these terms as

indicating some special qualities of the human mind and intellect !

So , you are quite right , my friend ! Frankji has also pointed this

out quite nicely in his post ! In fact , in the Srimad Bhagvad

Gita , certain qualities are definitely mentioned as 'feminine' !

 

Chapter 10 , verse 34

 

kirtih srir vak ca narinam

smrtir medha dhrtih ksama

 

Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory, intelligence,

faithfulness and patience.

 

Swami Chinmayanandaji says " The Sanskrit terms conveying these

abstract nouns are all feminine in gender. Maybe the Lord means that

if ever we find these qualities in women, we can perceive a clearer

flicker of divinity than anywhere else. Again, the philosophical

content of the line is perfect, and beyond all criticism. It is not

said that the person having these qualities is divine. Whoever be

the person, and whatever be his past, when on occasions he expresses

these qualities, we can perceive a clearer vision of Life's glory

THROUGH HIM. "

 

So , i reality , when we speak of a man /woman in a vedantic

context , we are tallking about 'gender' per se ! We are talking

more in terms of the qualities of the head and the heart ! But , we

cannot make generalizations and say only women are 'famous . full of

fortune . have perfect speech , are blessed with great memory ,

intelligence , faithfulness and patieence . " Exceptions always prove

the rule !

 

ONE OF THE PREREQUISITES FOR VEDANTIC STUDY IS 'VAIRAGYA' ! tHIS IS

WHERE WE HAVE TO SEE IF WOMEN CAN STAND THE 'SCRITINY' ! ....

 

but , times have changed .... Even in the vedic age , we had

Maitreyi and Gargi ( as pointed out by both Smt.Lakshmiji and i in

earlier posts) relentlessly questioning Sage Yagnavalkya to reveal

to them 'brahma jnana' .... and it is becqause of these two women,

we have the best passages on BRAHMAN IN BRIHADARAYAKA UPANISHADS .

 

" 'The husband is dear to his wife, not for the sake of the husband,

but for the sake of the Self. The wife is dear to her husband, not

for the sake of the wife, but for the sake of the Self. (4.5)' ....

SO IT GOES ON TO INCLUDE CHILDREN, WEALTH ETC ETC .... ( TO

MAITREYI)

 

" 'That Brahman,' O Gargi, 'is unseen, but seeing; unheard, but

hearing; unperceived, but perceiving; unknown, but knowing. There is

nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that

perceives but it, nothing that knows but it. In that Akshara then, O

Gargi, the ether is woven, like warp and woof " ( TO GARGI)

 

sOMEONE ASKED ABOUT ACHARYA - ACHARYA'S FIRST GURU WAS HIS OWN

MOTHER ARYAMBAL. It was Aryambaal who taught Adi shankara how to

worship Shakti , the Divine mother Kundalini Shakti. and Adi

shankara bhagvadapada , in turn , showed his mother the Divine

Vision of Sri Krishna paramatma before Aryambaal's demise thereby

liberating her . In fact , i have read it somewhere Adi shanbkara

bhagvadapada composed his last work 'prabodha sudakara ( a treatise

on bhakti and vairagya) only for the sake of his mother during her

last days. Adi shankara 's first woman disciple was none other

Ubhayabharati , wife of Sri Mandana Mishra.

 

In the olden days , the qualifications for vedantic study were

strict- even , men had to embrace the 'sanyasa' order of life ! But

in modern time even the term 'sanyasa' itself has undergone many

changes ! it is now more 'sanyasa' of the mind than donning ochre

robes and retiring to the forest ! We have to be grateful to HIGHLY

EVOLVED SOULS LIKE SRI RAMANA MAHARISHI for redefining these terms !

We have the great example of Shri Atmananda , gurudeva of Sri Ananda

wood , who was a householder , but one of the great exponents of

Advaita vedanta . Then we have another Great example of Shri

Narsyana guru , who is from the Ezhava community but who has really

proved that 'advaita' is not just a philosophy but a LIVING REALITY -

equal opportunity to everyione to learn the 'ulitimate' Truth

REGARDLESS OF CASTE!

 

Advaita in thought , word and deed - that should be the motto of one

and all . Tomorrow is MahAtma Gandhiji's birthday - He is the

greatest example of a practicing 'Advaitin' .

 

I cannot believe you are a novice - Rajesh , you have summed in few

sentences the real definition of a 'woman' in terms of qualities of

the head and heart rather than in physical terms ! Bravo!

 

tere is world of difference between 'adhikaratwam' and 'tivaratam' -

we may all 'yearn for Truth( tivaratam' but the yearning should be

backed by 'preparedness ' ( adhikaratvam) That is why adi shankara

bhagvadapada encourages students of Advaita to study Sadhana

chatustyam , tattvabodha and Atma bodha before beginning the study

of Brahma sutras - these apply to both men /women ! that is why

brahma sutras begin ... Athato .... now you are ready to receive

Brahma jnana ....... Same with Narada bhakti sutras ... Athato - so

don't think , you can graduate to Para bhakti without practicing

Upasana bhakti!

 

One last pont. Swamiji may have said 'man making religion' but

Swamiji was an ardent devotee of Divine mother Kali and this is what

he said about 'women'

" The best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment

of its women. In ancient Greece there was absolutely no difference

in the state of man and woman. The idea of perfect equality existed.

No Hindu can be a priest until he is married, the ide a being that a

single man is only half a man, and imperfect. The idea of perfect

womanhood is perfect independence. The central idea of the life of a

modern Hindu lady is her chastity. It was the extreme of this idea

which caused Hindu widows to be burnt. The Hindu women are very

spiritual and very religious, perhaps more so than other women in

the world. If we can preserve these beautiful characteristics and at

the same time develop the intellects of our women, the Hindu women

of the future will be the i deal women in the world. (Chicago Daily

report on Swamiji's talk, September 23, 1893: CW:V.8,p.198) "

 

Yaa devi sarva bhuteshu Matru rupena sansthita !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Hari Om,

> This is the first time I am responding to any question in this

> list. I am an advaita novice. So please forgive any mistakes in my

post.

>

> I am currently reading Swami Chinmayananda's excellent book on

> " Talks on Sankara's Vivekachoodamani " . I read up the explanation of

> this sloka.

>

> Swamiji says that to tread on the path of Jnana, masculine

> qualities of the heart and head are needed. And these are Viveka,

> Vairagya, etc. The Sadhaka must be able to stand up like a true man

> against the weaknesses of his mind. As Swami Vivekananda, another

> great Jnani puts it, " it is a man-making religion that we

need " , " the

> older I grow, the more everything seems to me to lie in

manliness " , etc.

>

>

[Guest guest]

pl forgive the following errors in my previous post!

 

" So , i reality , when we speak of a man /woman in a vedantic

context , we are tallking about 'gender' per se ! "

 

should read

 

So, in reality , when we speak of a man/woman in a vedantic context ,

we are *not* talking about Gender per se !

 

i also typed 'scrutiny' wrong! sorry!

 

thanx

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa " <bhagini_niveditaa

wrote:

>

> pl forgive the following errors in my previous post!

>

> " So , i reality , when we speak of a man /woman in a vedantic

> context , we are tallking about 'gender' per se ! "

>

> should read

>

> So, in reality , when we speak of a man/woman in a vedantic context ,

> we are *not* talking about Gender per se !

>

> i also typed 'scrutiny' wrong! sorry!

>

> thanx

>

 

 

Namaskarams Sri Bhaginiji,

 

I have not read all the posts on this topic. But given the scriptures and the

proposed

modern interpretations, we have to go with some " faith " that these more

accomodating

interpretations are valid. As I think you noted before, there is a lot of

political correctness

behind what people here are saying, some with ideas that if women are really

said to be

ineligible, then the scripture should be thrown aside. It is truth that matters,

and I really

cannot say what the truth in such things are, not even whether I am capable of

liberation

(not due to caste or gender) if at all I understand what liberation is.

 

What we do have in our hands is the capacity to follow the guidelines (at least

mentally)

and add to our faith in the Lord (or Sri Shankara) the faith that He really

meant in such and

such manner. (He is said to get the dumb eloquent and the lame crossing

mountains.) We

cannot demand the preferred meaning. It does seem reasonable that given the

social

climate of the times, being governed by different roles assigned according to

caste and

gender, leaders can comfortably imply a general principle through specific

accepted social

structures. And in the times of Shankara (as arguably today among many, in

actuality),

such aspects (as opposed to animal sacrifises...) of Hinduism were apparently

considered

important to sustain or not oppose, notwithstanding the differing stance of

Buddhism. The

saint may have only indicated the actual liberality of his position through the

philosophy

but in common parlance not disturbed the tenor of the society.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

putranji :

 

Well said !

 

After all these posts on advaita and women and sri shastriji latest

post on Vyavahara , i am convinced of one thing - it is all in the

interpretation ! Shastriji ! how beautifully you have explained next

week's definition! Salutations to your infinite 'medha' Shakthi!

Dennisji is really fortunate to have so many members contributing on

this next week's definition! i am sure rishiji will come up with

something equally interesting .

 

i would like to share the the following Subhashita with you all !

 

laaOikkanaaM ih saaQaUnaama\ Aqa-M vaaganauvat-to a

?YaINaaM punaradyaanaaM vaacama\ Aqaao-nauQaavatI aa

 

In case of normal individuals the words follow the meaning.

But in case of great sages ('Rishis') the meaning follows their

words!

Normally a person thinks of the meaning first and then frames the

sentence as per that meaning.

But in case of the great sages like Vashishta, Vishwamitra the

casually uttered words by them would obtain a very deep meaning.

This subhAshita gives us an insight in the intellectual level that

was obtained by our ancient sages.

 

so , maunaji - we cannot take the vivekachudamani verse literally

and conclude women are not qualified to learn vedanta ! the terms

nari and brahmins themselves do not mean just gender and caste as

has been explained beautifully by pujya gurudevji!

 

Hari Aum!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> > >

> > i also typed 'scrutiny' wrong! sorry!

> >

> > thanx

> >

>

>

> Namaskarams Sri Bhaginiji,

>

> I have not read all the posts on this topic. But given the

scriptures and the proposed

> modern interpretations, we have to go with some " faith " that these

more accomodating

> interpretations are valid.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sister Bhagini Niveditaa, Namaste to the God in You:

 

On your last post, you wrote:

 

" so , maunaji - we cannot take the vivekachudamani verse literally

and conclude women are not qualified to learn vedanta ! the terms

nari and brahmins themselves do not mean just gender and caste as

has been explained beautifully by pujya gurudevji! "

 

Please be sure that my question never intended to state that " men'

have " more possibilities " than " women " . My question was: " From the

scriptural point of view, how is the best way to think about

and understand this statement? "

By the way, I wasn't born a brahmin (I'm not even hindu!!) and except

some excerpts here and there, I never studied the Vedas!, so from " my "

point of view I am as " doomed " as a " female body " if I get a literal

translation of the verse...

 

Actually in my next post, under the light of some of the responses I

got to my question I'll be giving my thoughts about it.

 

Thank you for your insights on the subject, that by all means

clarified enormously the understanding.

 

Respectfully,

 

Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> Dear All:

>

> Reading Vivekachudamani, the second verse after the invocation, it

is

> stated:

>

> jantuunaaM narajanma durlabham ataH puMstvaM tato viprataa

>Mouna

 

Dear Mouna-ji:

 

I request you to listen to the 3rd lecture, VarNa Dharma in The

Introduction to Vedanta of Swami Paramarthananda, in the following

site:

http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/index.html

 

Here is a short summary for taste. This summary is a poor substitute

to the original lecture of Swamiji. I request everone to forgive me

for errors of omissions and commissions:

 

In order to realize the four-fold goals of humanity, PurushArtha

(Dharma, artha, kAma and Moksha, the material and spiritual goals of

life) we need an infrastructure. At the macro or society level, it is

known as varNa (the four-fold divisions of humanity) and at the micro

or individual level as Ashrama (the four stages of life). Both

together are known as varnAshrama Dharma. We will be concerned with

varNa only in this summary.

 

The society is divided into four groups – Brahmana (one who pursues

knowledge), kshthriyA (the ruling class or administrators), vaishyA

(the merchant class) and ShUdrA (who does not have an independent

pursuit of his own, but serves the other three classes).

(I) Character-based division: This classification is based on the

inherent character or personality traits of the individual (Guna or

attribute).

(i) Spiritual Personality: (Tatva Pradhaana or Guna Brahmana):

endowed with a temperament conducive for Scriptural learning,

contemplative seeks solitude and is in quest of the Ultimate Reality

(Brahman).

(ii)Dynamic selfless Personality: (Shuddha Raja Pradhaana or Guna

kshthriya): outgoing, highly motivated, unselfish and is interested

in serving the society.

(iii) Dynamic self-centered Personality: (Ashuddha Raja Pradhaana or

Guna vaishya): Equally outgoing, dynamic and highly motivated but

seeks material enrichment for the self and immediate family members

only.

(iv) Passive Personality: (Tama Pradhaana or Guna Shudra): lethargic,

indolent and not motivated for either material or spiritual pursuits,

given to base sense gratification.

(II) Profession-based division: This classification is based on one's

profession (karma) or contributions to the society: Scriptural

Teacher (karma Brahmana) administrator in public service (karma

kshthriya) merchant (karma vaishya) and all forms of labor (karma

shudra).

(III) The third type of division is based upon the birth (Jaati).

 

One person may be a Jaati Brahmana, a karma kshthriya or vaishya and

a Guna Shudra and another may be a Jaati shudra, a karma kshthriya or

vaishya and a Guna Brahmana. Clearly the latter's life is more

meritorious than the former's.

 

According to Sasthras, there is no gradation or distinction (Taara

tamyam) among the Jaati or karma classification. Nobody is superior

or inferior by birth or profession. All are equal. Caste system is

the problem that is caused by tara tamya (distinctions), attributed

to jaati classification.

 

However, there is distinction among the four groups in Guna attribute

because a Guna Brahmana is superior to a Guna kshthriya who is

superior to a Guna vaishya who in turn is superior to a Guna shudra.

All our spiritual sadhanas are meant to improve our character to Guna

Brahmanatvam. Ultimately each one of us has to become a Guna Brahmana

to realize moksha or liberation.

 

Our actions in this birth will determine to whom we will be born in

our next birth. Therefore, we have a choice as far as jaati is

concerned at least in our next birth. We do have a choice with

respect to our profession (karma) and character (Guna). Because there

is a choice, it is known as varna – vreeyathe iti varnaha. (My

comments: When the caste system denies the choice or opportunity to

realize the Brahma vidya to everyone and fails to recognize the

inherent merit of character or attribute, it is antithetical to the

very meaning of varNa.)

 

According to Scriptures, material success should be complemented and

balanced by spiritual success also. Ultimately it is only the

spiritual success that matters.

Swamiji quotes the following verse from Brahadharanyaka Upanishad

(B.U) – 3-8-10.

Yo va etad aksaram, gargi, aviditvasmal lokat praiti, sa krpanah Atha

ya etad aksaram, gargi, viditvasmal lokat praiti, sa brahmanah:

 

A truly successful person is one who has discovered his real

spiritual nature.

(Please listen to the portion on side 1, after the 7th minute).

 

Swami Krishnananda provides the following meaning for the above B.U.

quote:

" He is called a Brahmana, or a great knower, who departs from this

world, having known this Reality. " The goal of life is therefore the

realisation of this Supreme Being, and every other activity is an

auxiliary to this realisation. Whatever virtue, whatever righteous

deeds that we may have to perform as our duty in the different walks

of life in the world - all these are only of an auxiliary value, an

ordinary utility. They are valuable only because they are passages to

the experience and the knowledge of this Ultimate Goal of life. "

 

In verse 6 of Vivekacudamani, Adi Sankara says:

Atmaikya Bodhena vinaa vimukthihi

Na siDhyati Brahmanda satharantharepi. "

 

Swami Chinmayananda's translation of this verse is:

…yet without the experience of one's identity with the Self, there

shall be no liberation for the individual, not even in the lifetime

of a hundred Brahmas put together. " Swami Dayananda Saraswathi states

that aikya really means Ekasya bhavah " , oneness. There is only one

self. Between jiva and jiva there is no difference, between jiva and

jagat there is no difference, between jiva and Iswara there is no

difference. Knowledge of this oneness is called atmaikya bodha. For

further elaboration on Jiva Iswara Aikyam , the great equation You

are That, please listen to Swami Paramarthananda's lecture 14.

Regards.

 

Jan Nagraj