Advaita for women

[Guest guest]

Dear Sudheeshji,

 

I agree (and have already said) that these verses should be taken

literally, not figuratively. It is important to understand that these

texts are also historical documents, but I think it is equally

important that we do not treat them as mere historical documents.

 

As Vedantins, we take texts such as the Vivekachudamani and the Gita

as the work of extremely wise people. This doesn't mean we

neccesarily accept absolutely everything they say, but it does mean

that we do not off-handedly dismiss statements by just saying that it

is a relic of the past.

 

I think the Gita verses in question and the Vivekachudamani verses

are very relevant today.

 

In the Vivekachudamani verses, the basic point the author is making

is that it is marvellously foolish to not seriously seek moksha after

having gained, through enormous merit, human birth and knowledge and

faith in the Vedas. This is the main point in these verses, and I

think it is extremely relevant to people in this group. We have

encountered Advaita Vedanta only because of extraordinary merit and

it would be very unwise to waste this rare opportunity.

 

The Gita verses are also pretty clear in meaning if you look at them,

and I don't really see a problem with them. It basically says

something to the effect " if even ordinary people can understand the

Gita, then what to say about great brahmanas and wise rulers? " I

think most people would agree that the purpose of that verse is to

sing the praises of the great brahmanas and wise rulers and not to

put other people down. The verse does not even mention ordinary

Brahmanas and Kshatriyas in fact, it only deals with specially gifted

cases of each. Its clearly, among other purposes perhaps, serves to

encourage Arjuna.

 

In any case, thank you so much for your message, it is really the

basis for a serious discussion about how to deal with statements in

the scriptures that are clearly rooted in some norms that are

different from ours.

 

Regards,

 

R.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa " <bhagini_niveditaa

wrote:

>

> Pujya Aadrineeya Shastriji :

>

> How would you translate this verse from the Srimad Bhagvat gita ?

>

>

>

> vidya-vinaya-sampanne

> brahmane gavi hastini

> suni caiva sva-pake ca

> panditah sama-darsinah ( chapter 5 . verse 18)

>

 

The verse following (5.19) I found interesting, looking at it after the

conversations here.

 

Krishna Warrier (for RKM publ) translates Shankara's bhashya: " Even here is

birth

vanquished by them whose mind abides in equality. Flawless indeed is Brahman,

the same;

hence they abide in Brahman. "

 

Swami Adidevananda (RKM) translates Ramanuja's bhashya: " Here itself Samsara is

overcome by those whose minds rest in equalness... "

 

Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON: " Those whose minds are established in sameness and

equanimity have already conquered the conditions of birth and death... "

 

Swami Ranganathananda (RKM): " (Relative) existence has been conquered... " He

later

states Sargah to mean " without our choice we are put into a body-mind complex.'

 

 

The notion of 'birth' seems used by them in the general sense of " samsara " , the

common

issue for all people. When I first read Krishna Warrier's translation, it seems

also possible

that Sri Krishna is indicating that the connotations associated to the body

(typically by

birth) on account of caste or gender are " vanquished by them [sages] whose mind

abides

in equality. "

 

This seems quite possible given that 5.18 refers to such things. Moreover varna

is referred

to in many places in the Gita, and was a central thing then; so a reference to

birth and its

conditionings could well indicate of that aspect of birth and associated

limitations. In 5.18,

He says that the sage sees the Sat through such nama-rupas (Brahmana, animals,

chandala) in the world, whereas in 5.19 the sage reaching that state of equality

transcends

such limitations associated to his own body-mind (as Brahmana, chandala, woman,

etc)

through birth.

 

What is significant then is that this verse implicitly says that birth is not a

condition to

become a sage ... to be liberated; rather whatever the birth, the sage reaches

to a state of

unity. Does anyone see something wrong in this interpretation of this verse?

Will this find

general support in the religion -- it is a well accepted fact that people of all

varnas have

become sages. Krishna seems to say that here.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaginiji

 

Your question--

 

How would you translate this verse from the Srimad Bhagvat gita ?

 

vidya-vinaya-sampanne

brahmane gavi hastini

suni caiva sva-pake ca

panditah sama-darsinah ( chapter 5 . verse 18)

 

Answer--

I have already answered this in reply to another e-mail. I am reproducing

the answer below:

 

Sri Sankara says in his bhAshya on gita, 5.18 that the learned are

habituated to see the same brahman in every creature. The idea is that we,

even the unenlightened, should look upon every creature as brahman appearing

in that form. This idea has been brought out in the Bhagavata also where it

is said that a person who merely worships God in an image, but does not

recognize the fact that God dwells in every creature, and treats other human

beings with contempt or exploits them, makes a mockery of worship. Such

worship is of no use at all. (Skandha III, Ch.29, Slokas 21 to 25).

 

At the same time difference has also to be recognized in practical life. A

company cannot obviously give the same pay and perquisites to its CEO and

its sweeper. Difference has to be accepted here. There is a verse attributed

to Sri sankara which says that 'bhava-advaita' should always be practised,

but not 'kriya-advaita'. That means that, while we should look upon every

living being as divine, and give all the respect due, we have also to

observe the differences based on the practical situation.

 

Question--

 

along the same lines , how would you interpret this verse from Jivan

mukthi viveka ?

 

Ishwaro jIva-kalayA pravishto bhagavaan iti

danDavat praNamed bhUmau ashva-chandAla-go-kharam

 

Answer—This verse is actually in Bhagavata and has been quoted in

Jivanmuktiviveka.The meaning is—One should prostrate even before a dog,

chandala, cow and donkey, knowing that God dwells in all of them as the

jiva. This should not be taken literally. Otherwise a person will have to go

on prostrating all the time when he walks along a road, especially since our

streets in India are full of stray dogs. The idea is that he should always

remember that every creature is God in that form and that God pervades the

whole creation. There is nothing but God.

 

Question--

 

and last but not least , this verse from Manisha panchakam

 

brahmaivaahamidaM jagachcha sakalaM chinmaatravistaaritaM

sarvaM chaitadavidyayaa triguNayaa.asheshhaM mayaa kalpitam.h .

itthaM yasya dR^iDhaa matiH sukhatare nitye pare nirmale

chaaNDaalo.astu sa tu dvijo.astu gururityeshhaa maniishhaa mama ..

Answer- A person who has realized that he is brahman is worthy of being

worshipped as a guru, whatever may be his origin. This implies that any one

in any varna or even those outside any varna can get brahmajnAna and once he

or she gets it, that person is brahman itself—brahmavid brmaiva bhavati.

and finally , here is what Gandhiji said

 

" The story of a shudra having been punished by Ramchandra for

daring to learn the Vedas, I reject as an interpolation. "

He was killed for doing penance.. Another interpretation is that in treta

yuga when Rama avatAra took place SUdras were not allowed to perform

penance. That was the yugadharma. By being killed by an avatAra he got

liberation which was what he was doing penance for. So killing was a

blessing and not a punishment.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you so much Shrimaan Shastriji for your detailed explanations

of the three slokas that i had penned in my post . Shastriji , as

you might be already aware , i know and understand the full meanings

of those slokas ! My queation was in the nature of a Rhetoric only .

All i was trying to gather from you was DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE

that a brahma jnani SHOULD make such artificial distinctions about

Caste and Gender .

 

SO , By admitting to Shri Tholmelkaalkizhu " MY previous post seems

to have created the impression that I myself hold the view that

women are not entitled to learn the vedas or Vedanta. The

formation of such an impression seems to have been helped by my age

and my name "

 

Not so much your age , shastriji - If at all , your age is very much

in your favor . I , for one , take all your views very seruiously as

you have demonstrated on more than one Occassion your knowledge and

wisdom of interpreting the various scriptures wonderfully. Your

Recent quote of Madhusudana Saraswati was a case in point . Also ,

you are a contemporary of my dad's friend Shri Gangadharan , an ex

IAAS officer , in Delhi .THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH REASON FOR ME TO

RESPECT YOU ALL THE MORE . YOU ARE IN 'PITA STANAM' FOR ME ! MATA

PITA DEVO BHAVAHA !

 

Yes!The caste title at the end of your name did make me think for a

minute that yes being a brahmin of high caste , shastriji does not

want other castes to learn vedas ! But that was erroneous thinking

on my part .... as has been clearly proved by this post to

Tholmelkaal kizhu.

 

Shastriji , a true never makes any artificial distinctions between a

man and a man or a man and a woman ! THAT IS THE REASON WHY I POSTED

THE GITA SLOKA !ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPAA himself says in Manisha

panchakam one can learn Brahma vidya from a guru even from a

Chandala if he is a brahma jnani !

 

I liked the example of Vidura. Similarly , Sage Narada himself was

born of a woman of low repute. Same is true of Satyakama in

Chandogya upanishads whose mother jabala herself hides the lineage

from her son Satyakama !

 

Vedas are karma kanda . TO SOME EXTENT , IT IS TRUE THAT ONLY MEN

WERE ALLOWED TO PERFORM THE VEDIC RITUALS FOR WHICH THEY HAD TO

LEARN THE VEDA MANTRAS . but for every ritual , a man performed , a

woman had to be present side by side - this was considered

auspicious. Also, in the Satapatha BrahmaNA there is a passage

which clearly states that only woman fulfills the purposes of human

life . This passage explains the divinity of women the divine aspect

of women and declares that women are the embodiment of Sri Devi

(SriyA vA yEthath rUpam yathA patnaya:).

 

Also , shastriji , we all are familiar with the Usha Suktham and the

Devi suktham of the Rig vedas .

 

aLSO ,I AM SURE YOU HAVE HEARD OF LOPAMUDRA,wife of Sage Agastya .

She was a brahmavaadini Rishika and she herself is the author of Two

mantras in the rig vedam ! mAY I ALSO SAY THAT ALL RISHI PATNIS WERE

EQUALLY WELL VERSED IN SCHOLARSHIP ALONG WITH THEI HUSBANDS .

 

What about Romasa , Vishvara , Apala . Sraddha , etc etc etc .....

we have already given the names of many rishikas in a previous

post .

 

Vedas are karma kanda but upanishads are jnana kanda .... ANYONE AND

EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF CASTE AND GENDER IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE

TRUTH - Brahma jnana is not just the privilege of a chosen few - it

is a universal tuth that should be made available to all jignasus !

The qualifications ( adhikaratvam ) is not based on caste or gender

BUT ON OTHER THINGS SUCH AS OUTLINED IN SADHANA CHATUSTYAM !

 

 

If we are to follow what adi shankara said then all Vedantic

students should wear a loin cloth, sit under a tree and go from

house to house begging for alms and study vedanta ! Is it possible

or is it practical in modern times ! The brahm,in castes are not

just engzed in priestly dutues ---- they are all holding high jobs

in all sectors of the economy ! HOW CAN DO 'SANDYAVANDAM ' ON A

PLANE IF YOU ARE TRAVELLING FROM iNDIA TO U.S.A IN 18 HOUR NON STOP

FLIGHT - EVEN THE SWAMIJIS CANNOT DO IT !

 

 

so , to cut a long story short , WE HAVE TO MOVE WITH THE TIMES . iF

WOMEN CAN BE ASTRONAUTS , then can study vedas also ! IN TANTRAS ,

THERE IS NO SUCH RESTRICTION . iN FACT , IN THE NIGAMA SHASTRAS ,

DEVI IS THE GURU AND PARAMASHIVA IS THE DISCIPLE !

 

may i now share a subhashita with you ?

 

Five mouthed himself(Shiva), and sons the elephant mouth (Ganesh)

and the one with six mouths (Kartikeya) .. how would shiva survive

if mAtA Annapurna (Parvati) was not at home ?

 

The point is The great Shiva HIMSELF IS BEGGING FOR 'JNANA DIKSHA'

FROM his wife Annapurana !

 

" Jñänaväirâgyà sïddhyarthàm bhïkshâm dëhi cha pÀrvatî. "

 

Iit is one thing to say women are not entitled to perform vedic

rituals but it is another thing to coclude from that women are not

entitled to Brahma jnana !

 

Dharma comes in various shapes and sizes ! Thhey are 1) manav Dharma

2) stri dharma and 3) yuga dharma and above all Sanatana dharma -

The Sanatana Dharma is above all these other dharmas - The sanatana

dharma teaches us to practice the bhava of 'equanimity' at all

times !

 

one of the names of the Divine Mother is 'veda garbini' - FROM WHOSE

WOMB THE VEAS ARE BORN!

 

please join me in Saluting the Divine mother in all her divine

manifestations !

 

We are both speaking from the same platform - that women are

entitled to Brahma jnana as much as men .

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Shri thollmelukaalkizhu (I suppose that is how I should address you),

>

> My previous post seems to have created the impression that I myself hold the

> view that women are not entitled to learn the vedas or Vedanta. The

> formation of such an impression seems to have been helped by my age and my

> name. All that I had said was that in olden days women were not allowed to

> learn the vedas. I did not say that it was my view als. I have studied

> vedanta under two renowned traditional scholars for more than 15 years.

> Right from the beginning and throughout this period my wife also attended

> these classes along with me, with the result that her knowledge of Vedanta

> and Sanskrit is not in any way less than mine. I hope this is enough to

> remove the wrong impression about me.

>

> The famous yoga exponent Shri Krishnamachari who led a life strictly

> according to the tenets of the scriptures insisted on all his women students

> learning some mantras from the vedas. My daughter-in-law who was one of his

> students engaged a teacher to teach her vedic mantras. Thus even among

> orthodox people there are those who hold liberal views in this matter.

> Another orthodox brahmin who held such liberal views was Anna Sunrmanian

> whose Tamil translations of many Sanskrit works have been published by the

> Ramakrishna Mission, Chennai. The conservative view is also held even now by

> some religious heads, but since, unlike in some other religions, in our

> religion there is no one who has the power to issue a 'fatwa', these views

> are not binding on anybody. I request to be excused for this digression.

>

 

Sri Shastriji,

 

Really I had no doubt about what you were saying, and I could not follow what

exactly

Bhaginiji was addressing with her email. Now I do.

 

My main concern here is how exactly Shankara and Krishna interpret the issues.

It seems

likely they were speaking to varna-by-birth societies, and it is doubtful that

they intended

to make it varna-by-character. Varna dharma and stri dharma were considered to

be

strongpoints, if rightly maintained. And village populations were small back

then. Rather (I

think) they wanted to stress the right spirit (and the knowledge of

equality/Brahman) to

have while abiding by that svadharma. Then the social confusion of " equals and

unequals "

for the wrong reasons can be cleared without having to dismantle the existing

working-

basis of society.

 

As I indicated in the other posts, we focus on the right to read the scripture

as opposed to

liberation. If the saint says Sannyasa, we say in the mind. If they say

svadharma (which yes,

includes both do and don't), we say 'my freedom' and label them conservative.

With such

an ego underlying our life, it is questionable whether scriptural learning is

going to lead to

liberation, even if we are adepts at " seeing God everywhere " . The old-timers'

idea was that

knowing the essence of the scripture, we should adhere to the svadharma as the

purifying

path to liberation. It purifies because our work is not for self but for the

fulfillment of

dharma, for the Grace of God. Ideally (in those days) the stris and fourth varna

should have

access to sources that give them the essence of the scripture.

 

Such arguments don't work (esp. today) when our goal is not liberation and is

rather to

find happiness in ego-driven work and freedom. Take instead a Brahmachari in a

matha;

even mindless choiceless work is significant, for the goal is clear to that

person. And for

others, they also become very dharmic if preached karma-yoga in such a setting.

But the

svadharma of the scriptures have become outdated and conservative.

 

Following today the 'bread before God' philosophy, let all have their fanciful

dose of

scripture and Upanishadic quotations, and assimilate (or rather argue for) the

lifestyle of

the male Brahmana as touted in the scriptures, to whatever extent they desire

and inspite

of whatever other works they perform. But the responsibility falls all the more

on the male

Brahmana (whom the sages have repeatedly addressed and tried to enlighten) in

maintaining the cultural link to the past and adhering with strictness to the

svadharma. A

westerner Stephen Huyler in his book " Meeting God " could sense their important

role:

" Brahmana priests believe that it is their karma to be born into a position to

serve the

Gods and humanity, and their dharma to preserve the integrity of Hindu

traditions. By

ensuring their own absolute purity in all matters (purity being more important

even than

spirituality), Brahmana priests maintain the continuity of the Hindu social

order. "

 

 

(Hey, I am only a talker for now caught between different worlds, but that is my

opinion in

the matter.)

 

>

> Sloka 5.19 and the commentaries quoted by you only say that those whose

> minds are established in brahman will not be born again on this earth; they

> attain liberation from samsAra. This Sloka does not say anything even

> implicitly on the question whether liberation is dependent on the varna in

> which a person is born.

>

> S.N.Sastri

 

(Independent of above discussion)

 

Yes, this obvious interpretation did not hit me till late. Thanks for the

clarification.

 

I looked at the interconnecting bhashya between 5.18 and 5.19, and something

both

amazing and revealing was there. First the basic translations are:

 

5.18: The sages perceive the same truth in the Brahmana, rich in knowledge and

culture, a

cow, an elephant, a dog-eating outcaste.

 

5.19: Even here is birth vanquished by them whose mind abides in equality.

Flawless

indeed is Brahman, the same; hence they abide in Brahman.

 

Now, Shankara after explaining the essential meaning of 5.18 connects to 5.19 as

follows:

 

Objection: " Now, is not the food offered by such tainted individuals forbidden? "

Vide, the

smrithi: The food should not be accepted from him who invidiously treats equals

as

unequals and unequals as equals GDS.

Answer: " No; they are not tainted. " How? … 5.19….

 

At first I was amazed since it seems a deliberate emphasis (through the

objectioner) on the

high-low difference between Brahmana, chandala, etc. Then eventually it struck

that this is

the exact type of question that people of those times may bring up, when hearing

of a

stunning proposal of treating Brahmana and Chandala equally. So the connection

that

Shankara was making was very suitable for the audience, clearly showing through

5.19

that no taint can come to the sage.

 

But here perhaps we can suggest that this is the smrithi part of his commentary,

something strictly based on the social outlook of people. The general audience

of today

will consider more the sage's sense of equality to one and all, rather than the

particular

groups referred to. Thus from a 'liberal' standpoint, we are not obligated to

think Shankara

or his essential Advaitic teachings are ruined if we bypass the connective and

focus on his

explanations of the essential verses.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Prabhuji:

 

It is one thing to claim that women and 'shudras' cannot do

vedaadyayayana since they cannot wear the sacred thread without

undetgoing the upanayanam ceremony . Well, that was true in the

sampradayam of yesteryears .... but for you to say and repeat the

following statemeent in a group dedicated to Advaita philosophy is

not only unacceptable but totally hurtful and denigrating ! You owe

an apology to all members here ! PLEASE DO SO AT ONCE IN THE

INTERESTS OF LOVE AND COMPASSION!

 

( Shankara, following the verdict of dharma shAstra clearly says

shUdra is not supposed to listen to vEda maNtra-s, if at all he

does that *boiling lead *should be poured into his ears & vaidika

should not recite vEda maNtra when shUdra is there beside

him..etc..)

 

Bhaskarji , you say 'hari bol' and you know how mahatma gandhiji

used to call the 'sweepers' ( bhangis ) - Harijans - ones who are

dear to Lord Hari! and e Prabhuji , Gandhiji says " A true Brahmin

should be the very image of humility and not be proud of his

knowledge or wisdom. " and also " where is the real Brahmin today,

content with a bare living and giving all his time to study and

teaching? "

 

So prabhuji , this Mataji will forgive this kuputra this time !

never again, say such unkind things about any one !

 

hope you will understand .....

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

>

> Prabhuji:

>

> It is one thing to claim that women and 'shudras' cannot do

> vedaadyayayana since they cannot wear the sacred thread without

> undetgoing the upanayanam ceremony . Well, that was true in the

> sampradayam of yesteryears .... but for you to say and repeat the

> following statemeent in a group dedicated to Advaita philosophy is

> not only unacceptable but totally hurtful and denigrating ! You owe

> an apology to all members here ! PLEASE DO SO AT ONCE IN THE

> INTERESTS OF LOVE AND COMPASSION!

>

> ( Shankara, following the verdict of dharma shAstra clearly says

> shUdra is not supposed to listen to vEda maNtra-s, if at all he

> does that *boiling lead *should be poured into his ears & vaidika

> should not recite vEda maNtra when shUdra is there beside

> him..etc..)

>

 

Sri Bhaginiji, I had asked the people upstairs earlier, and they said

the topic is permissible, provided it does not get heated and stays

close to Shankara. Sri Bhaskarji is pointing to a statement of fact

(regarding what Shankara quoted) and not promoting his self-interest

in the matter. If we lose our head at the climax, then back to

starting point.

 

Bhaskarji points that Shankara is following the dharma shastras to

the letter. Leaving aside this particular quote, it is clear that

Shankara was intent on preserving the vaidhika dharma in an undiluted

manner. So before the Advaitins jump on the quotation, they would do

well to find out the details of this dharma, and how it exemplified

the ideals of the shastras. As Mr. Huyler mentions, it has a lot, lot

to do with purity and perfection, a spiritual security measure

working within the general community (as opposed to Sannyasa), which

the writers of the shastras considered essential for the well-being

of the whole society. You mess with the axle, and it is chaos.

 

Next this dharma was (ideally speaking) maintained in an unsullied

manner by the Brahmana varna. That was their job, and they were

respected by others for maintaining that standard ... yes, given

priviledges and reverence and distance, even as we give to the

military. This is not an ego-thing; the Shastras do their best to

ensure the Brahmanas keep to their dharma (of " serving the Gods and

humanity " ), which involves a surrender of that ego. But they had a

central work in the community, and that cannot be compromised.

 

The Brahmana's work involves the memorization of scripture, but it is

more. For the scriptures are sacred, a certain uncompromising self-

culture and rule-abiding way of life was considered prerequisite to

learning that scripture. We know that for least, it was a Brahmachari

living with Guru, begging for his meals and following a rigid law,

who was entitled to learn the holy Vedas. Yes, more than putting on

that thread. When the shastras state these requirements, we must have

the humility to accept that such were indeed the expectations; and

the sages wanted the Brahmana varna to preserve this dharma without

compromise. So, these harsh-appearing quotations are echoing the

seriousness of the vaidhika dharma and its maintenance; we should not

get bogged down by the literal meaning. This was, in general,

understood by people in the other varnas, and that was the reason

villages worked in unison and not because of fear and hatred. (If I

grab a police officer in duty, I may get arrested. Rightly so; I need

not ache my head thinking of equality.)

 

Ideally, as Bhaskarji points out, the other varnas (with more lineant

rules) and the women were entitled to learning the essence of the

scripture either by hearing Vedic discourses (first three varnas) or

from secondary sources. This was really sufficient (if properly

executed), for the business of memorizing the Vedas and adhering to

no-Television conditions were not really appealing, except for those

who " generation after generation " have been doing exactly that.

 

PS to newer 'Hindus': don't call on your neighbourhood Brahmin to

check on that standard; it is a fading breed. Orthodoxy still calls

on them to live up to their dharma, but no point there. Given the

present state of things, we have to just loosen the rules out of

necessity and let the good and bad bang themselves into settlement.

But one good thing of hope remains; there still are Brahmins

(associating themselves to orthodox mathas) who think they *should*

be following the shastras' rules for them. So long as that is the

case, I don't accept any absolute rejections in the matter.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu