animal sacrifice and human sacrifice in indian tradition

[Swami Shrimohanananda maharaj]

Respected scholars,
namaskar,
 I have got two questions.
 1.In performing animal or human sacrifice in Indian tradition why we choose only male not female.
 2.And is there any significance of offering sugarcane and pumpkin in the sacrifice during DURGA PUJA
sacrifice to the divine mother. Why these vegetable  only are chosen.
please reply.

with regards,
swami shrimohanananda


 

[sheetal pokar]

नमस्ते जी, 

मेरी दृष्टि में बलि की प्रथा वैदिक नहीं है, अत: नहीं देनी चाहिये । फिर भी भारत में चल रही है, तो उसके पीछे यह तर्क हो सकता है कि भारत पुरुष प्रधान है और भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है । और क्योंकि बलि में श्रेष्ठ पदार्थ ही दिया जाता है, अतः पुरुष की बलि हि दी जानी चाहिये ।( वैसे भी महिलाओं की बलि भ्रूणहत्या के रूप में खूब चढ़ रही है ।) 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

शीतल
શીતલ

[Nagaraj Paturi]

फिर भी भारत में चल रही है, तो उसके पीछे यह तर्क हो सकता है कि भारत पुरुष प्रधान है और भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है । और क्योंकि बलि में श्रेष्ठ पदार्थ ही दिया जाता है, अतः पुरुष की बलि हि दी जानी चाहिये ।

 

-"भारत पुरुष प्रधान है और भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है" is a perception not a fact.

 

Attitudes of superiority of male have been prevalent in majority of the world societies at the ground level. Such attitudes getting reflected in the actual behaviour of people could have been there in India too as elsewhere. But भारत पुरुष प्रधान है isolates India from the rest of the world and sounds as though that is the special feature of Indian society.

 

The statement भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है is even more problematic. Which evidences in 'Indian culture' indicate that the culture treats men superior to women?

 

On the contrary, textual and cultural practice evidences from both Vedic and non-Vedic sources clearly indicate that women were/are given a higher respect than men in Indian culture.

 

From the Vedic side, the superiority of women is based on women having (प्र)सवितृशक्ति fertility power . यजमान receives this power from his धर्मपत्नी during यजनकार्य. Without such a transfer of सवितृशक्ति from his wife, the offerings of the यजमान become ineligible for reception by agni or the respective devatas through him.

 

Popular narrations of the Savitri story give an impression as though Savitri tricks Yama into giving her boons. The actual Puranic texts of the story show Saavitri defeating/ convincing Yama in a vaada about Dharma in which Saavitri proves through her arguments that sateedharma is more fundamental than Yama Dharma to the sustenance of various lokas.

 

There are many other doctrinal, narrative, ritual evidences to prove superior position given to women than men in the Vedic culture. Similar situation can be shown from the non-Vedic side of the Indian culture too.  

 

I shall deal with the sugar cane and pumpkin during Durgapuja in a separate post.

 

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

As a matter of easy communication which will be understandable to all post should either be in Sanskrit or Engalish

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2014-10-14 6:40 GMT+05:30 sheetal pokar <sjp...@gmail.com>:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In performing animal or human sacrifice in Indian tradition why we choose only male not female

 

--Poojya Swamiji's question particularly the 'we' there sounds as though human sacrifice is being performed by 'us'. This could be a mistake of  expression. Probably Poojya Swamiji meant that in the ancient texts mentioning human sacrifice, only sacrifice of male humans is mentioned.

 

Animal sacrifice in folk, Taantric and Vedic rituals is well known.

 

On the Vedic side, validity of animal sacrifice is disputed from the Upanishads itself. BrihadaaraNyaka Upanishad itself says that the As'va of As'vamEdha is the Sun and not a real horse.

 

The word puruṣamēdha refers to the sacrifice of virāṭpuruṣa described in puruṣasūkta not the sacrifice of an actual human being. The word puruśa does not always mean  a male human. Most of the times it means a person, an organic whole etc. puruśasūkta describes the process of creation and not a human-performed sacrificial ritual.

 

Following the guidance of the upaniṣads, all the āchāryas of the vēdānta tradition, right from ādiśankarāchārya intensely participated in the vegetarianization of the yajñas . During modern times, similar work was done by Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and his Arya Samaj .

 

The symbolism of Sugarcane has got to do with the concept of kāma  whichever it is interpreted (as 'desire', 'eros' etc. ). The symbolism of kūṣmānḍa (pumpkin) varies in folk, tantric and vēdic rituals. Quite often , it is seen as a vegetarian substitute of certain animal sacrifices. Most often, pumpkin is a fertility/life symbol.

 

Since rituals such as Durgā Pūjā have contributions of  from folk, tāntric and vēdic strands of  Indian culture, ideas from all  of the three strands should be taken into account. These ideas are 'giving back', 'sharing', 'pacification of anger/heat' etc.

 

 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The purushamedha, and ashvamedha, the animal sacrifice, was discussed in this thread in our group:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/BI_NHDz4B8c/ExTZrMjLg2oJ

Accepting it as a real fact as per the ShrautasUtra-s, the question raised was why only male species are prescrificed as पशु-s in THE SACRIFICES, and not स्रीमेधः, or female अज, or hose was not sacrificed.

इन्द्रा ग्निभ्यां छागस्य हविषः प्रेष्येति संप्रेष्यति ११ घृतं घृतपावान इत्यर्धर्चे याज्याया वसाहोमं जुहोति १२ .... १६ सहामिक्षावपामभिघारयति १७ आज्यभागाभ्यां प्रचर्य हविर्भिः प्रचरति १८ सहामिक्षावपेन प्रचरति १९ वपायाः संप्रैषाः २०

etc. गृह्यसूत्र-s (The above is from वाराह्श्रौतसूत्र  So also many other श्रौतसूत्र-s describe the methods listed. Were they wrong in getting the meaning of the ब्राह्मणविधिवाक्य-s. 

स्थूलपृषतीम् आग्निवारुणीम् अनड्वाहीम् आलभेत इति  This line quoted from महाभाष्य makes no distinct gender descrimination. It is here female species, cow is described and not male as alleged by the questioner. So the question itself is अनुत्थनहतः प्रश्नः। The gender of the पशु is decided by the requirement of the particular याग and it is not due to gender descrimination. 

The subsequent questions raised whether animal sacrifice was in practice or not. as has been discussed in the earlier thread in the link and in some other threads in our group. The sentences could be easily interpreted as allegorical and even the sentences आलभेत, the आलम्भन is interpreted as स्पर्शन only and not killing, to avoid animal sacrifice.

प्रेष्यब्रुवोर्हविषो देवतासंप्रदाने    2-3-61 ।

अग्नये छागस्य हविषो वपाया मेदसः प्रेष्य अनुब्रूहि वा।। 

The above example also has something to do with animal sacrifice according to the procedure of याग.

The question was asked taking as real fact, the animal  and not the question whether the animal sacrifice was practiced or allegorical.

 

..

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

 

1) both male & female are used. Both kAmAkhyA tantra, shAktAnanda tarangini, kAli vilAsa tantra, navarAtra pradIpaH have mentioned these.

 

2) kUshmANDa bali is the pratyAmnAya for chAga bali.

 

Extremely busy with official work. When time permits would give the references from tantra.

 

regs,

sriram

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

 

In durgA sapthasathi vide vaikrutikam rahasyam, the 28th sloka says:

 

rudhirAktEna balinA mAmsEna surayA nrupa

praNAmAchamanIyEna chandanEna sugandhinA

 

The above clearly states the balidAna vidhi & surA nivEdana.  However, a word of caution for brahmins here:

 

balimAmsAdi pUjEyaM vipravarjyA mayEritA

tESAM kila surA mAmsairnOktA pUjA nrupa kvachit

 

I was adviced in the similar way too during my chaNDi pUja. However, it is always adviceable to offer pAyasAnnaM which is sAtvika.

 

regs,

sriram

 

 

 

 

On Monday, October 13, 2014 8:00:28 PM UTC+5:30, Swami Shrimohanananda maharaj wrote:

[Brahma Dev]

भारतीया वयं, विद्वत्परिषदपि भारतीया, तर्हि संस्कृतसंस्कृत्योरुन्नतये संस्कृतस्य अनिवार्यतात्र यदि ज्ञापनीया स्यात् तदानीं तु महत्सौभाग्यस्य कारणमेतद्वचनं भवितुं शक्यते,परं सम्यगवगमयितुं सम्यग्विचारविनिमयार्थं वा आंगलभाषाया अनिवार्यताया लेखनं तदपि राष्ट्रियां भाषां सन्त्यज्य, मनस्तोषाय न अपितु क्लेशायैव भवेत्। भारते देशे ये शिक्षिताः सन्ति ते तु सर्वत्र हिन्दीं जानन्त्येव यदि न जानन्ति तर्हि कस्य दोषः? मानसिकदासत्वभावमपि वयं त्यजेम। अन्यथा मकॉलेमहोदयेन निम्नलिखितं यदुक्तमासीत् तत् सत्यम्। अस्तु, विचार्यताम्।

"I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in the country, such high moral values, people of such calibre; that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and therefore I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."- Lord Macaulay in his speech on Feb 2, 1835, British Parliament

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

In this list the  mode of communication should be either in Sanskrit or English except for quotations or where writing in Sanskrit or English will not drive in the intended sense. I never said or intended to discuss or covey any views on Hindi or any other language Thanks Dr. Brahma Dev for your inputs  and Lord Macaulay quotation

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

1.In performing animal or human sacrifice in Indian tradition why we choose only male not female.

                                                                           --  swami shrimohanananda

पूर्वमीमांसा (व्याकरणम्)

पशुना यजेत - पुंलिङ्गम् विवक्षितम् ।

You are referring to पशुलिङगविवक्षाधिकरणम् of पूर्वमीमांसा (अध्या 4 पाद 1 अधिकरणम् 6 सूत्रम् 17) --

’ तथा लिङ्गम्  ’

Since ’ तथा ’ refers to the earlier अधिकरणम् , i e पश्वेकत्वाधिकरणम् , I shall first quote the Sutras under that and explain --

तत्रैकत्वम् अयज्ञाङ्गम् अर्थस्य गुणभूतत्वात् ; एकश्रुतित्वाच्च ; प्रतीयत इति चेत् ; नाशब्दं तत्प्रमाणत्वात् पूर्ववत् ; शब्दवत्तूपलभ्यते , तदागमे हि तद्दृश्यते तस्य ज्ञानं हि यथान्येषाम् ; तद्वच्च लिङ्गदर्शनम् -- 11 to 16 

शास्त्रदीपिका of  पार्थसारथिमिश्र --

उपादेयभूतपश्वादिगतविभक्त्यभिहिता एकत्वादिका संख्या किमयज्ञाङ्गम् अविवक्षिता उत यज्ञाङ्गम् विवक्षिता इति संशयः । तत्र

श्रुत्या पश्वङ्गता तस्याः समानपदरूपया । पदान्तरस्थयागाङ्गभावो वाक्यात् प्रतीयते॥

What they mean is - पशुः आलभ्यः - in this sentence the एकत्वम् of पशु is विवक्षित , ie एकवचनम् is important - आलम्भनम् of a single पशु - is the वाक्यार्थ ।

शास्त्रदीपिका -

... पशुना विशेषणत्वेन अर्थात् सम्बध्यते । तादर्थ्यं तु यज्ञं प्रत्येवेति विवक्षितम् एकत्वम् । उक्तञ्च -

यथा पश्वङ्गमेकत्वं पदश्रुत्या प्रतीयते । समानप्रत्ययश्रुत्या बलीयस्याः क्रियाङ्गता ॥

’ तथा लिङ्गम् ’ --

शास्त्रदीपिका -

एवं वा लिङ्गं त्वलिङ्गे विपरीतलिङ्गे वृक्षादौ मक्षिकादौ च  शब्दप्रयोगात् अशब्दार्थ इत्यविवक्षिताशङ्का , सिंहः सिंही इत्यादौ अनन्यथासिद्धलिङ्गप्रतीतिः शब्दस्य वाचकत्वं कल्पयतीति शब्दार्थत्वात् संख्यावत् लिङ्गं विवक्षितम् ।

मयूखमल्लिका (comm) of सोमनाथ --

अनेन भाष्ये संख्याया विवक्षितत्वे तत्समानश्रुतिकं लिङ्गमपि विवक्षितं स्यात् । तथा च 

" वसन्ते प्रातः आग्नेयीं कृष्णग्रीवीम् आलभेत " इत्यादिना विहितपश्वनुवादेन गर्भिण्यो भवन्तीति गर्भलक्षणस्त्रीगुणविधानम् उपपन्नं भवतीति पूर्वाधिकरणशेषत्वेनापि इदं सूत्रं व्याख्यातम् इति सूचयति ।

By and large the लिङ्गम् ( gender) , just like the संख्या (number) is to be taken as विवक्षित - ie it is important . 

It can be पुंलिङ्ग(पशुना यजेत ) or स्त्रीलिङ्ग  ( वसन्ते प्रातः आग्नेयीं ...) - is important.

This विवक्षा / अविवक्षा has got its impact on व्याकरणम् -- 

Patanjali et al discuss this issue under भावे ( पा 3-3-18) .

सुप्सुपा -- एकवचनम् विवक्षितम् - only one सुबन्त with one सुबन्त ।

तस्यापत्यम् (पा 4-1-92)  -  

तस्य --  लिङ्गम् अविवक्षितम् - तस्याः अपत्यम्  also . वचनम् also अविवक्षितम् - तयोः , तेषाम् अपत्यम् also .

अपत्यम् -- वचनम् अविवक्षितम् - अपत्ये , अपत्यानि also .

भावे -- पुंलिङ्गम् अविवक्षितम् - (पाकः) पक्तिः , पचनम् also . वचनम् also अविवक्षितम् - भावौ भावाः also .

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Personal Website: www.korada.org

[sheetal pokar]

क्षम्यताम् । हिन्दीभाषायाः प्रयोगोऽकारि । 

The statement भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है is even more problematic. Which evidences in 'Indian culture' indicate that the culture treats men superior to women? 

श्रूयतां तुलसीदासः - "ढोल गंवार शूद्र पशु नारी, ये सब ताडन के अधिकारी" । 

अथ चाद्वैतस्य महान्तमाचार्यं शंकरमपि शृण्वन्तु - "द्वारं किमेकं नरकस्य नारी " । 

अन्यच्च चाणक्योऽपि स्वीये चाणक्यप्रणीतसूत्रेषु वदति - " स्त्री नाम सर्वाशुभानां क्षेत्रम्(४७७), न च स्त्रीणां पुरुषपरीक्षा (४७८), अशुभद्वेषिणः स्त्रीषु न प्रसक्ताः (४८०), स्त्रीषु किञ्चिदपि न विश्वसेत् (३६०)," । 

यथा शास्त्रेष्वनेकत्र स्त्रीणां निन्दा दरीदृश्यते न तथा पुरुषाणाम् । 

वर्तमानेऽपि समाजे यदि कस्याश्चिदपि स्त्रीया बालका न सन्ति केवलं वा बालिकामेव सूते न तु बालकं चेत् सैव निन्द्यते न कदापि पुरुषः। कथम् ?? अद्यापि स्त्रीणां वेदपाठेऽधिकारो नास्ति । कथम् ?? पुरा काले बालिका दुग्धं पाययित्वा मार्यन्ते स्म । अद्यत्वे भ्रूणहत्यया (विज्ञानविकासात् !!!)। विधवाऽविवाहः, सतीप्रथा, याचितक-ग्रहणप्रथा(दहेजप्रथा)... इत्यादयः किं सूचयन्ति ?? इत्यलमतिविस्तरेण । 

मम दृष्टौ दुर्गा भगवतः काचिच्छक्तिर्नाम या दुर्गमनीया काठिन्येन ज्ञातव्या प्राप्तव्या वाऽस्ति । बलिर्नाम समर्पणम् । नरबलौ पुरुषोऽहंकारस्य प्रतीकम् । दुर्गा तदैव सुगा भवति यदा मनुष्यः स्वकीयाहंकारस्य बलिं ददाति अर्थात् अहंकारं त्यजति । अस्तु । 

[sheetal pokar]

आलभते - अर्थमीमांसा 

पाणिनीये धातुपाठे लभ् धातुः प्राप्त्यर्थको वर्तते (डुलभष् प्राप्तौ)। काशकृत्स्नेऽपि प्राप्त्यर्थक एव, न तु हिंसार्थकः ।

 "अग्निष्टोम आलभ्य: (काशिका ७/१/६५)" - अत्रापि प्राप्त्यर्थकोऽस्ति ।

 "दक्षिणांसमधि हृदयमालभते (पार.गृ.सू.)" - अत्र स्पर्शे वर्तते ।

 "आलभेतासकृद्दीनः करेण च शिरोरुहम् (सुश्रुत-कल्पस्थानम् १/१९)" - अत्रापि स्पर्शार्थक एव । 

"यः प्रजाकामः पशुकामः वा स्यात् स एतं प्राजापत्यं तूपरमालभेत" अस्य भाष्ये शबरमुनिनाऽपि 'आलभते' इत्यस्य 'उपयुज्यते' इत्यर्थः क्रियते (द्र. मी.१/२/१०) । 

"आदिकाले खलु यज्ञेषु पशवः समालभनीया बभूबुः, नालम्भाय प्रक्रियन्ते स्म (चरक-चिकित्सास्थानम् १९/४) " - समालभनीया स्पर्शनीया ।

"वसन्ताय कपिञ्जलानालभते (यजु. २४/२०) " - अत्र महीधरो वदति "आलभते नियुनक्ति" इति ।

 "वसन्ताय कपिञ्जलानालभते, प्रजापतये पुरुषान् हस्तिन आलभते (यजु. २४/२०,२९) - इत्यस्मिन् विषये कात्यायन-श्रौतसूत्रे(२०/६/९) लिख्यते - कपिञ्जलादीनुत्सृजन्ति पर्यग्निकृतान् । अर्थादत्र "आलभते उत्सृजति(त्यजति)" ।

अत्रैव उव्वट-महीधर-भाष्येऽपि लिख्यते - "तेष्वारण्याः सर्व उत्स्रष्टव्याः, न तु हिंस्याः" । 

यजुर्वेदस्य त्रिंशोऽध्याय पुरुषमेधयागे विनियुक्तोऽस्ति ।

 "ब्रह्मणे ब्राह्मणम् (आलभते)... (यजु. ३०/५-२०)" - इत्यत्रापि कात्यायन-श्रौतसूत्रे (२१/१/१२) लिखितमस्ति -" कपिञ्जलादिवत् उत्सृजन्ति ब्रह्मणादीन् " ।

 यजु. ३०/२२ मन्त्रस्य व्याख्यानवेलायां महीधरोऽपि लिखति - " पर्यग्निकरणानन्तमिदं ब्रह्मणे इदं क्षत्रायेत्येवं सर्वेषां यथास्वं देवतोद्देशेन त्यागः । ततः सर्वान् ब्रह्मणादीन् यूपेभ्यो विमुच्योत्सृजन्ति" ।

 "आ+लम्भ्" तु हिंसार्थे शास्त्रेषु दृश्यते, परम् "आ+लभ्" कुत्रापि हिंसार्थे मया न दृष्टः ।(यदि केनदिल्लभ्येत तर्हि कृपया सूचयेन्माम्) । 

"पशुना यजेत" अत्रापि "यजेत आलभेत, न तु आलम्भेत" । 

अत्र पुरुषमेधयागे पुरुषस्योत्सर्जनं क्रियते तत्तु स्पष्टमेवास्ति, किन्तु दुर्गापूजायां नरबलौ पुरुषस्य वधः कुत आयातस्तदधुना चिन्तामर्हति । 

"आदिकाले खलु यज्ञेषु पशवः समालभनीया बभूबुः, नालम्भाय प्रक्रियन्ते स्म (चरक-चिकित्सास्थानम् १९/४) " इत्यनेन स्पष्टमस्ति यत्पुराकाले यागेषु हिंसा न भवति स्म । संहितायामपि हिंसाप्रतिषेधार्थे शतशः प्रमाणानि  सन्ति । अन्यत्रापि शास्त्रेषु बहुत्र यागेऽपि हिंसायाः प्रतिषेधः कृतो वर्तते । अतो दुर्गापूजायां नरबलिः स्यान्न वेति सुधीभ्यश्चिन्तां समर्प्य विरमामि । ओम् ।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

All these and other quotes (some misquotes) from Indian literature and their misunderstanding as anti-women has been there from a long time. I may be able to access the system only on or after the 17th . I shall respond then . Sorry for the delay in my response.

 

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Let me discuss these and other quotes (some misquotes) from Indian literature and their misunderstanding as anti-women that have been there from a long time, in two parts:

 

I. the ones quoted here:

 

1. अथ चाद्वैतस्य महान्तमाचार्यं शंकरमपि शृण्वन्तु - "द्वारं किमेकं नरकस्य नारी " । 

 

There is an old BVP thread on this quote and its attribution to Sankaracharya.

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/uxIiLkSwlog

 

In this thread and elsewhere the validity of attribution of this quote to Sankarachaya has been suspected and questioned.

 

2.

श्रूयतां तुलसीदासः - "ढोल गंवार शूद्र पशु नारी, ये सब ताडन के अधिकारी" । 

 

This is being shown as part of the words of the god of the oceans to Lord Sri Rama in Sundarakand. The words of a character in a narrative poem are not taken as words of the poet.  

 

Moreover, there is a possibility that these words are an interpolation because the god of oceans is neither a गंवार nor a शूद्र . Obviously he is none of the other entities. Thus the line does not match the context. S could be an interpolation. Even if it is not an interpolation, these words are of a character, not those of the poet.

 

(I shall continue soon)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

(Continued from my previous post)

 

3. The authorship of Chanakya sutras and the whether the authors of the three books Arthashastra, Chanakyaniti and Chanakya sutras are the same or different is a controversial topic. Who this Chanakya is who makes the quoted statements in the so called 'Chanakyasutras' needs t be ascertained.

 

 

Coming to the issue of contemporary society and the anti-girl-child attitudes, it suffices to say that there have already been wide discussions on how stereotyping Indians as anti-girl-child is just a false-propaganda , there have also been wide discussions on Vedaadhikaara, vidhavaa avivaaha, satee, dowry etc. and I do not want to tread that beaten track again.

 

 II. Apart from the above specifics, I would like to make some general observations regarding misunderstanding of some traditional statements as anti-women:

 

1. Words from Sanskrit and other Indian languages meaning 'woman/women' are used as a metaphorical expression referring to sexual attraction in works belonging to fields (such as Vairaagya saadhana, certain strands of yoga saadhana etc.) where control on sexual desire is an essential feature required by the participant. Thus, in such works, 'Be careful with women' means 'be careful with your weakness for sexual attraction' 'woman is dangerous' means ' your own lack o control on sexual desire is dangerous to you since it comes in your way of success in your saadhana'.

 

2. Books dealing with administrative, political, diplomatic, intelligence and war strategies instruct people to be careful with the opposite party using woman as a sexual trap to achieve their objectives. Even such instructions are sometimes misunderstood as anti-women.  

 

There are many other such contexts where apparently anti-women statements are not in fact what they appear to be.

       

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Quote

अथ चाद्वैतस्य महान्तमाचार्यं शंकरमपि शृण्वन्तु - "द्वारं किमेकं नरकस्य नारी " । 

Unquote

If at all , Adi Shankara made such a statement, that must have been solely for the consumption of the sensuous males and not for the general public.

Regards,

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

One of the exponents of "rAmacharitamAanas" who studied under paramapujya karapAtri swamiji of kAsi
once explained this vAkya of tulasidas which was quite often misquoted & misinterpreted.  Here is his
explanation who mailed me.

///////////

“Dhol gavaar sudra pasu naari, sakal taadna ke adhikaari,” which actually means, a drum, a rustic, a
Shudra (one of base intellect), a beast and a woman- all these deserve instruction.  A drum must be tuned, a shudra
and rustic must be given guidance, an animal must be trained and a woman becomes adept and well-mannered through proper instruction.

These are the utterances of Sindhu Deva (Lord of the Sea) and not Shri Rama. It is most unfortunate that some have
interpolated the word 'taadna' to mean 'beating'. Kindly refer to Gorakhpur edition of rAmacaritamAnasa for the proper bhAvartha.

//////

Now regarding the strI-ninda in our literature, which is also misquoted quite often. It is to be noted that sanAtana dharma glorified & regarded "strI" as form of dEvi.  The 5th sloka from 11th chapter of "durgA-sapthasathi" says:

vidyAH samastAH tava dEvi ! bhEdAH / striyaH samastAH sakalA jagatsu /

tvayaikayA pUrita mamba yaitat / kA tE stutiH stavyaparApraOktiH //

O Mother ! Thou art the forms of all the sciences; thou art the form of all the women; thou art

the form of 64 arts;

So, it is not proper to understand that our shAstras didn't show proper respect to women. The restrictions

imposed on them is a "precautionary measure" only which is for their well-being owing to their rajaswala niyamAs.

Ironically, it is now in 21st century, even after advancement of science, technology, education, the

the women crimes, suppression, dowry etc have increased.

reg,

sriram

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Someone has given another interpretation to these lines of Tulsidasji.These lines actually mean a bumpkin, who beats his own drum (i.e., beats his own trumpet) should be disciplined. Similarly also, a woman, who is nasty or indecent, i.e., acts like one having Pasu-vritti or like an illiterate, should be disciplined (even though woman deserve more respect than man, for example, Manu says that the mother deserves more respect than the father )

Regads,

[Nityanand Misra]

2014-10-19 8:09 GMT+05:30 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>:

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:03:32 PM UTC+5:30, sheetal pokar wrote:

क्षम्यताम् । हिन्दीभाषायाः प्रयोगोऽकारि । 

The statement भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है is even more problematic. Which evidences in 'Indian culture' indicate that the culture treats men superior to women? 

श्रूयतां तुलसीदासः - "ढोल गंवार शूद्र पशु नारी, ये सब ताडन के अधिकारी" । 

“Let me not think on't - Frailty, thy name is woman!”

 – Soliloquy by Hamlet, in Shakespeare's Hamlet (Act I, Scene II, Line 146)

Is it wise to take just this one line out of context and conclude that Shakespeare (and everybody in England under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I) was a misogynist? The context: Hamlet's mother (Gertrude) has just married her husband's murderer (Claudius) and Hamlet resents her. If Shakespeare presents the words of a character, does a line from that speech that become a universal principle Shakespeare strongly believes in? Certainly not!

If this is the condition of poetic works like Hamlet, what to speak of a Śāstra like Rāmacaritamānasa? All I can say is rather than using our own mind and jump to conclusions, we are better off relying on knowledgable commentators who have studied Rāmacaritamānasa from a Guru.

Please see attached:

1) Siddhāntatilaka commentary on RCM 5.59.6

2) Vijayā commentary on RCM 5.59.6

3) Mānasapīyuṣa on RCM 5.59.6

4) Bhāvārthabodhinī on RCM 5.59.6

Although all the above are famous works, if anybody needs full citations and information about the books, they are requested to email me off the list.

PS: A request to members - please attribute the views and interpretations you are presenting to the proper sources (book, orator, etc). Statements like

"One of the exponents explained thus ..." (Who? When? Where?)

"Someone has given another interpretation to these ..." (Who? When? Where?)

without any information about the source do not carry much weight.

[Usha Sanka]

पाणिनीये धातुपाठे लभ् धातुः प्राप्त्यर्थको वर्तते (डुलभष् प्राप्तौ)। काशकृत्स्नेऽपि प्राप्त्यर्थक एव, न तु हिंसार्थकः ।

नमस्ते

किं पाणिनीये धातुपाठे सोपसर्गकाः धातवः सन्ति..? यावन्मया ज्ञायते तत्र केवलधातवः एव सन्ति। अतः आ-लभ् इति सन्दर्भे केवलधातुपाठः न उट्टङ्कयितुं शक्यते।

 

 "आ+लम्भ्" तु हिंसार्थे शास्त्रेषु दृश्यते, परम् "आ+लभ्" कुत्रापि हिंसार्थे मया न दृष्टः ।(यदि केनदिल्लभ्येत तर्हि कृपया सूचयेन्माम्) ।

चारुदेवशास्त्रिमहोदयैः विरचितायां उपसर्गार्थचन्द्रिकायां आ-लभ् इति सोपसर्गकधातोः के अर्थाः दत्ताः इति दृष्टम् उत न.. ज्ञाप्यताम्।  यदि न दृष्टपूर्वं तत् पुस्तकं तर्हि अहं दृष्ट्वा वक्ष्यामि। 

किञ्चित् निवेदयितुमिच्छामि (शीतल-) सम्मुखम्। कृपया यदा शास्त्रमधिकृत्य कश्चित् प्रश्नः क्रियते तर्हि तदधिकृत्य एव उत्तरं दीयताम्। न तु नारी-शक्ति-आधिक्यमित्यादिकान् विषयान् प्रस्तूय विद्वज्जनानां समयः व्यर्थीक्रियतामिति प्रार्थये। नारीमुक्ति-इत्यादि- विषयानां चिन्तनार्थं बहूनि स्थलानि सन्ति लोके। विद्वत्-परिषदि संस्कृतशास्त्रचर्चाः एव भान्ति।  भवत्याः धारणाः याः काः अपि सन्तु, तेषां अस्थल-प्रस्तावनेन पण्डितानां समाधानानि प्रश्नकर्तुः आशयात् दूरीभूय भवत्सदृशानां अपोहानां अपाकरणं प्रति गच्छन्ति।  यथा विद्वज्जनैः उक्तम्,  तथा सन्दर्भात् छित्त्वा (out of context) वाक्यानि उद्घाट्य तेषां अर्थान् (प्रयोजनान्) परिवर्त्य ये वक्रार्थाः यथासम्भवं क्रियन्ते - तदर्थं विद्वत्-परिषद् वेदिका मा भूदिति मात्रं ममाशयः। क्षम्यताम् यदि अधिकमुक्तम्।

एतत् केवला मम प्रार्थना। अन्यथा मा चिन्तयतु। 

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[Deepta Ghatge]

On the shakespear quote.

If the author was against the statement he wouldn't have included it at all. Or included it as coming from the villain of the story. Or not generalized it (as Hamlet has done).

Moreover, no follower of Shakespear today will give you 4 commentaries of Hamlet justifying this statement of Hamlet!!!! They will say, this statement is a sweeping generalization and move on with life. But this is not what the followers of Tulsi Das do. First Nityanand ji is saying that the statement has been quoted out of context (by quoting shakespear), next he gives explanations from four different commentators justifying the statement in the context to which the person raising the objection objected to. Isn't this pulling on opposite ends? If something is out of context, why justify it?

The concern expressed can be more clearly stated as this:
Why say dhol gawar shudar pasu nari, why not say dhol gawar brahman pasu purush? After all, the effort required for a brahman to master the shastras is more than the effort required for a shudra to do his seva (if one goes by the actual varna ashrama system).

I am not a womens lib person, I am not a shudra lib person. But I just want to look at this statement dispassionately.

Second, he claims that Ramcharit Manas is a shastra. I don't think many people south of the Vindhyas, or east of bihar have read it, leave alone treat it as a shastra.

Third, the statement also seems out of place in the current day and age. While I see many of my male friends drink and smoke, not many females do so. Many "brahmin" friends smoke and drink, eat meat, indulge in many evil works etc. I am sure that this is the experience of many people. So, who is in need of Tadan? The poor woman who takes almost full responsibility of the home or the man who goes out and has a good time?

The best we can do is to say that Tulsi Das ji was writing according to his times and this particular statement can be ignored in view of the beauty of the Ramcharit Manas. Is this not the system followed by our tradition (accepting milk out of the water mixed with milk), instead of justifying with intellectual gymnastics something which is against our tradition (of giving great respect to women).

[N.R.Joshi]

Oct 19, 2014

 

Respected Scholars, Namaskar

 

Subject Dhaatu  Labh , Lambha and Aa+Labha

 

I checked in the dict of V.S. Apte

 

Labh = to gain

Aa+Labh under Labh = to seize, to kill

 Lambh = to kill

 

This variations occur (in my opinion-I may be wrong) because of meanings of the phonemes /L/ and /bh/.  On has to  go through the sequence of  Yabh, Rabh, Vabh, Labh and Shabh to reach the correct meaning.  This is according to VarNavaada, my research subject.

 

Meaning of /L/ = to stay within amplitude. Please check the words for this meaning--Lajja, Laya, Lakshya, Likh and many more (I do not have my book with me to offer long list).

 

See the word LakshmaNa res'aa for Seetaa-stay within that line-amplitude.

 

Now meaning of /bh/ - to fill in. Together they off the meaning of gain to Labh

 

.In the Lambh there is extra phoneme. That changes the meaning.

 

If you do not want VarNavaada, then just say that Sanskrit Dhaatus have many meaning. polysemy or something like that.

 

VarNavaada based on physical properties of articulated sounds shows us that Sanskrit has internal beauty existing naturally.

 

Or accept Sanskrit is like any other language-conventional. You decide. Thanks. N.R.Joshi

 

 

क्षम्यताम् । हिन्दीभाषायाः प्रयोगोऽकारि । 

 

The statement भारतीय संस्कृति में पुरुष को स्त्री की अपेक्षा श्रेष्ठ माना जाता है is even more problematic. Which evidences in 'Indian culture' indicate that the culture treats men superior to women? 

 

श्रूयतां तुलसीदासः - "ढोल गंवार शूद्र पशु नारी, ये सब ताडन के अधिकारी" । 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Please note that Nityanandji's citing four commentaries was not for the justification of the line but for setting the record straight in response to statements like "it is also interpreted as " without quoting the actual words of interpretation or without giving references.

 

2. One of the basic principles of interpretation of a respected work is to assume unity of ideas or absence of inconsistency in the book. For example, if there is a respect for women expressed in a book in many other parts and there is a portion which is in contradiction with that spirit then the interpreter tries to resolve this problem of self-contradiction in the book by interpreting the part according to the spirit of the whole. Ramcharitmanas is a book which does not in  its whole, have the spirit apparent in the line under discussion. Hence attempts to resolve the inconsistency between the part and the whole.

 

3. Defence of Shakespeare against attacks from his critiques/adversaries is not uncommon. Literary critics who like Shakespeare did not and do not easily move on. A significant portion of literary criticism in western countries too like in any part of the world is devoted to such debates on the right and wrong interpretations of books. The intensity of the debates is proportional to the respect for the author of the work under discussion.   

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

One need not ignore the fact that sometimes some writers may want to remain incognito and one should not take umbrage at such anonymous views. Vyakti puja is not our aim, though we should appreciate good views. What matters is whether there is any merit in what is being said  and it may not be proper to reject anonymous views straightway.

Secondly, when it comes to women's education, it is generally the menfolk, who gets blamed. The women are to be taught by women only and such was the system in the olden days. There is a verse saying that man should have man guru and women should have woman guru, though I do not recollect the details of the verse now and many of the scholars  here may remember that. verse. Even in the household work the women most usually get their training from mother or motherly women. Even in the oppression of the daughter-in-laws, it is mostly the mother-in-laws, who are to be blamed.

Regards,

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 10:44:42 PM UTC+5:30, Usha Sanka wrote:

यथा विद्वज्जनैः उक्तम्,  तथा सन्दर्भात् छित्त्वा (out of context) वाक्यानि उद्घाट्य तेषां अर्थान् (प्रयोजनान्) परिवर्त्य ये वक्रार्थाः यथासम्भवं क्रियन्ते - तदर्थं विद्वत्-परिषद् वेदिका मा भूदिति मात्रं ममाशयः। क्षम्यताम् यदि अधिकमुक्तम्।

एतत् केवला मम प्रार्थना। अन्यथा मा चिन्तयतु। 

“xमा चिन्तयतु” इत्यसाधु। “मा भूत्” इतिवन्माङि लुङ्यडभावे “मा चिचिन्तत्” इत्यनेन “मा चिचिन्तत” इत्यनेन वा भवितव्यम्।

स्नेहाच्च बहुमानाच्च स्मारये त्वां न शिक्षये। अन्यथा मा चिचिन्तः। 

[Nityanand Misra]

Deepta Ji

Namaste.

On Monday, October 20, 2014 1:32:21 AM UTC+5:30, Deepta Ghatge wrote:

Moreover, no follower of Shakespear today will give you 4 commentaries of Hamlet justifying this statement of Hamlet!!!! They will say, this statement is a sweeping generalization and move on with life. But this is not what the followers of Tulsi Das do. First Nityanand ji is saying that the statement has been quoted out of context (by quoting shakespear), next he gives explanations from four different commentators justifying the statement in the context to which the person raising the objection objected to. Isn't this pulling on opposite ends? If something is out of context, why justify it?

In the Indian literary tradition, the goal of a commentary is not simply translating or explaining the original text. A commentary often justifies or corroborates the text by offering Vedic/Puranic/other citations, compares the text with similar verses/maxims by the same or a diferent author, offers deeper insights, and defends the author against criticism or attacks wherever necessary. The tradition of textual criticism and counter-criticism in India is not new, and the RCM commentaries are only following tradition in offering justifications and counter-criticisms (not just for this verse, but others too). 

 

The concern expressed can be more clearly stated as this:
Why say dhol gawar shudar pasu nari, why not say dhol gawar brahman pasu purush? After all, the effort required for a brahman to master the shastras is more than the effort required for a shudra to do his seva (if one goes by the actual varna ashrama system).

Firstly, the proposed reading would violate the peotic metre, so Tulasīdāsa would have never used it. Secondly, texts are explained on "what has been said" and not "what is not said". Cāṇakya already said तस्मात्पुत्रं च शिष्यं च ताडयेन्न तु लालयेत्. Cāṇakya clearly talks about a son (who is a male) and a disciple (Brahmin or non-Brahmin, but more likely a Brahmin in Cāṇakya's time). Shall we now say that as Cāṇakya did not say तस्मात्पुत्रीं च भृत्यं च and only said तस्मात्पुत्रं च शिष्यं च, one should be not discipline one's daughter but only discipline one's son?

 

Second, he claims that Ramcharit Manas is a shastra. I don't think many people south of the Vindhyas, or east of bihar have read it, leave alone treat it as a shastra.

You may call it साम्प्रदायिक शास्त्र / औदीच्य शास्त्र / प्राकृत शास्त्र if you will, but it is not for no reason that it has been called Bible of North India - for the vast masses of Northern India from commoners to Vedic scholars to Ramanandis to saints, it is indeed a शास्त्र. 

Though this is a tangential point, please note (not to convince you, but only to share some information you may be unaware of)

1) The work has been translated by numerous authors and poets into Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, etc (references to each can be given). 

2) One of the most respected translations and expositions of the RCM - प्रज्ञानन्द सरस्वती's poetic rendering in Marathi along with his brilliant Marathi commentary (मानसगूढार्थचन्द्रिका, which has been translated in Hindi also) came from south of Vindhyas. 

3) Lastly, here is Amaresh Datta on page 1674 of the The Encyclopaedia Of Indian Literature (Volume Two) (Devraj To Jyoti). Sahitya Akademi, ISBN 9788126011940:

Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas, apart from serving as a model to one or two Bengali poets of the middle period in the writing of verse-biography of Ramachandra, is adored greatly in translation and even in the original in the Bengali homes because of the highly meaningful utterances pithily and simply couched in his many couplets and quadruplets. Among the translations, the one published by Basumati Sahitya Mandir and a small volume by Ramprasad Sen (not to be confused with the famoits Bengali poet of the same name) deserve particular mention. 

 

Third, the statement also seems out of place in the current day and age. While I see many of my male friends drink and smoke, not many females do so. Many "brahmin" friends smoke and drink, eat meat, indulge in many evil works etc. I am sure that this is the experience of many people. So, who is in need of Tadan? The poor woman who takes almost full responsibility of the home or the man who goes out and has a good time?

Tulasīdāsa has indeed talked about this, but not here. Everything cannot be said at one place.

 

The best we can do is to say that Tulsi Das ji was writing according to his times and this particular statement can be ignored in view of the beauty of the Ramcharit Manas. Is this not the system followed by our tradition (accepting milk out of the water mixed with milk), instead of justifying with intellectual gymnastics something which is against our tradition (of giving great respect to women).

I think here Prof. Paturi's second point is spot on. "One of the basic principles of interpretation of a respected work is to assume unity of ideas or absence of inconsistency in the book."

[Deepta Ghatge]

Nityanand Ji,

I never told anything about the commentary tradition. I told that the commentaries are justifying the unjustifiable. That is all. This is because, as Nagaraj Paturi Ji told: they try to justify each and every line because of their respect for the author. This need not be done. If i really respect somebody, I should also know that he was a human and he may have written wrong things. Or are you suggesting that Tulsi das ji was some avatara and he cannot go wrong? He himself says in the balakanda in the manas that his words are like the mumblings of a child. he also says that his intelligence is low. (jo balak kaha totari bata sunahi mudita man pitu aru mata. nija budhi bal bharos mohi nahi, mati ati nich. now don't send 4 commentaries telling me that what i understand from these verse is different from what is obvious).
निज बुधि बल भरोस मोहि नाहीं। तातें बिनय करउँ सब पाही।।
करन चहउँ रघुपति गुन गाहा। लघु मति मोरि चरित अवगाहा।।
सूझ न एकउ अंग उपाऊ। मन मति रंक मनोरथ राऊ।।
मति अति नीच ऊँचि रुचि आछी। चहिअ अमिअ जग जुरइ न छाछी।।
छमिहहिं सज्जन मोरि ढिठाई। सुनिहहिं बालबचन मन लाई।।
जौ बालक कह तोतरि बाता। सुनहिं मुदित मन पितु अरु माता।।


So, the commentators want to deny what the author himself says in the beginning, that his words may be fallible, he is a human being, his intellect is weak etc. his stotra to shiva (namamishamishana) which is beautiful has many shotrcomings when analyzed. I am saying that it is beautiful inspite of shortcomings, but you people will justify it just because you think tulsi das ji is infallible.

Purush violating meter thing: you are clutching at straws. So, tulsi das ji who wrote thousands of verses cannot accomodate a word "purush" somehow? I am not a kavayitri else i could have written a verse.

on the chanakya thing (by mentioning putra, chanakya means putri also): So, are you ready to accept that by the verse "dhol gawar shudra pasu..." the kavi wants even men to be disciplined (by giving the example of nari)? (something which is vehemently denied by the commentators)? Are we going in circles?

If we are to accept that works to be accepted as shastra because they have been praised by many people and translated in to number languages, then we have to accept bible and kuran as the greatest shastras because they have been translated to number of languages. hence, don't propose this.

On males and brahimins requiring tadan and tulsi das ji not having told this in that verse, you say that everything cannot be said in one place. this is evasive.

I wish to conclude by saying that this particular verse is not acceptable by any civilized standards and we can ignore it and enjoy the rest of the Manas. When Tulsi Das ji himself says that his words are fallible, we shouldn't be trying to justify each word of his.

With regards,
Deepta.

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/0k9NCrIwcHU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

In a separate thread, I wrote about my experiment with Valmiki.  My observation is

that a poet does not impose an opinion but is a witness/commentator of the events.

He may create events to comment on.  A poet is primarily an educator.

The poetry of the epics is certainly different than political poetry or social poetry.

Valmiki does seem to have subtle observations on the society and he comments
on them when he gets a chance.  From such point of view a poet is a recorder and

and an independent observer.  The poet is a scholar.

In my thinking to take Valmiki or Tulasi piece-meal here and there is an error in
review.  It's popular among western scholars who try to create knowledge from a

sentence.  A poet is known by his work.  I am requesting to give me hints of

such critical work if they exist.

Tulsi Das 's work should be considered a poetic text like Valmiki's is.

We have to come out of the Bible mode of infallibility.  A written word is

very local.  The poet succeeds if a line provokes us to analyze and contemplate.

The true success if the poet is to attract us to read more.  We salute the poet

for this skill and not for an observation he makes in passing, which could
be contextual in the setting.  To me, the message is in the distillation, not in a
convenient snapshot.

There have been some writings in the literature how Sita has suffered, how women

are uncared for and why Valmiki must be responsible.  I was asked to give a lecture
on "Women in Indian Scriptures" some twenty years ago in a large church.  I chose
Sita to talk about and reviewed Valmiki to create material.  More I read I discovered
that Ramayana is more about Sita than about Rama.  Sita glows as a human being,
as a woman, as a wife, as a person.  It is she who triumphs.  For the first time
I realized how poor has been our education! I called my mother!

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Deepta Ji

When a great poet/scholar/Bhakta says something like (s)he being but a child or having a feeble intellect, it is a metaphorical expression of humility (Dainya). Kālidāsa says that - kva sūryaprabhavo vaṁśaḥ kva cālpaviṣayā matiḥ (RV 1.2). Kaiyaṭa says that - bhāṣyābdhiḥ kvātigambhīraḥ kvāhaṁ mandamatistataḥ (MBP 6). And Tulasīdāsa says that (your citation below). Such verses are not to be taken in the literal sense. A conclusion of fallibility of a saint like Tulasīdāsa based on his verses expressing Dainya is extrapolation at best.

As for Mānasa being a Śāstra or otherwise, and the verse in question being right or wrong, it is the opinion of Dharmācāryas who know both Śāstra and Dharma that is authoritative and not that of ordinary people like us who use our finite minds. Infallible or otherwise, at least we all agree that Tulasīdāsa, who studied for 15 long years under Guru Śeṣa Sanātana of Vārāṇasī, had an understanding of Śāstra and Dharma far greater than mortals like us.

As a last reference on this topic, I would like you to read what Dharmasamrāṭ Karapātra Svāmī, one of the foremost leaders of Sanātana Dharma in the 20th century and a commentator on Śukla Yajurveda's Vājasaneyi Mādhyandina Saṁhitā, wrote in his phenomenal work Rāmayaṇa Mimāṁsā about both points - Mānasa being a Śāstra and the verse in question. People like Karapātra Svāmī and commentators can show us the way, it is upto us whether we trust them or not.

This is my last post of this thread and I have no other points to make.

[Bijoy Misra]

Excellent exposition.

No poet should be read in pieces.  Poetry is a pre-composed long sentence.

A poet only channels this sentence.

People should read Bhrtrhari for more analysis on what he calls  संबन्ध.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

The question was raised initially about something else- and unnecessarily the topic took diversion. 

Mishra sir, thanks for correcting my Samskrtam mistakes. Always welcome. What is life and studies for- if not to correct our mistakes and learn right things? 

-----------------------------

Dear Deepta madam,

I would like to say something at this point on the following statements-

I told that the commentaries are justifying the unjustifiable.

व्याख्यानतो विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः न हि सन्देहादलक्षणम् -  has been the spirit of bhAratIya traditionalists. We always try to "understand the text from what author wants to say" rather than trying to "interpret with our own brains" - So the "heart of author" was prime-most.. not what we try to get out from it. Every commentator tried for same purpose in bhAratIya tradition. They also suggested their self-views freely upon author-expressed idea. So they will never ever "justify the unjustifiable" 

In contrast, trying to make meaning from on-looker's point of view is non-Indian. My English literature teachers encouraged me to find out "what any English poet or poem means to me" - and they told me it was how literature needs to be studied. But Samskrtam literature and shAstras are entirely different.

I found bhArtIya tradition (I avoid using Indian for obvious reasons) entirely opposite from English literature view.. 

So first of all one needs to unwear previous spectacles to study bhAratIya literature. 

(We all are aware of disasters in our education system.. and how our point of view changed to entirely Western outlook. I would say no more on that.)

you people will justify it just because you think tulsi das ji is infallible.

Excuse me. Who are you people? Then question arises- "are there any I people?" :)

Tulsidas is a not just a celebrated poet- but his Manas is next to vAlmIki rAmAyaNa in many parts of North India. If vAlmIki is a RShi, so is Tulsidas- and everyone who understood bhAratIyatA in totality can only be a RShi. 

Tulsi's vision, his insight and his deep penetration into the characters of rAmAyaNa make him, no less than a RShi. Every Manas reader knows it by heart's experience.

One statement good, others bad- will not make Manas a shAstra. 

If mahAbhArata can be paMchama veda, so can be Manas.

And in bhAratIya tradition, it is ALWAYS by knowing the heart of a RShi that we understand his works and words and NOT by his words and works that we try to know his heart!! Please pay attention to this statement. After I heard this statement from the mouth of a great scholar (whom I would bow for this single statement all my life) that I myself changed my entire vision. I started having benefit of getting the things in bhAratIya tradition in their true spirit. Otherwise I would have been saying same blah blah blah about women-shUdra --issues- that modern faulty education and modern social structure has taught me!! rather "injected" into me carefully in a planned and systematic - in fact very systematic manner.

जौ बालक कह तोतरि बाता। सुनहिं मुदित मन पितु अरु माता।।

This is common nature of all bhAratIya writers. It shows their humbleness. This does not mean - "what all I am going to say in this treatise is a babbling". It only means- the poet is humble before God. We all studied Kalidasa and repeatedly declared him the greatest of poets in Samskrtam. He also says- "तितीर्षुः दुस्तरं मोहादुडुपेनास्मि सागरम्" But we see how brilliant he has been. It is only out of humbleness and submission sense that every Astika poet says. Need not drag that "bAla" emotion here into "nArI issue". Tulsidas in not insane.. to say something entirely "emittable" statements.

On males and brahimins requiring tadan

It is said in hundreds of places in dharma shastras and smRtis about males in general and brAhmanas in particular - regarding their chores, their duties, responsibilities, their attitude towards women in all the latter's roles, course of life and many many things they need to take care (which are carefully avoided by the so-called "bhAratIya hating- critics") So Tulsidas avoided them for sake of repetition.

this particular verse is not acceptable by any civilized standards

It is the nature of picking things out of context that make issues out of nothing. We need not give up and set aside anything and can take all things from a celebrated work or shAstra - by just having a developed vision of life, world, and bhAratIyatA in particular. There is nothing uncivilized when we have to accept certain things.

"यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः" has always been followed in our nation and I enjoyed every moment of my life at home, in society- without even realizing my privilege. When compared to other non-Indian nations, Indian women are in much higher and better position. 

[If more doubts about such "nArI-shUdra-issues" prevail, please listen to Rajiv Deekshit's speeches on European vs. Indian topics. (Just visit youtube and search with his name- or can go to rajivdixitmp3.com 

Can try this one- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy0USBUhRng ]  

 

-vinItA

उषा

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. There is nothing specifically Bharatiya about words of obedience, often called 'disclaimers' in certain fields of study, being used in the beginning parts of literary works, performance events of performing arts etc. as a performance convention. Not taking such 'formalities'/conventional routines literally has been part of interpretive common sense in all interpretive traditions literary or cultural.

 

2. There is nothing specifically Bharatiya about a certain genre of literary criticism being interpretive certain others being adjudicating or evaluative. Expecting one genre to carry out the function of the other or to find fault with one genre of literary criticism for being what it is, is not what is justified. Commentary is an interpretive genre of literary criticism and as such tries to bring out the 'intention' of the author. Both kinds of literary criticism exist in India and the west. There are aalankaarikas who found fault with established Sanskrita Kavis. That was evaluative criticism.

 

3.' Justification' and trying to find resolve the apparent inconsistency in a work are two different things. It does not mean claiming infallibility too. 'Respected' in my post never meant anything religious such as avataara. Shakespeare is a respected author. 'Respect' here is an attitude that the person is organized enough in his expression not to resort to self-contradictions.     

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Deepta Ghatge]

usha ji,

suppose you do all the analysis of all the commentaries and come to a conclusion that yatr naryastu pujyante is the spirit of the manas (or heart of rushi as you say), what is the need to take the dho l gawar verse and try to fit it into the heart of the poet? this is what i am asking you.

there may be instances where a certain verse needs to be ignored because of changed circumstances. do we keep holding on to them and do intellectual gymastics bordering on the amusing or set them aside and enjoy the rest of the work? I favour the last strategy.

If there were no words, there wouldn't have been an analysis of the heart of the rishi. hence there being something called a heart other than the words of a rishi is funny. Make the most charitable analysis of the rishi's heart. but don't try to justify jarring verses in the name of bringing about coherence. sometimes it borders on the untruth. all the interpreters of the dhol gawar verse have left out the tadan of purush. they claim that the nari is to be done tadan. tehy claim that end result is beautiful. but what if someone doesn't want this or someone wants purush to be more beautiful? this makes us a laughing stock of other people. A person who uses a mobile phone, a tablet, the most advanced car, etc. but one who is caught up in medieval mindset of wife beating. If we are to justify every word of manas, how are we differnet from other people who justify every word of bible and still firmly believe that the earth is flat and are against abortions even when there is a threat to the mother life?

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Usha Sanka <usha....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Deepta Ghatge]

So, a bakt like Tulsi Das ji says my intellect is weak, we have to ignore it. If we have to ignore it, why was it included in the text at all? Do you do such cherry picking in other shastras as well? (something like, I will accept the vivah prakaran but ignore the nishid vivah prakaran?)

i will read your pdf and get back regarding the points raised there.

thanks for the interaction.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Deeptaji,

Since you mentioned about one who is caught up in medieval mindset of wife beating, may I remind you that the Parashara smriti (the smriti, appropriate for the medeval period) has given the way to redress that situation. The women don't have to be so submissive in such cases. If the women do not use the liberty provided for in the Smriti. why blame men ?

Regards,

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Dr Ghatge,

I don't know your background, but a poet is not to be analyzed by a literal dissection.

While it is not useful to help you change your opinion, I would only request you that

you analyze the word अधिकारी and you may get your answer.

The meaning is not that "go and beat a woman as you find one", but

the following objects (....)  share the pain/grief in the world.  How and why is not stated.

In my observation that's true.  Mothers feed the family and eat the last.  It is not by

culture, but by nature.  It's a larger philosophical question.  Why certain objects tolerate

more pain is unknown to me.  It is cosmological.

Not that a poet cannot be political, but good poets are not.  We don't calibrate them

from some cultural framework but from an empirical framework.  I assume you are not

doing a critical review.  You must discard any raw material that gets published as

interpretation.  They are all political.  Please do take a poet as a friend and interpret

in context.  Throw away political poetry.

Best regards,

Happy Diwali.

Bijoy Misra 

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Ghatge,

I don't know your background, but a poet is not to be analyzed by a literal dissection.

While it is not useful to help you change your opinion, I would only request you that

you analyze the word अधिकारी and you may get your answer.

And also by spectral analysis of the poetry and through VarNavada, neither the poetry or a Shastra for that could not be interpreted and to claim it and it will be interpreted scientifically by scientific scaning of the tex. Mr. N.R.Joshi is ready with his Spectrum analyzer and varNavada, to analyze any word and for that the group of words, what we call poetry, but nothing more than that would be able to analyze poetry.

For analyzing a poetry, critics and poets have invented and have offered many tools, to analyze and have instructed how to use them carefully as far as I know. And if you are not satisfied, you can find more Instruments in the light of more Scientific Age and thought.

  

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste 

I agree with Bijoyji 100%. If you read Ramayana more and more you will realize the epic is glorifying Sita more than Rama. She is the main character. Like in Vrindavana and Mathura all the people have realized Radha is more important than Krishna. Radha Bhakti has overtaken Krishna Bhakti in these sacred places. 

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

We can say human author can make mistakes but Sruti is Apaurusheya. It has no author.It cannot have defects like authors. When we accept this we have to interpret Sruti Vakyas like the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad Vakya 6-4-7 saying सा चेदस्मै न दद्यात् काममेनामवक्रीणीयात्, सा चेदस्मै नैव दद्यात् काममेनां यष्ट्या वा पाणिना वोपहत्यातिक्रामेत् correctly. A husband has to deal with wife if she has bad behaviour. The Sruti has also said in another place मातृदेवो भव. How to interpret both these contradicting statements?

Answer is all women cannot be treated same like we cannot treat all men the same. A man with vices cannot deserve respect. But man with virtues deserves respect. Same logic. A woman in mother's position will always be beneficial to her children. She sacrifices for children. She deserves to be respected like God. She is more respected than even father. But a woman not a mother and if she has bad qualities cannot deserve respect. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In किष्किन्धाकाण्ड  Hanuman says,

 

 

एकु मैं मंद मोहबस कुटिल हृदय अग्यान।
पुनि प्रभु मोहि बिसारेउ दीनबंधु भगवान॥२॥

जदपि नाथ बहु अवगुन मोरें।

 

In spite of this Goswami Tulasi Dasji sings a चालीसा for Hanuman and in that calls him

 

बिद्यावान गुनी अतिचातुर

 

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

.

Answer is all women cannot be treated same like we cannot treat all men the same. A man with vices cannot deserve respect. But man with virtues deserves respect. Same logic.

 

A woman in mother's position will always be beneficial to her children. She sacrifices for children. She deserves to be respected like God. She is more respected than even father. But a woman not a mother and if she has bad qualities cannot deserve respect. 

Anyhow there is a statement:

 अमन्त्रमक्षरं  नास्ति, नास्ति मूलमनौषधम् । 

अयोग्यः पुरुषो नास्ति योजकस्तत्र दुर्लभ :।। 

According to the spirit of the defenders of women's right in Sanskrit literature, in this discussion, this verse should have been composed by a male writer and he defends that any man is not completely useless or unfit for anything, but only one has to recognize the merits in him (and not the women, as she has been excluded from the statement specifically) and shows his partiality towards women as useless at all.

If one takes in general, पुरुष any person, it may be men or women, great or mean, only one has to look for the merits in them. But this is lost from all the quotations cited here.

I remember another quote from another male writer :

 "कुपुत्रो जायेत क्वचिदपि कुमाता न भवति ॥३॥" 

from देव्यपराधक्षमापणस्तोत्र ascribed to Sri Shankaracharya. This can viewed as the statement of a male ascetic. I quoted this for discussion in the spirit of the discussion in this topic without any comment of my own, than that it is a statement of a poet.

 

 

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

All your points are already answered in my previous mail. 

 If we are to justify every word of manas, 

We need not justify. We can understand the sentence in intended conditions.

Coming to wife beating- one need not read Manas and seek blessings of the writer and get a sanctioned backing of Tulsi words to beat his wife. Anger, drunkenness, ego and rage are enough. Sometimes it might be provocation from wife's side that might generate a need inside man to take to beating. And Tulsi is not definitely talking of it. And even if these Tulsi's words and all similar smRtis' words were not read also, scene would not be otherwise.

In fact, one who reads Manas will himself become saintly- (even if he is wife beater) because the very spirit that gave birth to that "shAstra-tulya-kAvya" is a woman's love. Well- reading Manas oneself will answer many issues. It will also make the reader aware of what bhAratIya tradition is, what kind of things it discusses and what directions it moves, with what aim. Please try when time permits.

Before you can manage with that- you can have benefit of these opinions and explanations from ordinary readers of Manas on this statement- 

Got them from a blog - (From- http://aaryashri.blogspot.in/2010/04/blog-post.html) as libraries and books hunting will take more of time. 

(I take wherever a good explanation comes from. बालादपि सुभाषितम्)

(Hope there is no problem with Hindi, as Manas is basically a related work. 

All this is just for making that sentence also a useful and acceptable one --for those who baselessly think that there is a problem with Tulsi's brain!)

1. इसे विवादित बनाने वाले तथाकथित वेवकूफ बुद्धिजीवीयों कि व्याख्या सत्य सेकितनी दूर है वह इस मूल अर्थ सेस्पष्ट होता है.

यहाँ ताड़ना का अर्थ है पहचानना या परखना, तुलसीदास कहते हैं अगर हम ढोलके व्यवहार (सुर) को नहीं पहचातेतो उसे बजाते समय उसकी आवाज कर्कश होगीअतः उससे स्वभाव को जानना आवश्यक है इसी तरह गवारगवार का अर्थ किसीका मजाक उड़ना नहीं बल्कि उनसे है जो अज्ञानी हैं ) कि प्रकृति या व्यवहार कोजाने बिनाउसके साथ जीवन सही से नहीं बिताया जा सकता ये उसके इसी तरहपशु के लिए भी अर्थ है, ठीक यही अर्थ नारीके परिप्रेक्ष में भी है, जब तक हमनारी के स्वभाव को नहीं पचानाते उसके साथ जीवन का निर्वाह अच्छी तरह सेनहीं हो सकता.
इतने सुन्दर और ज्ञान रूपी इस रचना को विवादित बनना कितना बड़ादिवालियापन है यह आसानी से समझा जासकता है. यहाँ जो ताड़ना का अर्थ पीटनेया मारने का लगाया जाता है वह नितांत ही गलत है,

 

​Comments on same-​

 

विवेक सिंह ने कहा…

पूरी चौपाई इस प्रकार है:
प्रभु भल कीन्ह मोहि सिख दीन्हीं। मरजादा पुनि तुम्हरी कीन्हीं॥
ढोल गवाँर सूद्र पसु नारी। सकल ताड़ना के अधिकारी॥
प्रथम तो ऊपर की पंक्ति से ही स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि यहाँ ताड़ना देना का मतलब सीख देना है ।
दूसरे यह तुलसीदास जी की अपनी सोच नहीं है । यह बात समुद्र ने रामजी से तब कही है जब उन्होंने उसे औकात याद दिलाई । 
------------
ashvani ने कहा…

जिस तुलसी दास ने मानस की रचना की उनके भी जीवन में एक नारी का बड़ा हीयोगदान रहा है | वह इतना प्रतापित व्यक्ति क्या नारी के बारे में ऐसा लिखसकता है क्या ? जो राम के हर रूप का वर्णन अपने मानस में की हो, वह मातासीता को आर्दश की देवी मानता हो वह अपने मानस में क्या ऐसा वर्णन कर सकता है | नही .............
भाषा पर मत जाइये भाषा के भाव को समझाने का प्रयास कीजिए तुलसी दास जी ने मानस में नारी के ह्रदय का वर्णन जैसा किया है और पुरे मानस में जो नारी का चित्रण आया है वह बहुत ही सुंदर है |वास्तव में तराना का अवधी भाषा में समझाना होता है इसलिए नारी के साथ जीवन यापन करना है तो उसके व्यवहार को अच्छी तरह समझना पड़ता है

--------

Arvind Mishra ने कहा…

गीताप्रेस से अलग एक मूल पाठ में मानस की यही अर्धाली यूं है -
ढोल गवार क्षुद्र पशु नारी ,सकल ताड़ना के अधिकारी
ये सब पीटे जाने से ही मर्यादित / सार्थक बनते हैं -
बिना पीटे ढोल से आवाज नहीं निकलेगी
गंवार भी मारने से ही अनुशासित रहते हैं
और उसी तरह क्षुद्र पशु(कीड़े मकोड़े बिच्छू गोजर ) और क्षुद्र प्रवृत्ति की नारी भी...
यह प्रेक्षण तुलसी का है -लोगों के दृष्टि अनुभव अलग हो सकते हैं .

-----------

Sanjay Sharma ने कहा…

फ़ोन पर अपने दोस्तों को आमंत्रित
कर रहा था " आओ न यार शाम को 
बंगाली मार्केट में चाट खायेंगे और 
लड़कियां ताड़ेगे " येहाँ ताडने का मतलब
हम मारने-पीटने से तो नहीं न लगायेंगे .
तुलसी जी का रामायण इतना लोकप्रिय हुआ
तो जलन हुई सो जली भुनी व्याख्या परोसी 
गई . अब इन गवारों को कौन समझाए
की इनके गवारेपन का इलाज मार पीट कर तो किया नहीं
गया . अब आपने देखा भाला है तरीके से ,शायद असर हो

--------------

One more- http://nishamittal2011.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/एक-जिज्ञासा-छोटी-सी/

मानस में लगभग सभी अलंकारों का प्रयोग तुलसी दास जी ने किया है ….ताड़ना का एक अर्थ ये भी बताया गया है.. की ध्यान देना . या ध्यान रखना (केयर करना) …ढोल को ताड़ना अर्थात मारना ………. गंवार को ताड़ना मतलब सुसंस्कारी बनाना……… शुद्र को ताड़ना अर्थात उसको ऊपर उठाना ………. और नारी को ताड़ना ध्यान देना ,ध्यान रखना …(हलाकि आजकल इस शब्द का बिगड़ते बिगड़ते घटिया मजाकिया शब्द बना दिया गया है )

-----------------

Someone in comments said- it is समुद्र's words who is madhyama character and in contrast showed how rAvaNa speaks about mandodarI. So it is not tulsI das's own idea but those characters are speaking it. Contrast can be had where mandodarI wants to make rAvaNa realize his mistake, and in return he sensures her.

रावण भी तो मंदोदरी जैसी विदुषी वेदज्ञ -भक्‍त से कहता है – नारि सुभाउ सत्‍य सब कहहीं ,अवगुन आठ सदा उर रहहीं।साहस अनृत चपलता माया, भय अविवेक असौच अदाया। 

-----------------

I tried some other blogs as well- they all are saying almost same thing. 

This is how those who are  acquainted with Manas (and thus with bhAratIya tradition) think and understand works of poets/shAstrakAras. They cansee the poet's heart from whole work and then interpret such statements in the light of that whole idea.. and never pick and drag out some words and start arguing.

And coming to other women-related treatment- like mAtR devo bhava etc. one can write volumes. 

Yes, rAmAyaNa is more "sItAyAH caritaM mahat" than rAma's story. 

I think, a kAvya-values are only language, meaning-beauty (vyaMgya) and embellishments - that's all and never content. Once issues of dharma and neeti enter into a poem, and beautifully dealt, for the level of "nitya-pArAyaNa-grantha" in a culture, it becomes almost a shastra!! People learn from it and follow its meaning in life. So thus the writer of a poem becomes RShi. 

RShi's heart is discovered thus and not by picking and dragging separate sentences and start trying to fit them into our preconditioned mindsets and discarding because of not fit..!! Dragging each and every shAstra and kAvya vakya out of the context, into cultural and social problems and expecting them to be responsible for every single crime in the present society is a brutal thing. 

In fact, it is more because of being away from the great works, that so many problems are arising. This is my personal view.

Said, what all I wanted to. Hope it helps those who want to understand the poet. Thankyou. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Usha Sanka]

I think, a kAvya-values are only language, meaning-beauty (vyaMgya) and embellishments - that's all and never content. 

​Please read it as- less on content. Not never.​

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

======note

This is my opinion as I have indicated in one my earlier mails. Please don't quote from blogs and enclose videos from blogs. Many of the blogs are not confirmed research. we should stick to books, journals and scholarly articles for all our discussions on this list. The primary purpose of this list is to act as platform for Indian sanskrit and Indological researchers to exchange ideas. Quoting too many times from blogs and non academic videos tend to have the opposite effect

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

For got to add one more note. Please consolidate your views on a given thread and restrict you postings to not more than 2 -3 posts for each thread. Making too many posts and posting too often without additional points tends to distract readers. I am not saying this with reference to this thread but reference to all threads.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Usha Sanka]

On thinking over the whole discussion, I found some points I learnt useful. So sharing.

We are not poor people and are rich in tradition till date.

When in doubt about some statement, esp. regarding dharma-neeti issues, before we discard it straight away, another alternative is to approach-

1. Living traditions - gurus, or experts on the subjects.

2. Commentaries

3. Thorough context Analysis.

Living traditions are first place because they will have thought over, and contemplated on the major issues already and will have capability to answer according to our understanding level when asked one to one.

Commentaries are secondary -only when living person is unknown or not reachable. But one should have own developed vision and some background on how commentaries.

Last one is like mentioned in shloka- पादं काल क्रमेण च.. after gaining some more insight and background knowledge we can re-visit the same text and try to see what the poet has to say..

But all this is possible only when we are open and are not prejudiced or preconditioned. 

Quoting too many times from blogs and non academic videos tend to have the opposite effect

I agree with this point sir. But lack of time to approach libraries and books made me do that. I am aware of limitations of blogs and videos. But I chose to quote from only those places where I found it done more scholarly, systematic, point by point way.. (and I carefully gave up many others where only blabbering is done.)

not more than 2 -3 posts for each thread. 

Sure sir. Will follow it.

Thankyou anyway.  

With greetings to all for शुभदीपावली I close it my side.

-vinItA

उषा

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

We have also to consider that Tulsidas was no ordinary man. In his Hanuman Chalishi he has given the distance of the Sun from the Earth so accurately that it matches with the value, the modern science has found.  The devouts consider him as the avatara of Hanuman, who in turn is considered as an avatara of the 11th Rudra. It is believed that Hanuman threw away his version of the Ramayana, as Valmiki thought that nobody would read his (Valmiki's) Ramayana any more. Tulsidas felt that there was need for him to write the Ramayana for the consumption of the common people and hence the Manas came from him. It is not known to many that Hanuman has also praised woman. From his Ramayana we know that Mandodari was not only very beautiful, she was very accomplised too. Mandodari volunteered to fight Lord Ram, saying that she was a Kshatriya woman and she can fight Ram but unfortunately for her Ravana did not allow her to fight. Had Ravana allowed this mahasati to fight the war might have ended differently.

Regards,

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

कह रघुपति सुनु भामिनि बाता। मानउँ एक भगति कर नाता॥
जाति पाँति कुल धर्म बड़ाई। धन बल परिजन गुन चतुराई॥
भगति हीन नर सोहइ कैसा। बिनु जल बारिद देखिअ जैसा॥

 

                                              ---अरण्यकाण्ड

 

These are the words of Sri Rama to S'abaree. Since he is talking to a woman, the list जाति पाँति कुल धर्म बड़ाई। धन बल परिजन गुन चतुराई contextually implies gender too.

 

Sri Ramcharit Manas is part of Bhakti movement. It is meant mainly to be a Bhakti S'aastra. All Bhakti S'aastras including the Bhaagavata PuraaNa describe themselves to be and have been understood to be for extending spiritual benefits without descriminations of caste, financial and educational status, gender etc.

 

That is the reason books such as Ramcharit Manas have been written in a गंवारी language.

 

So any expression not in consistency with this central vital spirit of the book should either be suspected to be an interpolation or should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with this central spirit.    

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Deepta Ghatge]

this can be resolved easily Nagraj ji:

In the hanuman case, hanuman says that he has shortcomings. the evaluator tulsidas says that inspite of his words, he is a vidyavan. Although hanuman says those shortcomings about himself, he hasn't shown himself weak in any situation (as in the next case).

In the tulsi case, he says that he has shrotcomings. the evaluators of his work (us, me, you, nitya ji, usha ji) etc. can see that a certain shloka doesn't fit into the larger context of his work (i am ready to accept this claim of usha ji that the rcm stands for "yatra naryas tu pujante"). Hence this is a shortcoming.

Hence, the bhakta argument, that he is a bhakta that is why he is being humble etc. doesn't stand, else there will be no difference between real humility and fake humility.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I can only wish that when it is reported to the people who matter to us are to the people to whom we matter that we made a certain statement offending to those people (report-receiver) , they either rule out the possibility of we making such a statement on the basis of based on our past behaviour or try to understand the reported statement in a way that is not offensive to them again their assessment of us  based on our past behaviour in stead of calling all our past behaviour as fake, based on the reported statement!!

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There was a typo in the previous post. Let me retype

 

I can only wish that when it is reported to the people who matter to us are to the people to whom we matter that we made a certain statement offending to those people (report-receiver) , they either rule out the possibility of we making such a statement on the basis of their assessment of us  based on our past behaviour or try to understand the reported statement in a way that is not offensive to them again on the basis of  their assessment of us  based on our past behaviour in stead of calling all our past behaviour as fake, based on the reported statement!!

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

'or' in the first line, not 'are'

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Usha Sanka]

Namaste

Here is a response from a scholar on the topic of Manas where Tulsi says- शूद्र गवार ढोल पशु नारी, सकल ताडना के अधिकारी. 

-उषा

--------------------

In this connection, there are two things that need to be kept in mind.
1) Understanding the sastra.(i.e. शास्त्रार्थ-निश्चय:)
2) It' practice. (i.e. निश्चितस्य इतिकर्तव्यता-ज्ञानम् )
Th traditional scholars try to understand any sastra or Rshi in the
light of all other sastras and rshis. Traditional understanding is
collective summary of all the sastras. That is why, श्रुति:, स्मृति:,
पुरणम्, आगम: and their commentaries -- all these are consulted in
determining the meaning of a given text. Our gurus have said --

इतिहास-पुरणाभ्यां वेदार्थमुपबृंहयॆत् । बिभॆत्यल्पश्रुताद् वेदः मामयं
प्रहरिष्यति ॥

" The meaning of the Veda should be explained (or understood) with the help of Ithasa (like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata) and the Puranas. The Veda is apprehensive of the person who lacks the knowledge of other related sastras because such a person would injure it (i.e. the Veda) (by his misunderstanding)."

This can be extended to all other sastras too. Even Tulasi das himself said--
 नानापुराण-निगमागम-सम्मतं यत्
       रामायणॆ निगदितं क्वचिदन्यतोपि ॥
" I compose this Vernacular story of Rama in accordance with the
various Puranas, the Vedas and the Agamas and also gathering from the Ramayana (of Valmiki) as well as  some other sources."

Hence, the current sentence of Tulasi Das, which is under discussion, should be understood in the light of other sastras. Here is a Shloka from some नीति-शास्त्रं or probably from the चाणक्य-नीति-दर्पण:,
                      दुर्जनं, काञ्चनं, भॆरीं, दुष्ट-स्त्रीं, दुष्ट-वाहनम् ।
                      इक्षु-खण्डान्, तिलान् ....मर्दयॆद् गुण्-वृद्धयॆ ॥
( I am not able to recall the missing word in it. somebody might help me here.) The meaning of the shloka is ... " One should rub or scrub against a wicked man, gold, drum, a wicked woman, a bad (riding) animal (like horse or bull etc.), sugar-cane, sesame seeds ...... for improving their quality."

Here we should note, man is also included in the beatable things, also note the adjective 'wicked' to the word woman, and note the purpose of beating clearly stated, 'for improving their quality'.

I wish to repeat here that  Indians do not see each sastra and each
Rshi as unique and an isolated island. Calling somebody's unique
contribution or unique teaching is alien to Indian tradition.

  Next is it's practice. Three things need to be considered for an
action. 1) Doer (कर्ता) 2) कर्म, the object of  act. 3) The motive or
purpose of the doer.

1) The Doer:- Tulasi Das does not imply that any man should beat any woman for any reason or for no reason. If somebody commits a mistake, only those who are in place of a mentor or a well-wisher like parents, teachers,king etc., are supposed to punish him or her and not anybody.

2) The punishment is given only if a woman or a man commits such a mistake which deserves punishment. One smrti says 'a person should not quarrel or pick up an argument  with servants, children and his wife'. 
This is probably because we come to know others' weaknesses and
mistakes only when we start living close to them. And naturally all of us have some or other weakness or mistake in us. Secondly, we have to live with them everyday and therefore cannot afford to antagonise them. Hence, a house-holder is advised to ignore or endure them or even adjust to them. Thirdly, if the woman is stubborn and arrogant and commits a punishable mistake, then he should try the methods of persuading, bribing, threatening and as a last thing, resort to the beating. (This last one is stated in Bruhadarnyaka Upanishad, sixth chapter).

3) The third point is the motive of the doer. Anger hatred, ego etc.,
are not good qualities, hence no sastra-author including Tulasi das
can recommend or approve them.  Therefore, it is only as a punishment done in the interest of the person to be punished after exhausting all other options.

We should also note that स्त्री-हत्या and बाल-हत्या is prohibited by
the sastras. Beating women and children is considered unmanly even the society.

-- 

"-यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम"

[Hnbhat B.R.]

दुर्जनं काञ्चनं भेरीं दुष्टाश्वं दुष्टयोषिताम् ।

इक्षुदण्डास्तिलं शूद्रः मर्दनाद् गुणवर्धनम् ॥ – ५८॥

The verse is found on the net with too much corruption, without a proper verb, as supplied by Mm.Usha.

Usha has reflected properly. It like taking 

रोगविघ्नहतश्चैव ब्रह्महा गुरुतल्पगः ॥ १७ ॥

स्त्रीहन्ता बालघाती च सुरापो वृषलीपतिः ।

मुच्यते सर्वपापेभ्यो यः पठेन्नात्र संशयः ॥ १८ ॥

in विष्णुकवच, to read Vishnupanjara, one becomes qualified, after performing ब्रह्महत्य etc, as the फलस्तुति says, these will be relieved from all these sins.

Or   द्वादशनामपठन is meant for the one who is 

द्वादश्ौतानि नामानि त्रिसन्ध्यं यः पठेन्नरः।

कृतघ्नश्चैव गोघ्नश्च ब्रह्महा गुरुतल्पगाः॥

स्त्रीबालघातकश्चैव सुरापो वृषलीपतिः।

मुच्यते सर्वपापेभ्यो रुद्रलोकं स गच्छति॥" 

and the author of the stotra-s should be inspiring the people to become a murderer of women, and children or brahmins.

The comment on the above quoted line is interpreted in the same way.

​

[Nagaraj Paturi]

and the author of the stotra-s should be inspiring the people to become a murderer of women, and children or brahmins.

The comment on the above quoted line is interpreted in the same way.

​----- It inspires the same kind of people if any who soil their clothes to the maximum possible extent after watching the promo of  a

cloth- washing detergent/ soap which shows the product capable of perfectly cleansing the clothes soiled to the maximum possible extent.

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I think all quotations representing male domination over female species have been supplied and discussed round about.

Finally I would provide a verse which evidently describes the gender descrimination, in our present day which is a fashion in many families, where both or female partners take the responsibility of the family.

The common derivation of भार्या and भृत्य are derived from the same root - "- "डु भृञ् धारणपोषणयोः | अनुदात उभयतोभाषः || ३. १९ " which gives the meaning of भार्या abd भृत्य similarly, to be fed or who is dependent on husbant/master and could not be a भर्ता who carries the responsiblity of the family. Though married life, is not yet vanished, in our Indian Society, but the responsibility is shifted or shared between the two. This was not expected in the mediavel age as we already know and the point of gender descrimination for this thread, prolonged to woment liberation front which is the idea of our present age. There is no one to blame if we could not find what we expect today in ancient literature. This is my reflection on the discussions. This was seen before hand in Mahabharata

य एव धर्मः सोऽधर्मोऽदेशेऽकाले प्रतिष्ठितः |

आदानमनृतं हिंसा धर्मो व्यावस्थिकः स्मृतः १२ महाभारते शान्तिपर्वणि

३७||८||

Everything has to be justified within the limits of time and space. In other times, it may not mean the same as dharma.

The idea of women acting as भर्ता than भार्या in a family is viewed thus:

 एको गोत्रे प्रभवति पुमान् यः कुटुंबं बिभर्ति|

 स्त्री पुंवच्च प्रभवति यदा तद्धि गेहं विनष्टम् ॥

Evidently the gender descrimination of the mediavel society is represented. Hope this is appreciated as truely representing the gender descrimination of our mediaval description and no other quotation is needed to establish male domination and gender description in our society of mediaval age and which is continued still, though rarely, though living together has become an optional condition, for the family of the present day.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In Mahabharata Vyasa depicts S'akuntala as chiding Dushyanta for not accepting her as wife.

 

He describes her angry expressions as follows:

 

स।न्रम्भामर्षताम्राक्षी स्फुरमाणोष्ठसम्पुटा |

कटाक्षैर्निर्दहन्तीव तिर्यग्राजानमैक्षत || आदि 68-21|| 

 

She describes भार्या as worthy of arghya , archanaa. 

स्वयं प्राप्तेति मामेवं मावम।न्स्थाः पतिव्रताम् |

अर्घ्यार्हां नार्चयसि मां स्वयं भार्यामुपस्थिताम् ||आदि 68- 33|| 

She describes wife as the best friend (श्रेष्ठतमः सखा ).

अर्धं भार्या मनुष्यस्य भार्या श्रेष्ठतमः सखा |

भार्या मूलं त्रिवर्गस्य भार्या मित्रं मरिष्यतः || आदि 68-40||

She describes wife as contributing to the work efficiency of the husband.

भार्यावन्तः क्रियावन्तः सभार्या गृहमेधिनः |

भार्यावन्तः प्रमोदन्ते भार्यावन्तः श्रियान्विताः || आदि 68-41||

She describes wife as the ultimate shelter of the man.

कान्तारेष्वपि विश्रामो नरस्याध्वनिकस्य वै |

यः सदारः स विश्वास्यस्तस्माद्दाराः परा गतिः || आदि 68-43||

She describes wife as the best solace for the grief-stricken male.

दह्यमाना मनोदुःखैर्व्याधिभिश्चातुरा नराः |

ह्लादन्ते स्वेषु दारेषु घर्मार्ताः सलिलेष्विव || आदि 68-49||

She daunts him not to be confident about his not getting a witness for the crime committed in privacy.

एको।अहमस्मीति च मन्यसे त्वं; न कृच्छयं वेत्सि मुनिं पुराणम् |

यो वेदिता कर्मणः पापकस्य; तस्यान्तिके त्वं कृजिनं करोषि || आदि 68-27||

मन्यते पापकं कृत्वा न कश्चिद्वेत्ति मामिति |

विदन्ति चैनं देवाश्च स्वश्चैवान्तरपूरुषः || आदि 68-28||

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunny kumar]

Well the question was different and all this discussion held on a completely different topic. All the comments of scholar related with gendering justice while the question was about "Animal sacrifice in Indian Text" exist or not? Wright or wrong?
Etc..........

Well! I request scholars to give there precious views on it. Not only on the same male and female..... Man and woman etc.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

while the question was about "Animal sacrifice in Indian Text" exist or not?  Wright or wrong?
Etc..........

--------- the question was not that. This question was not there.

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Sunny Kumar probably has a point. The thread initiator's titling of the thread gives the impression expressed by Sri Sunnyji.

 

But unfortunately the questions in the initiating post were different from the title. the first of them was on why male not female that lead to all the long discussion on the status of women, a line in Ramcharitmanas related to that etc.

 

The second question on Sugar cane and Pumpkin is already answered in the first few threads of the post itself. 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Yes. The initial question was dubious in itself.

 I have got two questions.
 1.In performing animal or human sacrifice in Indian tradition why we choose only male not female.

1. The above question takes it granted that animal and human sacrifice was there in our tradition,

which was not acceptable to all the members, firstly that we had such a tradition.

Hence all the responses were centered in disproving the concept of animal sacrifice and human sacrifice leaving aside the second part of the question.

Then someone emphasized on the second part of the question, why we chose only male and not female, and focused the question taking the question on gender discrimination (even in killing, only males were preferred to female animals) and started quoting for the gender discrimination and male domination, leaving apart the first part.

Then as a counter movement, the members started to show from the quotations, that there was no gender discrimination and no male domination. which turned out to be the status of women in general in literature. Postings to and from lead the rest of the thread.

The pity is that no body realized that the condition was common in an age which we could find any justification today within our knowledge and society. The social conditions differ from ages to ages. Literature has a wide domain than our society, and the context in the text decides the purpose of the quotations than a generalized statement to support our proposal.

I don't know whether the original question "why male species of animals were sacrificed and not female. The possible answers we can summarize from the postings, "there was no animal and human sacrifice" and hence the question does not arise. The other answer floated was "it was due to gender discrimination and male domination" without realizing the folly of gender discrimination and male domination in the question of animal sacrifice.

So the thread became cumbersome on the whole. Better we can consider the thread closed as no more points would find a solution for the original question, than making the thread worse.

With regards

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I am in agreement with Dr. Bhat this thread is closed.............. Thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I agree that the thread has reached a stage deserving closure.

 

But a few corrections before we call it a day for the thread:

 

1. 'dubious' is too strong a word for the context.

 

2. That there was and is animal sacrifice in Vedic, folk and Tantric rituals was not denied by the contributors to the thread. But whether the animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals was accepted as based on the right understanding of the Vedic texts or not was, as always debated in this thread too. That many Aacharyas of the Vedic tradition considered the practice to be based on a wrong understanding was brought into the discussion.

 

3. Whether there really existed human sacrifice or not has been under debate. Many expressed an opinion that it did not exist.

 

4. AadaraNIya Korada Subrahmanyamji and others clarified that male female distinction in Vedic context of animal sacrifice is a non-issue.

 

5. Though it was a deviation, not completely unconnected though, there was a good discussion on the status of woman in Indian tradition.

 

But in any case the thread seems to have no reason to continue.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Nagaraj

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thanks for your final comments

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Ajitji,

If  permitted I wanted to add one point. That is, Bhishma said in the Shanti parva in Mahabharata that animal sacrifice was introduced in Yajnas by Dhoortas.

Regards,