Gayatri

[Guest guest]

When and who can recite the Gayatri?

 

One of the unique features of the Hindu tradition is that it allows

great freedom in all religious practices.

 

No code is set in stone, codes are always contextual and

hence (can and) should evolve with the needs of mankind.

 

An individual who wishes to follow the prescription given by

his guru, or promoted in a scripture to the letter, is welcome to

adopt those methods but this does not become binding for the

rest of mankind (or womankind).

 

jay

[Guest guest]

To the best of my knowledge, Gayatri should be chanted only by men

(that too dwijas) as it is a great " Veda Mantram " . Also because it

starts with the " pranava " mantram (om) it should not be chanted by

women.

 

It can be chanted aside of Sandhya Vandhanam, but it requires that

the aspirant had washed his hands and feet clean or taken a bath

(preferably) before chanting. This is so because, certain types of

mantrams are very potent and have to be handled accordingly.

 

" Rama " naama can be chanted by anyone, including a diseased person

lying on the same bed without a bath.

 

I am not an authority on this, but I have heard the above from fairly

orthodox vedic scholars and hence my views.

 

By chanting Gayatri alone thrice a day, 1000 times, with its

24syllables is equivalent to cleaning up all the 72,000 Nadis (or

nerves) of the body (3*24*1000 = 72K). That itself is enough to

provide the necessary vibrations to clean up the Nadis for greater

yogic practises and for rising the kundalini.

 

Vishwamitra was able to create a separate heaven for Trisanku, by

mere power of chanting Gayatri mantram. In Gita, Krishna says that

among the mantrams, he is in the Gayatri.

 

--Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Ramakrishna, " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda@b...>

wrote:

> When and who can recite the Gayatri?

>

 

Namaste,

 

There is an excellent little booklet on Gayatri/Sandhya by

Sw. Mukhyananda, published by Ramakrishna Math, Chennai. Hope

everyone keeps one copy for reference.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

>To the best of my knowledge, Gayatri should be chanted only by men

>(that too dwijas) as it is a great " Veda Mantram " . Also because it

>starts with the " pranava " mantram (om) it should not be chanted by

>women.

 

 

I am sorry I don't agree with the above proposition. If the Gayatri

mantra is supposed to be as great as it is supposed to be then it should

be all the more reason all, high and low , men and women, should be

encouraged to practise it and understand its meaning. Again its not

enough simply to say that 'Vedic scholars said so' ..... we are rational

people on this list and it behoves those who frame such rules to give

adequate reasons why it should be so.

This reminds of a thesis Shri Shankaracharya wrote dissuading low

caste brethren from studying the Vedas.Swamiji (Swami Vivekananda) had

been unable to forgive Sri Shankaracharya for that.

The Upanishads themselves contain discourses between men and women.

What kind of logic is this ..... that the Vedas (including the Upanishads)

contains the views of exceptional women yet women will not be allowed to

use them for their spiritual practices ?

The Brahminical priests have done enough to damage social relations

in the subcontinent. I have a hunch these rules were invented by them

to exploit and hold down helpless people.

 

>I am not an authority on this, but I have heard the above from fairly

>orthodox vedic scholars and hence my views.

 

On the contrary I have been categorically told by a Sannyasi from

Ramakrishna Mission, Belur Math, Calcutta that the Gayatri mantra is

good for all. One should think the best way out is for interested

women to practise the Gayatri and decide for themselves whether it suits

them or not......

 

with best regards,

Rahul.

[Guest guest]

respected Rahul

 

There is a statement " Vedo Akhila Dharma Moolam " , which means that

the Vedas are the base and the root for all the Dharma Shastras of

the world.

 

Usually when someone has a doubt about what is correct or not, then

one just needs to consult the Dharma Shastras of the Veda. So in our

limited knowledge we cannot expound " secular " views about what is

applicable to whom and if someone cheated the lower class etc.

 

Vedas are also reffered to as " APourusha " , which mean they are not

done by man, they are the very breath of the Lord.

 

Also, " Vedas " are also referred to as " Raja Samhita " , which means

they are the king among all works. " Raja Samhita " also interprets as

a doctrine or order promoted by the king. What that means, is that

one cannot question it, one has to follow the orders of the king.

 

Our upanishads and Sankara's treatises also used Sruti (vedas) as

sufficient proof for establishing the advaita siddantha. One need not

just rely on what is seen, heard, felt, etc. one can rely on what

Sruti says as enough proof.

 

However, the position of women and lower caste has always been safe-

guarded by these great people. Veda Vyaasa gave all the Vedas,

Upanishads, Brahma Sutras in the current form but he was not

contended.

 

So he wrote Bhagavata-Puranam for the sole purpose of benefiting each

and every person on this planet, without any distinction. It is the

same Vyaasa who gave the Dharma-Sastras, that did this magnificient

work. So if he wanted to exploit some lower caste, then he need not

have done this work at all.

 

 

Also if we look at our great saints, they have come from lower castes:

atleast 2-3 Alwars are from the lower castes (Nammalwar,

Tiruppanalwar). Then look at all the Panduranga Bhaktas,

Namdev : a tailor

JanaBhai : a maid-servant (of namdev)

Narahari Sonar : a goldsmith

Chokamela : a mahar

Senai : a barber

Gora-kumbh : a potter

Kabir-das : a weaver

None of them are from the higher castes.

 

But even today, the Brahmins of the land first sing about these great

Bhagavatas and their abhangs in the Hari-Sankirtans. If they were to

be cheated, then why would the Brahmins be singing about them ?

 

Infact it is easy to be in the lower caste because all that they need

to do is read the puranas, and do HAri-Sankirtan only. Whereas,

Brahmins have to struggle hard to adhere to rituals, penances and

mantras etc. If a Brahmin breaks out of his Dharma, the punishments

are also far more severe as per the same Dharma Shastras.

 

So why would the Brahmins impose severe punishments on themselves ?

They would be most interested in safe-guarding their interests right?

So it gets obvious that these were not the work of one man, or

mankind itself.

 

There are differences and rules at a certain level, which have to be

followed for certain reasons. Hence restrictions for chanting of

certain mantras.

 

Radhe Krishna

 

-- Pradeep

[Guest guest]

> Yes, Pradeep. This is precisely where my question is coming from.

> Who can tell me the final word on this ? If Thakur has said it I

>will believe it without hesitation. Then I have Swami Sivananda,

>Satya Sai Baba and thakur and that is like having the Vedas speak.

 

I would go by what Thakur says, and what saints such as Sivananda,

Vivekananda, Ramana, Kanchi Paramacharya, say. I would without

hesitation include Shirdi Sai Baba in that list and stop there.

 

-- Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Ramakrishna, " Pradeep Janakiraman "

<pradeepjanakiraman> wrote:

>

> > Yes, Pradeep. This is precisely where my question is coming from.

> > Who can tell me the final word on this ?

 

Namaste,

 

To those women who ask this question, the biographies of

Andal, Mirabai, Muktabai, Ma Saradadevi, Ma Anandamayi,Ma

Amritanandamayi (Ammachi), would give the best answers, in addition

to the ideals of Ahalya, Sita, Draupadi, Mandodari, Tara. Those who

prefer the ideals of Maitreyi and Gargi would find the right Teacher

at some time.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Pradeep Janakiraman wrote:

 

 

> There is a statement " Vedo Akhila Dharma Moolam " , which means that

> the Vedas are the base and the root for all the Dharma Shastras of

> the world.

>

> Usually when someone has a doubt about what is correct or not, then

> one just needs to consult the Dharma Shastras of the Veda. So in our

> limited knowledge we cannot expound " secular " views about what is

> applicable to whom and if someone cheated the lower class etc.

> Vedas are also reffered to as " APourusha " , which mean they are not

> done by man, they are the very breath of the Lord.

>

> Also, " Vedas " are also referred to as " Raja Samhita " , which means

> they are the king among all works. " Raja Samhita " also interprets as

> a doctrine or order promoted by the king. What that means, is that

> one cannot question it, one has to follow the orders of the king.

>

> Our upanishads and Sankara's treatises also used Sruti (vedas) as

> sufficient proof for establishing the advaita siddantha. One need not

> just rely on what is seen, heard, felt, etc. one can rely on what

> Sruti says as enough proof.

 

 

Dear Pradeep,

By now the different points of view regarding the

matter is clear to all. It would be best to review the thoughts of

Shakyamuni Buddha and Swami Vivekananda, whom most (including myself)

consider totally authoritative on the subject.

1. Buddha was categorical that all assertions whether 'spiritual' or

'secular' coming from whatever source should be examined for logical

cohorence and rationality, before we accept it to be true. Both Masters

wholeheartedly advocated careful examination of every doctrine including

their own before acceptance. The final evidence is neither Shruti nor

Shastra but 'experience', its repeated pattern in others and its careful

validation by comparison with other related 'experiences' whether in

others or oneself.

2. As for women Swamiji gave full them full independence to decide what is

best for themselves and explicitely forbade any imposition of 'rules' from

external sources. Both repeatedly emphasized the need for sila or morality

for both men and women alike. It is beyond one's understanding how

repetition of an exalted prayer as Gayatri can violate a moral code of

conduct.

3. As for caste, Buddha did not recognize caste and Swamiji's idea was to

make the highest thought of our country within reach of the least of our

brethren. Both did not recognize any difference in instruction with

regards to different sections of the community. What has to be appreciated

is the difference in capacity of individual students. There are stupid

Brahmins and intelligent Shudras and vice versa.

 

So basically the modern ideal is to demand complete equality for men

and women in matters of intellectual, intuitive and moral

development.Secondly to see to it that the highest thought of the world is

readily available to the humblest of homes.

 

Surely we should not allow ourselves to fall back in the name of

obsolete social sanctions without any rational basis,

 

with best regards,

Rahul.