Advaita for women and... non-brahmins.

October 1, 2007

Dear All:

I want to thank in advance all postings in relation to my question

about how to understand the second verse of our beloved Acharya's

Vivekachudamani. Please allow me to share my own thoughts born out of

the different responses shared.

The one thing noticed is that a a question of this sort, or this

specific verse, primarily reveals the relationship " we " have with the

I-am-the-body idea or feeling. The first time I read Vivekachudamani,

I remember being " stuck " in this second verse, thinking: " Well at

least I am a man, but I wasn't born a Brahmin, not even a Hindu! (from

some point of view, because of that, I'm even an outcast!)

Would that mean I'm doomed for the next zillion yugas until I get

another possibility to be reborn with those specific attributes to

realize Brahman? Evidently, there was something wrong in the picture,

either within the text, or the " interpretation " of the text or... with

" me " and my relationship to " me " .

In time, I understood that what was " off " was that I was completely

engrossed in the body idea. I was reading Vivekachudamani from the BMI

Body-Mind-Intellect) point of view, I wasn't really discriminating

much the real from the unreal. And from that " point of view " I needed

to invent myself reasons either as to how to demonstrate that the text

was wrong, or interpret it otherwise, or give myself examples of

famous non-brahmins beings that " made it " anyway.

The conclusion was: maybe it is much simpler than that, and start

asking again: Am I really a man, or a woman? Was I really born as a

non-brahmin?

Was I REALLY BORN at all?

Who in fact, am I?

If all Vedanta shastras and sages are telling me that " Brahman=I " is

where to look from the very beginning, wouldn't be much easier to

say?: I don't know what Sri Shankaracharya wanted to say in that

verse, I wasn't there (I could always interpret it in different ways

or take others' words for that), but I DO Know one thing and one thing

only, and that which I KNOW is the one thing that makes all other

" things " known, regardless of gender, caste, name and form. To That

Knowing, I turn my mind to, and bow.

Pranams,

Mouna

October 1, 2007

Dear Mounaji,

This is very well put.

There are places in the scriptures where they do tell you outright that you

are brahman. But the point is that, although there is certainly no attempt

to hide this fact, most minds simply cannot believe it. It is necessary to

start from where we are and gradually point us towards the truth. This is

why the scriptures tell us many things that are not absolutely true. Indeed

lots are blatantly dualistic. This is fundamental to the traditional method

of teaching, which tells you something that is not strictly true (but which

you can appreciate) and then later says: " well, it's not actually like

that... " - see the description of adhyAropa - apavAda (Method of Deliberate

Superimposition and Negation) at

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/adhyaropa.htm.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Mouna

01 October 2007 19:19

advaitin

Re: Advaita for women and... non-brahmins.

If all Vedanta shastras and sages are telling me that " Brahman=I " is

where to look from the very beginning, wouldn't be much easier to

say?: I don't know what Sri Shankaracharya wanted to say in that

verse, I wasn't there (I could always interpret it in different ways

or take others' words for that), but I DO Know one thing and one thing

only, and that which I KNOW is the one thing that makes all other

" things " known, regardless of gender, caste, name and form. To That

Knowing, I turn my mind to, and bow.

Pranams,

Mouna

October 1, 2007

Dear All,

I don't know if it is such a good idea to take words such as

Brahmana, women, etc... metaphorically when the literal meaning fits

the context of the text so well. It seems to me that verses 2-4 are

clearly encouragment verses meant for the people who would have been

most likely to study the Vivekachudamani (ie: male brahmanas who have

studied the karma-kanda). I suggest reading all these verses

together. The idea is that someone who has a good birth and has

studied the Vedas but is not interested in moksha is being suicidial,

wasting such a valuable opportunity. Even if we are not male

brahmanas who have studied the karma kanda, it is clear that the

verse is still very relevant for us. We have, through the merit of

past actions, heard so much about Advaita Vedanta, moksha, Brahman,

etc... and yet we somehow manage not to seriously and wholeheartedly

seek moksha - as the text says, what greater fool can there be?

Regards,

R.

October 2, 2007

Greetings to everyone.

While I am of the opinion that men and women are equally qualified

to study Vedanta, I believe we would not be intellectually honest if

we go to great lengths to justify quotes from our scriptural texts

and its commentaries through alternative interpretations, when the

obvious one is blatantly clear.

In my humble opinion, the social and cultural values prevalent at

that time is clearly evident in certain verses such as the one cited

in Vivekacudamani or even the Gita. Instead of trying to justify

every verse of these texts through alternative interpretations, we

should be bold and call a spade, a spade, and acknowledge the

shortcomings of such verses within the texts.

If the idea was to talk about particular mindsets rather than groups

of humans, why not just talk directly about it instead of leaving

room for doubt by explicity stating Women, Vaishya and Shudra. Even

if we accept that the author meant to convey an esoteric meaning, it

is inconceivable that the thought might not have occurred to the

author that these groups of people could be disadvantaged if people

adopted a literal reading of the text. Yet, he chose to word the

verse as such. Therefore, we cannot ignore the obvious meaning

conveyed by such verses.

We cringe at the thought that compositions by such spiritual giants

as Shankaracharya may have any shortcomings. But the truth is that a

biased attitude towards the male Brahmin, would have never been

considered a shortcoming during those days and it's only today that

it is seen so. I feel that we should acknowledge the socio-cultural

mileu that existed at that time and see such verses as products of

that setting. A literal understanding of these verses does not

necessitate a literal application of the verses. Swami Vivekananda

often asked his disciples to put any teaching to the test of the

intellect. Accept what is useful for one's spiritual progress and

reject that which is not necessary.

Please forgive any transgressions as a result of my viewpoint.

Yours in the lord,

Sudheesh

October 2, 2007

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

Dear readers,

There is ONLY ONE PURUSHA and all the human beings are

strI only. The one and only PURUSHA does not need Advaita because

He is Advaitatattva itself . It is we who belong to strI category who

need Advaita j~JAnaa.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

October 2, 2007

Namaste Shri Sudeeshiji.

Your post 37523.

You have not transgressed even a bit.

This topic was discussed here a couple of years back and I vividly

remember our Harshaji rightly pointed out then that the verse in

question is attributable to the particular mind-set that existed at the

time of writing it.

Kudos to you for being bold enough to say so despite the fact that you

are new here. We need people like you.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

October 2, 2007

advaitin , " Sudheesh " <sudheesh007 wrote:

> In my humble opinion, the social and cultural values prevalent at

> that time is clearly evident in certain verses such as the one cited

> in Vivekacudamani or even the Gita. Instead of trying to justify

> every verse of these texts through alternative interpretations, we

> should be bold and call a spade, a spade, and acknowledge the

> shortcomings of such verses within the texts.

> We cringe at the thought that compositions by such spiritual giants

> as Shankaracharya may have any shortcomings. But the truth is that a

> biased attitude towards the male Brahmin, would have never been

> considered a shortcoming during those days and it's only today that

> it is seen so. I feel that we should acknowledge the socio-cultural

> mileu that existed at that time and see such verses as products of

> that setting. A literal understanding of these verses does not

> necessitate a literal application of the verses. Swami Vivekananda

> often asked his disciples to put any teaching to the test of the

> intellect. Accept what is useful for one's spiritual progress and

> reject that which is not necessary.

Namaskarams Sri Sudheeshji,

It is the attitude that counts. If you refer to it as shortcoming, I strongly

disagree. In fact,

the question of the mindset and socio-cultural mileu of those times has already

been

admitted and discussed. The Stri dharma of yesteryears may be rejected by the

majority of

women today as backward, but to label it as a shortcoming of the past is

ridiculous. We

are nourished today by the strengths of that ideal, which as Swami Vivekananda

indicated

is how we should judge an ideal or nation. Unfortunately we are so accustomed

today to a

narrow mindset and so aware of the corrupted versions, that we judge our past by

what

appears bad. Sita may not be the role-model any longer, but let us not condemn

her or

her times or the woman today who still holds to it. It is gross intellectual

arrogance

+ignorance. The social ideals of then were different and not wrong,

notwithstanding the

potential corruptions.

With regard to the saints, one approach is to condemn a Sri Ramakrishna or a Sri

Shankara

as subjects of their times, and that their teachings are coloured with their

inability to

overcome the prejudices, which they themselves employed in their words and

nurtured as

and when the time suits it. The other is to rest assured that these were really

great saints

rooted in the philosophy that they preached. And the secondary details regarding

language were employed more for practicality.

As pointed out by Rishiji, the expected audience does make a difference in the

language

used; do not forget that the Vivekachudamani, Upadesa Sahasri, etc have the twin

goals of

expounding the philosophy and goading people to attain to jnana. So who is

goaded

becomes valid consideration and teaching with a polarized social emphasis is

practically

effective for people enmeshed in social structures. Swami Sivananda of Rishikesh

wrote

strongly on Brahmacharya for men and strongly used the polarity of gender for

that

purpose; he received a letter from a moderner complaining of this fact, which

the Swami

dismissed as a product of ignorance.

Another point I had mentioned is that we cannot assess the truth of whether a

woman is

equally capable, etc. There are differences in bodies and aspects of life that

are evident,

and it would be hypocrisy to say that by intellectual exercise, I, a man, know

for sure that

woman also can attain liberation. I don't know whether I can attain Brahmajnana

myself,

what to speak of another. So this rejection business cannot be done

(objectively) by us

ignorant fools with big intellects. A better method is to keep open the

scripture to all who

consider themselves capable of its study, and according to our times look for

potential

suitable meanings in the smrithi parts while staying true to the sruthi. We do

this placing

faith in the great teachers and the Lord, and not our intellects. (The human

mind is

capable of holding much more than what it puts to writing, and a saint's even

more.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

October 2, 2007

Namaste Sudesh-Ji:

Thank you for bringing out the critical issue which we often do not

wish to discuss.

Socio-cultural always need to be always considered when interpreting

our vedic literature in order to extract the practical meaning from

them. When this did not happen and the gap widened and brahmins

started being the gate keepers of knowledge (veda) only through

mechanical recitations. Sage Vyasa was prompted to write

mahaabhaarata.

itihaasapuraaNaabhyaa.m veda.m samupabR^i.mhayet .

bibhetyalpashrutaadvedo maamaya.m prahariShyati (ma. bhaa. Adiparva

1.293-294)

Meaning - Veda needs to be understood with the help of history and

purana. Veda thinks that these partially learned folks (who think

they know) are going to hit them (misinterpret the meaning).

Sayanaacharya calls these partially learned parrots as lifeless poles

supporting the roof.

sthaaNur ayam bhaara-haaraH kilaabhuud, adhiitya veda.m

navidnyaanaati yo.artham

Sage vyasa was convinced that only brahmins do not have the right for

liberation (mukti), therefore he penned bhagvat puraaNa.

striishuudradvijabandhuunaa.m trayii na shrutigocaraa . iti

bhaaratamaakhyaana.m kR^iopayaa muninaa kR^itam .. bhaagavata

(1.4.25.),

Based on above reasoning Acharya shankar also must have propagated

the importance of self validations as seen in viveake chDhamaNi

svasyaavidyaabandhasa.mbandhamoxaat

satyadnyaanaaanandaruupapaatmalabdhau .

shaastra.m yuktirdeshikoktiH pramaNa.m caantaHsiddhaa svaanubhuutiH

pramaaNam .. .. vivekacuuDaamaNiH 475 ..

Meaning - O realization of Ataman, the truth, wisdom and bliss,

through freedom frommm connection (with upaadhi) created by the bond

of ignorance, neither shastras, arguments, nor the teachings of the

guru, but only self-acquired or self-validated experience are of any

authority.

IMHO - Acharys has given us the real tool of " neti-neti " for

evaluating the truth that can and needs to be applied in vyahaarikaa

level. Unfortunately vedantins like to feel good that they have

understood vedanta and become vedaantina, a derogatory term in our

shastra.

vyaakhyaatum eva kecit kushataaH, shaastram prayoktum alam anye

upanaamayati karo.anna.m rasaa.ms tu jih{}vaiv jaanaati .

Meaning - It is said that some people are cleaver only at expounding,

while others have the ability to to practice what they learn. The

hand carries to the mouth but only the tongue knows the flavors.

Just some thoughts to ponder !

Best wishes & regards,

Dr. Yadu

advaitin , " Sudheesh " <sudheesh007 wrote:

>

> We cringe at the thought that compositions by such spiritual giants

> as Shankaracharya may have any shortcomings. But the truth is that

a