~~ Bhagavad-gita (9.32) — pāpa-yonayaḥ an adjective or a separate category? ~~

[Hari Parshad Das]

~~ śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ ~~

dear vidvaj-janas,

pranamas.

There is a question which pops up while reading commentaries on Bhagavad-gītā 9.32 is as follows:

The various commentators interpret the term pāpa-yonayaḥ in different ways. Some say that the term 'pāpa-yonayaḥ' refers to a separate category besides strī-śūdra-vaiśya (as Sri Sridhar Swami and many other scholars have interpreted) and some others say that the term 'pāpa-yonayaḥ' is an adjective applied to strī-śūdra-vaiśya (as Sri Adi Shankaracharya and many others have interpreted). Sri Abhinavagupta says that pāpa-yonayaḥ refers to a separate category of animals, like Gajendra who got liberation by the Lord's kṛpā.

The question here is — If the interpretation of Sri Adi Shankara is accepted, how can vaiśyas be considered as pāpa-yonī, especially when they are dvijas and are born from anuloma marriage? Although Krishna is the Supreme Lord and beyond varṇāśrama, he too seemingly appeared in the vaiśya caste. How can he call his own caste as a pāpa-yonī?

This question made me think that maybe pāpa-yonī is better to be kept as a separate category, away from the remaining three.

Any thoughts by the vidvānas?

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa.
---------------------------------------------------------------

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य ये’पि स्युः पापयोनयः ।

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्ते’पि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥ गीता 9-32 - व्याख्यानम्

                                                                - विद्वान् हरिपार्षददासः

Let us first take the guidelines useful in commentaries -

1. यत्तदोः नित्यसंबन्धः -  

यत् - तत् (ये - ते), यम् - तम् , यावत् - तावत् , यथा तथा etc are eternally connected both at syntactic and semantic levels.

2. संभवव्यभिचाराभ्यां स्याद्विशेषणमर्थवत् - when a विशेषणम् is added it should satisfy two conditions -

संभवः - if there is no possibility then the विशेषण is rendered unmeaningful -  श्वेतः काकः (in India not Africa) - since there is  no संभव for a श्वेतकाक , the विशेषणम् - ’ श्वेतः ’ is meaningless .

3. व्यभिचारः - if the विशेषणम्  restricts the विशेष्यम् from going beyond then it is okay - नीलः काकः -  काक is always नील only - so the विशेषणम् ’ नील ’ does not restrict काक  from going beyond , i e it is unnecessary , and therefore unmeaningful .

In the present case --

here in the verse - ये’पि स्युः पापयोनयः स्त्रियः वैश्याः ’ तथा ’ शूद्राः ते’पि यान्ति ।

 We can have two kinds of  अन्वय - ये पापयोनयः अपि स्त्रियः, वैश्याः - even if the स्त्रियः and वैश्याः have got पापजन्म - born with पापम् - it means there are स्त्रियः and  वैश्याः without पापम्  also - both the groups are referred to .

Samkaracarya , under कृतात्ययाधिकरणम् (3-1-8) of शारीरकभाष्यम् discusses the issue and quotes छान्दोग्योपनिषत्  (5-10-7) -

ततः कृतात्यये , कृतस्य इष्टादेः कर्मणः फलोपभोगेन उपक्षये सति , सानुशया एवेममवरोहन्ति । केन हेतुना ? दृष्टस्मृतिभ्यामित्यह - तथा हि श्रुतिः सानुशयानाम् अवरोहं दर्शयति -

" तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते रमणीयां योनिमाप्;अद्येरन् ब्राह्मणयोनिं वाक्ष्त्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं वा अथ य इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते कपूयां योनिमापद्येरन् श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा चण्डालयोनिं वा " (छांदोग्योप)

....... स्मृतिरपि  " वर्णा आश्रमाश्च स्वकर्मनिष्ठाः प्रेत्य फलमनुभूय शेषेण विशिष्टजातिकुलरूपायुःश्रुतवित्तसुखमेधसो जन्म प्रतिपद्यन्ते " (गौतमधर्मसूत्रम् 2-2-29)

रमणीयचरणाः = पुण्यात्मानः ; कपूयचरणाः = पापात्मानः

Elsewhere also Samkara says - 

जन्तूनां नरजन्म दुर्लभमतः पुंस्त्वं ततो विप्रता ..

So if it is taken that already स्त्रियः and वैस्याः are born as such due to their पापकर्म ( and not as ब्राह्मण and क्षत्रिय - in the next verse) - then there is व्यभिचार  to the विशेषणम् - ’ पापयोनयः ’ - result is पापयोनयः is separate .

On the other hand , if it is taken that - those already born have committed some पापम् and as such they are not eligible , but even they (ते’पि) are eligible (no व्यभिचारदोष)  - needless to say that those without पापम् are eligible - result is पापयोनयः is not separate.

There is another twist to this - there is free word order in Sanskrit-

संस्कृत्य संस्कृत्य पदानि उत्सृज्यन्ते । तत्र यथायथम् अभिसंबन्धः भवति - आहर पात्रम् पात्रम् आहर इति (महाभाष्यम् , वृद्धिरादैच्, 1-1-1)

 In that case what about ' तथा ’ ?

It can be -  ये’पि स्युः पापयोनयः तथा स्त्रियः वैश्याः शूद्राः ते’पि - result is पापयोनयः is separate.

But if it is construed -  ये’पि स्युः पापयोनयः स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः - result is पापयोनयः is not separate .

The fourth point -  ’ स्युः ’ is लिङ् in संभावना - if  some people will be पापयोनयः , ते’पि , तथा स्त्रियः ... - result - पापयोनयः is separate --

not necessarily - it can be --  the स्त्रियः etc may be पापयोनयः , ’ तथा ' is to add शूद्राः and for  meter - result is पपयोनयः is not separate.

Finally , it is difficult to support or refute either commentary .

Then what to do ? 

Go for एकवाक्यता (=एकार्थबोधकत्वम्)  between two verses (32 & 33) --

किं पुनर्ब्राह्मणाः पुण्याः भक्ता राजर्षयस्तथा ।

अनित्यमसुखं लोकमिमं प्राप्य भजस्व माम्॥

हे पार्थ ! ये’पि पपयोनयःस्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः स्युः ते’पि  मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति , किं पुनः पुण्याः भक्ताः ब्राह्मणाः तथा राजर्षयः ? ( तेषां तु कैमुत्यन्यायसिद्धा परा गतिरिति यावत् ) । (तस्मात्) अनित्यम् इमं लोकं प्राप्य माम् भजस्व ।

 

So following वाक्यैकवाक्यता to become a महावाक्यम् - ’पापयोनयः ’ is not separate . 

The commentary of Samkaracarya is right.

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

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

--
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.

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

shrI madhusudana saraswathi in "gUDArthadIpika" mentions an additional word in describing the swa-dharma

of vaiSya as "vaishyAH kruSyAdimAtraratAH" ie., owing to this birth as vaishya, their maximum time is spent in kriSi and gO samrakSaNa due to which they have very little time for vEda adhyayana. 

Since, they are away from "vEda-adhyayayana" and the "sadAchAra", the word "pApa-yOni" has been used which is not to be taken in derogatory sense. 

In the subsequent sloka, shrI madhusudana uses the word "sadAchAri" for brAhmaNa and "sUkSma vastu vivEkinaH" for kSatriya.  However, in the earlier one, He uses "kruSyAdimAtraratAH".  

The conclusion to be taken here is "na vAsudEva bhaktAnAM ashubhaM vidyatE kvachit".

regs,

sriram

[Hari Parshad Das]

~~ śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ ~~

many thanks to Shri Koraḍa-jī for explaining the various intricacies of the verse.

I too found the Chāndogya reference to vaiśya as a puṇya-yonī to be somewhat of a contradiction from this verse of the Bhagavad-gītā.

At the end of your comment, you say:

Go for एकवाक्यता (=एकार्थबोधकत्वम्)  between two verses (32 & 33) --

किं पुनर्ब्राह्मणाः पुण्याः भक्ता राजर्षयस्तथा ।

अनित्यमसुखं लोकमिमं प्राप्य भजस्व माम्॥

हे पार्थ ! ये’पि पापयोनयः स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः स्युः ते’पि  मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति , किं पुनः पुण्याः भक्ताः ब्राह्मणाः तथा राजर्षयः ? ( तेषां तु कैमुत्यन्यायसिद्धा परा गतिरिति यावत् ) । (तस्मात्) अनित्यम् इमं लोकं प्राप्य माम् भजस्व ।

However, if both verses (32 and 33) are considered as eka-vākya, then too there is a possibility that pāpa-yoni may remain a separate category. Please consider the following anvaya of verse 32 and 33 combined:

Anvaya: he pārtha! ye 'pi pāpa-yonayaḥ (varṇāśrama-bāhyāḥ kirāṭa, huna, pulindādayaḥ) te 'pi māṁ vyapāśritya parāṁ gatiṁ yānti. kiṁ punaḥ varṇāśramāntargatāḥ puṇyāḥ bhaktāḥ striyaḥ śūdrāḥ vaiśyāḥ rājarśayaḥ tathā brāhmaṇāḥ? (te tu avaśyam eva prāpnuvanti). puṇya-yone 'rjuna! tasmāt anityam imaṁ lokaṁ prāpya bhajasva mām.

In this anvaya, pāpa-yoni remains separate. However, this anvaya is only possible when vākyaikya is followed. If the vākyaikya is broken, this anvaya will not be applicable.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa.
---------------------------------------------------------------

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/197F3iCCbdY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 2:22:13 PM UTC+5:30, Hari Parshad Das wrote:

Although Krishna is the Supreme Lord and beyond varṇāśrama, he too seemingly appeared in the vaiśya caste. How can he call his own caste as a pāpa-yonī?

Firstly, there is nothing called the “Vaiśya caste.” There is a difference between Varṇa and caste. Secondly, Lord Kṛṣṇa did not appear in a Vaiśya family. Vasudeva and Devakī were both Kṣatriya-s in the Yādava clan, so he appeared in a Kṣatriya family only. He was brought up in a Vaiśya family though as Nanda and Yaśodā were Vaiśya-s.

This question made me think that maybe pāpa-yonī is better to be kept as a separate category, away from the remaining three.

Any thoughts by the vidvānas?

In Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary, the word pāpayonayaḥ is taken with not only Vaiśya-s, but all three – women, Vaiśya-s and Śūdra-s. Here is the full text from The Bhagavadgita with Eleven Commentaries (1936, Gujarati Printing Press, Volume II, p. 194): मां हि यस्मात्पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य मामाश्रयत्वेन गृहीत्वा येऽपि स्युर्भवेयुः पापयोनयः पापा योनिर्येषां ते पापयोनयः पापजन्मानः। के त इत्याह — स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति गच्छन्ति परां गतिं प्रकृष्टां गतिम्॥ Link: https://archive.org/stream/Srimad.Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries.by.Shastri.Gajanana.Shambhu.Sandha/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries#page/n839/mode/1up

Here is the [accurate] English translation of Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary by A. Mahādeva Śāstrī (1901, Mysore, p. 232): For, finding refuge in Me, they also who, O son of Pritha, may be of a sinful birth—women, vaisyas as well as sudras, — even they attain to the Supreme Goal. Link: https://archive.org/stream/bhagavadgitawith00maharich#page/232/mode/1up

Apart from Abhinavagupta and others, in the Advaita tradition itself, some later commentators have differed with Śaṅkarācārya in the Anvaya and interpretation of the term pāpayonayaḥ. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, Śrīdhara Svāmī and Veṅkaṭanātha take the word pāpayonayaḥ separately and interpret it as for Antyaja-s and Tiryak-s (e.g. Niṣāda-s), and not as a qualifier for the three groups of women, Vaiśya-s and Śūdra-s. The subtle difference of opinion expressed by Madhusūdana Sarasvatī and Śrīdhara Svāmī is not lost to the reader. In the Bhāṣyotkarṣadīpikā,  Dhanapati quotes Madhusūdana Sarasvatī's interpretation verbatim and opposes him, defending Śaṅkarācārya’s original Anvaya. Dhanapati claims, without citing any authority, that Vaiśya-s are to be understood as Brāhmaṇa-s or Kṣatriya-s in previous births born as Vaiśya-s in current birth due to sinful Karma:

वैश्या अपि पूर्वजन्मनि ब्राह्मणाः क्षत्रिया वा पापकर्मणा वैश्ययोनिमापन्नाः कृष्यादिरता ग्राह्याः. And further Dhanapati makes the following [debatable and controversial] statement  to defend the Anvaya of Śaṅkarācārya: तथा च स्त्रियादीनां निकृष्टत्वेन पापयोनित्वावश्यकत्वेनेदमेव पापयोनय इति पदं स्त्रियादौ सम्बध्यते. 

For the commentary of Veṅkaṭanātha (Brahmānandagiri), one please refer page 194 ofThe Bhagavadgita with Eleven Commentaries (1936, Gujarati Printing Press, Volume II). Link: https://archive.org/stream/Srimad.Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries.by.Shastri.Gajanana.Shambhu.Sandha/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries#page/n839/mode/1up

For the commentaries of Śrīdhara Svāmī, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī and Dhanapati, please refer pages 439 and 400 of Srimadbhagavadgita with Eight Commentaries (1936, Nirnay Sagar Press). Link: https://archive.org/stream/SrimadBhagavadGita.With.the.Commentaries/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eight.Commentaries#page/n448/mode/1up

[Shrisha Rao]

> El mar 16, 2015, a las 2:34 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> escribió:

> In Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary, the word pāpayonayaḥ is taken with not only Vaiśya-s, but all three – women, Vaiśya-s and Śūdra-s. Here is the full text from The Bhagavadgita with Eleven Commentaries (1936, Gujarati Printing Press, Volume II, p. 194): मां हि यस्मात्पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य मामाश्रयत्वेन गृहीत्वा येऽपि स्युर्भवेयुः पापयोनयः पापा योनिर्येषां ते पापयोनयः पापजन्मानः। के त इत्याह — स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति गच्छन्ति परां गतिं प्रकृष्टां गतिम्॥ Link: https://archive.org/stream/Srimad.Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries.by.Shastri.Gajanana.Shambhu.Sandha/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries#page/n839/mode/1up

I believe that in Madhva’s tradition the पापयोनयः is not meant as a generic adjective to qualify स्त्रियः, etc. For one thing, such a broad condemnation of womenfolk, etc., is hardly sensible. To the extent that the connection is to be made, it is presented as applying where someone obtains a birth lower than natural, as a result of sin (e.g., Yama being born as the śūdra Vidura on account of the curse of the sage Māṇḍavya) — even such a person is emancipated. The explanation of Śrī Rāghavendra, following the lead of Madhva’s citation, is as follows.

मां हीत्यादिना | हे पार्थ पापयोनयः स्वयमुत्तमवर्णा अपि पापहेतुका योनिर्जन्म येषां ते पापयोनयः | ते क इत्यत उक्तं | स्त्रिय इत्यादिना | स्वतः पुमांसोऽपि पापात्सुद्युम्नस्येलात्वमिव स्त्रीत्वं प्राप्ता ये च स्वतो ब्राह्मणादिरपि पापाद्वैश्यादिहीनवर्णतां प्राप्ताः शूद्रत्वं वा प्राप्ताः मामाश्रित्य स्युः वर्तेरन् | मयि भक्तिमन्तो भवेयुः तेऽपि परां गतिं यान्ति ||९.३२||

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य ये’पि स्युः पापयोनयः ।

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्ते’पि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥ 

किं पुनर्ब्राह्मणाः पुण्याः भक्ता राजर्षयस्तथा ।

अनित्यमसुखं लोकमिमं प्राप्य भजस्व माम्॥

When I said एकवाक्यता , I was closely following पूर्वमीमांसा --

अर्थैकत्वादेकं वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षं  चेद्विभागे स्यात् - जैमिनिसूत्रम् , 2-1-14-46

The  word पदम् is not inserted deliberately by Jaimini - so that it can be a definition of a वाक्यम् as well as महावाक्यम् -

if a single meaning or purpose is proposed and when separated  if the parts are found to be wanting then that is a  वाक्यम् / महावाक्यम् ।

If the sentence  is split , while there is एकवाक्यता then it will be a दोष (defect) called वक्यभेद --

संभवत्येकवाक्यत्वे वाक्यभेदस्तु नेष्यते (श्लोकवार्तिकम् - प्रत्यक्षसूत्रम् - श्लो 9)

when there is एकवाक्यता one should not split the वाक्यम् ।

This is an important norm accepted and followed in all शास्त्रs .

Just an example from शांकरसूत्रभाष्यम् (3-3-57) -

केचित्त्वत्र समस्तोपासनपक्षं ज्यायांसं प्रतिष्ठाप्य ज्यायस्त्ववचनादेव व्यस्तोपासनापक्षमपि सूत्रकारो’नुमन्यत इति कथयन्ति ।

तदयुक्तम् - एकवाक्यतावगतौ वाक्यभेदकल्पनस्यान्याय्यत्वात् ।

I quoted this simply to show that while deciding the meaning of a sentence एकवाक्यता is taken as a ' final blow' , i e there is no room for further discussion.

Such instances are there in all शास्त्रs - ’स्थाने’न्तरतमः ’ is just an example from Panini.

A महावाक्यम् consists of two or more अवान्तरवाक्यs . 

In the present case each verse is an अवान्तरवाक्यम् ।

One cannot connect the words of two verses in a haphazard way and unless the  आकाङ्क्षा  demands we should not change the order of words in each अवान्तरवाक्य ।

One more norm - the शैली (style) of the author also is to be taken into consideration ( Patanjali in महाभाष्यम्  resorts to this in a number of places while deciding the वाक्यार्थ ।

In the present case --

वेदव्यास  in the second verse (also) prefixes विशेषणे --

पुण्याः भक्ताः ब्राह्मणाः तथा राजर्षयः

If पापयोनयः is to be taken separately  then the same process is to be applied here also -

1.पुण्याः 2. भक्ताः 3. ब्राह्मणाः तथा राजर्षयः 

Technically this is called - विनिगमकाभावात् ( = एकपक्षसाधकयुक्तेः अभावात् - there is no any logic to support either , i e both are the same.

One more point - ’ स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः ’ is in between ये’पि and  ते’पि । Had  वेदव्यास had in mind  that  पापयोनयः is separate then he would have put 'स्त्रियःetc ' away from the duo of correlatives - ये’पि - ते’पि । 

So one cannot do thus - ये’पि पापयोनयः ते’पि , स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः , i e the order is not to be disturbed .

Any commentator has to follow the norms of पदवाक्यप्रमाणशास्त्राणि ।

I have discussed the the importance of एकवाक्यता in महावाक्यविचारः।

We look at commentaries from the point of शास्त्रप्रामाण्यम् rather than the personality.

So there will be वाक्यभेददोष if पापयोनयः is split from the विशेष्यs - स्त्रियः etc.and taken separately .

The स्त्रियः वैश्याः तथा शूद्राः , even if  they  may be पापयोनयः , they  also get परां गतिम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Prof. Korada has correctly interpreted with the logic of शास्त्रप्रामाण्य, and one can follow his own logic connecting the words as he likes.

But even in the case of one can connect the two verses, there is the simple contrast between the two verses by the expressions, applicable to both separately, पापयोनयः applicable to the first half only and in contrast with पुण्याः, and I could not understand why Mr. Haridas failed to noticed this.

It can be applicable to पुण्या राजर्षयः, ब्राह्मणाः,  who were born as the result of the accrued पुण्य, in contrast with पापयोनयः listed in the first verse who had their present birth due to the accrued पाप. This is called the एकवाक्यता, in शास्त्र-s. The simple translation will be when the पापयोनि-sand पुण्याः will take the same cannotation than condemning the caste or वर्ण specifically. So When those who are born as  the result of their accrued पाप, (like स्रियः etc.) are also eligible to get the final salvation, what to say about those पुण्ययोनि-s like ब्राह्मण, राजर्षि etc. will get the salvation?

This is the common logic by the structure and the relation of the two sentences. We need not to create a class among them as पापयोनि-s and पुण्ययोनि-s separately, considering these these two adjectives (applicable to all the nouns listed in both the verses) without any specific purpose for it. One connect as one likes and make a chaos from the verse.

I think this is what Prof. Korada wanted to convey in short.

[V Subrahmanian]

2015-03-16 1:11 GMT+05:30 Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>:

~~ śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ ~~

Anvaya: he pārtha! ye 'pi pāpa-yonayaḥ (varṇāśrama-bāhyāḥ kirāṭa, huna, pulindādayaḥ)

Namaste

Is it possible to exclude stryaḥ completely from the above class of people?  For instance, there is a twin-verse cited by Swami Vidyāraṇya in the Jīvanmukti viveka - vāsanākṣayaprakaraṇam, from the Laghu Yoga Vāsiṣṭha 19.16,17 (incidentally, I found these verses in the Nāradaparivrājakopaniṣat on a google search (not giving the URL):


सा कालपुत्रपदवी सा माहावीचिवागुरा।
सासिपत्रवनश्रेणी या देहेऽहमिति स्थितिः॥४९॥

सा त्याज्या सर्वयत्नेन सर्वनाशेऽप्युपस्थिते।
स्प्रष्टव्या सा न भव्येन सश्वमांसेव पुल्कसी॥५०॥

And another verse stated as ’भगवान्  शेष आह -
तीर्थे श्वपचगृहे वा नष्टस्मृतिरपि परित्यजन्देहम्.
ज्ञानसमकालमुक्तः कैवल्यं याति हतशोकः ।।८०।।

The above verse is also found in other texts, on a google search: paramārthasāram.

So, in the class of pāpayoni-s listed above (where the women were excluded and read along with vaishyas, etc.)  the possibility of the feminine gender cannot be ruled out.  In the absence of that gender there cannot be those groups thriving.  Thus, one who objects to the inclusion of women in the pāpa yoni category of the BG 9.32  cannot avoid objecting to their presence in the groups mentioned above.

Just as Shankara, Sri Raghavendra Tirtha’s vivṛti too uses the ‘के ते?’ and includes all the categories listed in the verse: strī, vaiśya and śūdra under the ‘pāpayonayaḥ’.            

 As stated above, there is no such avoidance needed or else the Lord would not have even mentioned those categories along with the qualifier, as shown by the Dhanapati Suri’s commentary. In fact, Sri Raghavendra Tirtha explicitly equates these category people with pāpayonis.

The purport of the BG 9.32 and 33 as per all the three bhāṣya-s waters down to saying: निकृष्टत्वं पापनिबन्धनम्, उत्कृष्टत्वं पुण्यहेतुकम् (as pointed out by Dhanapati sūri).  In fact the ‘vivṛti’ by Sri Raghavendra Tirtha (9.30) holds that the verses in consideration are a ‘bhakta praśamsā’ (a eulogy of devotees) kriyate api-chedityādinā (from the verse 9.30 onwards).  He continues in 9.32: bhaktermahimānamāha mām hītyādinā – The Lord is giving out the greatness of the devotee by the words ‘He indeed…’. And the commentator gives the definition of pāpayoniḥ as ‘svayamuttamavarṇāḥ api pāpahetukam janma yeṣām te’ (‘Even though they are of higher caste, their birth is due to sin’).   He also says: ‘pāpādvaiśyādihīnavarṇatām’…(‘vaiśya etc. low caste caused by pāpa). This is not any different from Shankara  पापजन्मानस्तेऽपि. So, the recognition of these births as ‘lowly’ and as caused by sin is a common factor across the bhāṣyas.

The Br.up. says: पुण्यो वै पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति पापः पापेनेति । ततो ह जारत्कारव आर्तभाग उपरराम ॥ ३,२.१३ ॥

[(Therefore) one indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work.]

 

In the bhāṣyam Shankara says:

 

कर्म हैव आश्रयं पुनःपुनःकार्यकरणोपादानहेतुम् (body-mind-organs complex) तत् तत्र ऊचतुः उक्तवन्तौ — न केवलम् ; कालकर्मदैवेश्वरेष्वभ्युपगतेषु हेतुषु यत्प्रशशंसतुस्तौ, कर्म हैव तत्प्रशशंसतुः — यस्मान्निर्धारितमेतत् कर्मप्रयुक्तं ग्रहातिग्रहादिकार्यकरणोपादानं पुनः पुनः, तस्मात् पुण्यो वै शास्त्रविहितेन पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति, तद्विपरीतेन विपरीतो भवति पापः पापेन —

 

[There they mentioned .only work as the support which caused the repeated taking' of the body and organs. Not only this; having accepted time, work, destiny and God as causes, what they praised there was also only work. Since it is decided that the repeated taking of the body and organs, known also as the Gra,as and Atigrahas, is due to work, therefore one indeed becomes good through good work enjoined by the scriptures, and becomes its opposite, evil, through the opposite or evil work.]

 

The Upaniṣad itself calls the one who is endowed with ‘pāpam’ as ‘pāpaḥ’ (in the masculine, while pāpam = sin, is neuter), and one with ‘puṇyam’ as ‘puṇyaḥ’.  We can see this usage in the BG 9.33 too ‘puṇyāḥ’ in the plural to qualify the brāḥmaṇas, etc.

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

There is a difference between how the great Madhvacharya looked at things and how the Great Shankaracharya looked at things. Both are right from their own perspectives.

It is quite alright for the former and his followers to think that yonirjanma is paapa-hetuka. In that sense only an ajonijaa-birth alone will belong to nispaapajyoni. However, for Adi Shankaracharya  the above thinking may be similar at the Vyavahaarika level, yet at the Paramaarthika level all the Jivas are akin to the fallen ones and one can rise above it only after attaining the samyak-jnaana (i.e. after the realization of "Aham Bhamasmi")   and thus getting out of the cycle of birth and death  altogether. As regards the "Stree-janma" one should remember what the Great Kapil-muni taught to his mother. The soul has no gender and a man can take birth as woman or a woman can take birth  as man, depending on their attitude to each other. Spiritual progress is all about attaining the samyak-jnaana.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Raghavendra]

This is astounding. There cannot be manifoldness at the paaramaarthika level and thus it doesn’t stand to philosophical scrutiny that “all the jeevas are akin to fallen ones” strictly from Shankar’s standpoint.

The biggest problem one faces with respect to Shankar’s philosophy is switching between these two levels. Agree upon something at the vyaavahaarika level and then take up diametrically opposite view at the paaramaarthika level. The ease with which it is done [switching between the levels] is amazing.

‘Sookshma sharira’ is not gender-less is what I have heard. Here what puzzles one is that gender-less soul coming in to being either as male or female. This is like saying neem tree giving out mango and vice-a- versa. Here the ‘seed’ either of the neem or mango considered as gender-less soul.

thank you and best regards / Raghu

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:34:53 +0530 sunil bhattacharjya wrote

>Dear friends,

There is a difference between how the great Madhvacharya looked at things and how the Great Shankaracharya looked at things. Both are right from their own perspectives.

It is quite alright for the former and his followers to think that yonirjanma is paapa-hetuka. In that sense only an ajonijaa-birth alone will belong to nispaapajyoni. However, for Adi Shankaracharya  the above thinking may be similar at the Vyavahaarika level, yet at the Paramaarthika level all the Jivas are akin to the fallen ones and one can rise above it only after attaining the samyak-jnaana (i.e. after the realization of "Aham Bhamasmi")   and thus getting out of the cycle of birth and death  altogether. As regards the "Stree-janma" one should remember what the Great Kapil-muni taught to his mother. The soul has no gender and a man can take birth as woman or a woman can take birth  as man, depending on their attitude to each other. Spiritual progress is all about attaining the samyak-jnaana.

Regards,
Sunil KB

2015-03-16 2:34 GMT-07:00 Shrisha Rao :

> El mar 16, 2015, a las 2:34 PM, Nityanand Misra escribió:



> In Śrī Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary, the word pāpayonayaḥ is taken with not only Vaiśya-s, but all three – women, Vaiśya-s and Śūdra-s. Here is the full text from The Bhagavadgita with Eleven Commentaries (1936, Gujarati Printing Press, Volume II, p. 194): मां हि यस्मात्पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य मामाश्रयत्वेन गृहीत्वा येऽपि स्युर्भवेयुः पापयोनयः पापा योनिर्येषां ते पापयोनयः पापजन्मानः। के त इत्याह — स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति गच्छन्ति परां गतिं प्रकृष्टां गतिम्॥ Link: https://archive.org/stream/Srimad.Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries.by.Shastri.Gajanana.Shambhu.Sandha/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita.with.Eleven.Commentaries#page/n839/mode/1up



I believe that in Madhva’s tradition the पापयोनयः is not meant as a generic adjective to qualify स्त्रियः, etc.  For one thing, such a broad condemnation of womenfolk, etc., is hardly sensible.  To the extent that the connection is to be made, it is presented as applying where someone obtains a birth lower than natural, as a result of sin (e.g., Yama being born as the śūdra Vidura on account of the curse of the sage Māṇḍavya) — even such a person is emancipated.  The explanation of Śrī Rāghavendra, following the lead of Madhva’s citation, is as follows.



मां हीत्यादिना | हे पार्थ पापयोनयः स्वयमुत्तमवर्णा अपि पापहेतुका योनिर्जन्म येषां ते पापयोनयः | ते क इत्यत उक्तं | स्त्रिय इत्यादिना | स्वतः पुमांसोऽपि पापात्सुद्युम्नस्येलात्वमिव         स्त्रीत्वं प्राप्ता ये च स्वतो ब्राह्मणादिरपि पापाद्वैश्यादिहीनवर्णतां प्राप्ताः शूद्रत्वं वा प्राप्ताः मामाश्रित्य स्युः वर्तेरन् | मयि भक्तिमन्तो भवेयुः तेऽपि परां गतिं यान्ति ||९.३२||



Regards,



Shrisha Rao



> Apart from Abhinavagupta and others, in the Advaita tradition itself, some later commentators have differed with Śaṅkarācārya in the Anvaya and interpretation of the term pāpayonayaḥ. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, Śrīdhara Svāmī and Veṅkaṭanātha take the word pāpayonayaḥ separately and interpret it as for Antyaja-s and Tiryak-s (e.g. Niṣāda-s), and not as a qualifier for the three groups of women, Vaiśya-s and Śūdra-s. The subtle difference of opinion expressed by



--

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.






--
>
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.
>

Thanks and regards,
B. Raghavendra Vishvamitra
Bangalore

Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.

Know More >

[Hnbhat B.R.]

In my opinion these opinions are childish arguments and without deep study or even comparative study of different schools as a research scholar is expected before passing his opinions. And mixing things one has heard as testimony is dangerous.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Raghavendra <rv...@rediffmail.com> wrote:

‘Sookshma sharira’ is not gender-less is what I have heard. Here what puzzles one is that gender-less soul coming in to being either as male or female. This is like saying neem tree giving out mango and vice-a- versa. Here the ‘seed’ either of the neem or mango considered as gender-less soul.

In deference to Sri H.N.Bhat ji's latest post, I am limiting my response to just a few points, including the one above:

For Advaitins the svabhāva of the jiva has no gender whatsoever as per the Shvetashvataropaniṣad 5.10:

 

The jīva is neither feminine nor masculine nor the third gender.  Whichever body it takes it assumes that gender.

Bhāṣyam

Being of the nature of the non-dual, secondless Brahman-Atman that is the innermost Self, the jīva is neither feminine nor masculine nor of the third gender. Whichever body it assumes, it takes upon itself, due to wrong identification, the gender of the body which expresses itself as ‘I am stout, lean, man, woman, third-gender’.  

Here is a quote from a contemporary author's book, cited in a discussion group:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MadhwaYuvaParishat/conversations/topics/7401

 

Quote

 

Message 16 of 20 , Apr 3, 2009

 

//According to Prof. SK Bhavani, this verse was historically reflecting the prevalent views when the Gita was composed.

 

I quote him here - (page 313, The Bhagavad Gita and its classical commentaries) "All the same, one finds women, Vaishyas and Shudras spoken of in the text as 'of sinful birth' - pApayonayaH - as distinguished from Brahmins and devoted royal sages who are called puNyAH - of holy birth. Such discrimination is bound to offend the susceptibilities of modern commentators and exponents of the Gita. But it must be remembered that the Gita is reflecting the views prevalent at the time of its composition and that it cannot be expected to have set them at defiance. It has of course made all possible attempts within the framework of ancient tradition to liberalise the outlook as far as possible, without advocating an open break from the traditional beliefs like Buddhism and Jainism. We should therefore understand the limitations of the Gita in this respect and not expect too much of modernism from it."//

 

Unquote

Prof. Bhavani, I think, is the son of late Dr.B.N.K.Sharma, who has authored a number of books on Dvaita Vedanta in English.

regards

subrahmanian.v 

 

 

thank you and best regards / Raghu

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. jeeva is not the same as sookshma s'areera.

 

2. The two s'lokas under discussion are not connected to these ideas of jeeva or sookshma s'areera.

 

3. Simply because S'ankara's words are being discussed, the advaitic concepts of vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika sattaas need not be brought for discussion every time.

 

4. S'ankara's words in his commentary on 9-32, 9-33 are not necessarily connected essentially to his advaitic stance.

 

5. The two verses 9-32, 9-33 are about the benefit of bhagavadaas'raya and bhagavadbhajana. In fact 9-32 is saying all kinds of humans (manushyas) are eligible for paraa gati . No human (manushya) is ineligible for the 'ultimate gati' (moksha).

 

6. S'ankara in his commentary on 9-33 is talking about पुरुषार्थसाधनं दुर्लभं मनुष्यत्वम् , मनुष्यत्वम् in general. Arjuna is neither a Brahmana nor a Rajarshi. He is a manushya. S'ankara's commentary on 9-33 is talking about that manushyatva.

 

7. Taatparya of 9-32 and 9-33 together is to motivate all manushyas towards bhagavadaas'raya and bhagavadbhajana by telling that it helps all humans to get paraam gati irrespective of their pre-birth puNya or paapa.

 

8. All the remaining analysis of who are paapayonis doesn't alter this taatparya.   

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

paraa gati  not paraam gati in #7 of my previous post.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:34:16 PM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Also to be noted here is Śrī Rāmānuja’s commentary which seemingly takes pāpayonayaḥ different from striyaḥ, etc. Although the Tātparyacandrikā explains otherwise, several published translations of Śrī Rāmānuja’s commentary take pāpayonayaḥ different from striyaḥ, etc.

Original commentary of Śrī Rāmānuja: स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्राश्च पापयोनयोऽपि मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति ...

Hindi translation by Harikṛṣṇadāsa Goyandakā (1954): स्त्रियाँ, वैश्य, शूद्र, और पापयोनि वाले जीव भी मेरी शरण लेकर परम गति को प्राप्त हो जाते हैं।

Reference: Harikṛṣṇadāsa Goyandakā (1954). Śrīmadbhagavadgītā Śrīrāmānujabhāṣya Hindī Anuvāda Sahita. Gorakhpur: Gita Press. p. 313. Link.

English translation by Swami Adidevananda (1999): Women, Vaisyas and Sudras, and even those who are of sinful birth, can attain the supreme state by taking refuge in Me.

Reference: Swami Adidevananda (1999). Śrī Rāmānuja Gītā Bhāṣya: with text and English translation. Chennai: Ramakrishna Math. ISBN 978-81-782-3290-4.

English translation by Śrī Rāma Rāmānuja Ācārī (2013): By taking refuge in Me even those of unfavourable birth, women, vaiśyas and also śūdras attain the supreme state.

Reference: Śrī Rāma Rāmānuja Ācārī (2013). Śrīmad Bhagavad Gītā with Gītā Bhāṣya of Bhagavad Rāmānujācārya. Srimatham website. p. 117. Link.

Śrī Vallabhācārya’s commentary also takes pāpayonayaḥ different from striyaḥ, etc. As per his commentary,  pāpayonayaḥ stands for the likes of putanā, hūṇa-s, yavana-s śabara-s, pulinda-s etc, while striyaḥ indicates vrajavanitā-s.

Please also note that a change in order (Anvayabheda) is not the same as splitting of a sentence (Vākyabheda). The two are independent of each other. Śrī Rāmānuja's commentary has a change in order but still has a change in order and yet no splitting of sentence. 

स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्राश्च पापयोनयोऽपि मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति किं पुनः पुण्ययोनयो ब्राह्मणा राजर्षयश्च मद्भक्तिमास्थिताः।

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please also note that a change in order (Anvayabheda) is not the same as splitting of a sentence (Vākyabheda). The two are independent of each other. Śrī Rāmānuja's commentary has a change in order but still has a change in order and yet no splitting of sentence. 

स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्राश्च पापयोनयोऽपि मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति किं पुनः पुण्ययोनयो ब्राह्मणा राजर्षयश्च मद्भक्तिमास्थिताः।

The above also doesn't separate पापयोनयः from the remaining, as adjectives could follow or precede the nouns they are applied. Only the other possibility is 

स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्रा पापयोनयश्चापि would mean women, vaishya, shudra and also पापयोनि-s. There is two conjuncts च and अपि and placing them may change the meaning as a whole. Otherwise, it doesn't change as quoted in the commentaries above.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 9:55:04 AM UTC+5:30, hnbhat wrote:

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please also note that a change in order (Anvayabheda) is not the same as splitting of a sentence (Vākyabheda). The two are independent of each other. Śrī Rāmānuja's commentary has a change in order but still has a change in order and yet no splitting of sentence. 

स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्राश्च पापयोनयोऽपि मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति किं पुनः पुण्ययोनयो ब्राह्मणा राजर्षयश्च मद्भक्तिमास्थिताः।

The above also doesn't separate पापयोनयः from the remaining, as adjectives could follow or precede the nouns they are applied. 

Debatable (hence i used the word seemingly in my first sentence). Please read my post again - I have cited three published translations in support of the separate Anvaya. 

[Hari Parshad Das]

dear vidvaj-janas,

my pranamas again.

i am a little concerned to see that the topic is slowly drifting towards a discussion on whether stri are included in pApa-yoni or not. This was not the original intention of my post.

The intention of my post was to figure out reasons for including vaiśyas into pApa-yoni.

Nityananda ji, you correctly said that Krishna was born of Devaki and vasudeva, but there is also a parallel understanding that Krishna is nanda-nandana and was born from the womb of Yashoda, whereas four handed Vāsudeva form was born of devaki and vasudeva. This is the understanding of the Vrindavan acharyas. When Vasudev bought Krishna to Gokula, four armed Vāsudeva merged with the two armed krishna (who was born from Yashoda). When krishna left Vrindavan, the vāsudeva expansion left Vrindavan, but not nanda-nandana krishna. Sri Jiva Goswami gives various pramāṇas for this by quoting Krishna's words — 'vrindāvanaṁ parityajya padam ekaṁ na gacchati'.

In defense of what you said, it can be argued that the speaker of Bhagavad-gītā was not nanda-nandana krishna but vāsudeva-krishna. Even if that is the case, still there seems to be no reason for saying that vaiśya is pāpa-yoni.

I would request everyone to kindly see some questions and answers on this topic compiled by Gita-press. I found them yesterday while researching this topic. I have attached them to this reply.

Also, some commentators like Sri Madhusudan Saraswati have said that vaiśyas are pāpa-yoni because they are engaged only in agriculture (kṛṣyādi). Now 'kṛṣi-go-rakṣa-vāṇijyam' is vaiśya-karma-svabhāvaja according to the Bhagavad-gītā. How can the vaiśya-sva-dharma of kṛṣi, go-rakṣā and suitable vāṇijya become a cause of pāpa? That is what i find to be not so convincing. The arguments given by Gita-press for keeping pāpa-yonī as a separate category however, I find more appealing.

I would request sincerely the members to kindly discuss from the point of view of vaiśyas only and not strī. If someone wants to discuss the aspect of strī-jāti, I would request that it be done in a separate topic.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa

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

--
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/197F3iCCbdY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also to be noted is that the word 'pāpayonayaḥ' does not guarantee that there are no stri-s in it.  There is no rule that only men can be pāpayonis. It is definitely possible that this group contains women too.  So, the effort to not bring in the common class of women into the group / adjective  pāpayoni-s will not succeed.  Hence, one can always object that women are included in the group of pāpayonis in whichever way the words in the verse are arranged.

The śrīmadbhāgavatam has this verse:

दैतेया  यक्षरक्षांसि   स्त्रियः  शूद्रा    व्रजौकसः ।

खगा मृगाः पापजीवाः सन्ति ह्यच्युततां गताः ॥ 7.7.54

The verse groups all the different classes enumerated as ‘pāpajīvāḥ’ which is only another expression for ‘pāpayonayaḥ’ of the BG 9.32. The inclusion of women, shūdras and the people of vraja in the group is noteworthy.  Even if one would like to say the ‘pāpajīvāḥ’ is a class by itself, the grouping of women, etc. along with these, to the exclusion of brahmanas, kshatriyas and vaishyas, is significant that all these entities listed are admitted to be devoid of means for spiritual sāḍhana in their natural lives but owing to their special effort have risen to the high state of immortality, the state of achyuta. 

This paper

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8yg0RqhtzOMZkhIMnpMdXZKa2c/edit

makes the following objection:

// In both cases (Ramanuja and Shankara), there is no clue how to avoid equating those category people and pāpayonis. //

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

subrahmanian.v

    

--
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.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I would request sincerely the members to kindly discuss from the point of view of vaiśyas only and not strī. If someone wants to discuss the aspect of strī-jāti, I would request that it be done in a separate topic.

What is your interest in excluding or including वैश्य-s only among those listed in  the verse?

The question is the same, whether पापयोनयः is to be related with each of the members in the list or taken as a separate group in addition to स्त्री etc. If it is to be related with each of the members, it could not be done with any one of the group, but to all the members of the group or not related, it has to be taken as a separate class, not included in the list. The crux of the problem lies in this and not only with वैश्य.

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would request sincerely the members to kindly discuss from the point of view of vaiśyas only and not strī. If someone wants to discuss the aspect of strī-jāti, I would request that it be done in a separate topic.

What is your interest in excluding or including वैश्य-s only among those listed in  the verse?

>> If the discussion starts focusing on stri-jāti, eventually shastric quotes for/against women's eligibility will be bought up, and this may spoil the taste of the discussion. I do believe that such a discussion will be non-ending, and nobody will be able to reach a all-agreeable conclusion on the topic of stri-jāti. Therefore, I want to suggest that the context be limited to discussing 'vaiśya-jāti' only, because the chances of reaching an all-agreeable conclusion is greater in that case (in my opinion).

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo' bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa
---------------------------------------------

 

The question is the same, whether पापयोनयः is to be related with each of the members in the list or taken as a separate group in addition to स्त्री etc. If it is to be related with each of the members, it could not be done with any one of the group, but to all the members of the group or not related, it has to be taken as a separate class, not included in the list. The crux of the problem lies in this and not only with वैश्य.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

dear vidvaj-janas,

my pranamas again.

Also, some commentators like Sri Madhusudan Saraswati have said that vaiśyas are pāpa-yoni because they are engaged only in agriculture (kṛṣyādi). Now 'kṛṣi-go-rakṣa-vāṇijyam' is vaiśya-karma-svabhāvaja according to the Bhagavad-gītā. How can the vaiśya-sva-dharma of kṛṣi, go-rakṣā and suitable vāṇijya become a cause of pāpa?

Namaste

I think the idea conveyed in the above commentary is: the vaiśya dharma is not a cause of pāpa but an effect of earlier pāpa in a non-vaiśya janma.  The purport of all this is: when one is in a janma that confers a very high opportunity to do sādhana but does not utilize it, implying that he engages in pāpa, he is born in a lower janma where the earlier-janma possibility for sādhana is not available.  That is the effect of the papa done in the earlier higher janma.  Therefore in the stated vaiśya janma the need to be very much engaged in kṛṣi, etc. and therefore not enough time for spiritual study, mananam, etc. is reduced to that extent compared to an earlier higher-janma. 

Despite all this, the Lord has also stated that स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः ।  The greatness of those enumerated in the 9.32 is that they have, despite their natural  disadvantage have put in extraordinary efforts and attained the supreme.  That is evident from the next verse 'kim punarbrāhmaṇāḥ.... One can also recall the 'api chet sudurācāro bhajate mām ananyabhāk sādhureva sa mantavyaḥ, samyagvyavasito his saḥ. of the BG which also brings out the greatness of extraordinary effort despite adverse circumstances. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

 
 

That is what i find to be not so convincing. The arguments given by Gita-press for keeping pāpa-yonī as a separate category however, I find more appealing.

I would request sincerely the members to kindly discuss from the point of view of vaiśyas only and not strī. If someone wants to discuss the aspect of strī-jāti, I would request that it be done in a separate topic.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari pārṣada dāsa

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

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please also note that a change in order (Anvayabheda) is not the same as splitting of a sentence (Vākyabheda). The two are independent of each other. Śrī Rāmānuja's commentary has a change in order but still has a change in order and yet no splitting of sentence. 

स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्राश्च पापयोनयोऽपि मां व्यपाश्रित्य परां गतिं यान्ति किं पुनः पुण्ययोनयो ब्राह्मणा राजर्षयश्च मद्भक्तिमास्थिताः।

The above also doesn't separate पापयोनयः from the remaining, as adjectives could follow or precede the nouns they are applied. Only the other possibility is 

स्त्रियो वैश्याः शूद्रा पापयोनयश्चापि would mean women, vaishya, shudra and also पापयोनि-s. There is two conjuncts च and अपि and placing them may change the meaning as a whole. Otherwise, it doesn't change as quoted in the commentaries above.

--
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/197F3iCCbdY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.

--
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.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:38:46 AM UTC+5:30, V Subrahmanian wrote:

The śrīmadbhāgavatam has this verse:

दैतेया  यक्षरक्षांसि   स्त्रियः  शूद्रा    व्रजौकसः ।

खगा मृगाः पापजीवाः सन्ति ह्यच्युततां गताः ॥ 7.7.54

The verse groups all the different classes enumerated as ‘pāpajīvāḥ’ which is only another expression for ‘pāpayonayaḥ’ of the BG 9.32. The inclusion of women, shūdras and the people of vraja in the group is noteworthy. 

Whose interpretation is the above? Please see the commentaries

https://archive.org/stream/SrimadBhagavatamCanto07withMultipleSanskritCommentaries/sb_canto_07#page/n249/mode/1up

दैतेया यक्षरक्षांसि स्त्रियः शूद्रा व्रजौकसः खगा मृगाः पापजीवा ह्यच्युततां गताः सन्ति  is how almost all commentators have taken it.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Even the Yashoda-nandan (in reality the foster son of Yashoda)  Krishna had shown his four hands, when the need arose.  While marrying Lakshmanaa,  the Lord transformed to four-handed Krishna to take care of his newly-wedded wife with two hands and to fight the enemies with the other two hands. So there is no doubt that there was only one Krishna.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:58 PM

, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

[V Subrahmanian]

One commentator includes the entire list as 'pāpajīvāḥ': on. p.32: भक्त्या दैतेयादयः (आदिपदेन सर्वे समुच्चिताः) पापजीवाः अपि ....अमृतत्वं गताः

Sri Vīrarāghava (Rāmānuja system?) too takes the entire group as 'pāpajātayaḥ' and reiterates them as 'pāpajīvā' api:

Sri Vijayadhvaja Tirtha, of the Madhva sampradāya, too includes the entire list under 'pāpajīvāḥ' as not eligible to vedādhyana, etc.:

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

So there is no doubt that there was only one Krishna.

>> There were certainly more than one Krishnas. The entire chapter 69 of the 10th skanda of Srimad-bhagavatam is dedicated to Sri Narada Muni being struck with wonder on seeing simultaneous multiple Krishnas in multiple residences in Dvaraka.

------

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Though I am reluctant to participate in this digressing discussion, I can't help just saying that Krishna appearing in multiple forms in the mentioned episode is different from the well constructed theory of two Krishnas in Gaudiya Vaishnava and other such systems.

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

In that  sense,I agree that nothing is impossible for the Lord. He can appear to some as two or even many Krishnas and at the same time he appears to me as one and only one Lord Krishna.

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

Can the word ' papa-yoni', be looked at from different perspectives of (a) Ayurveda (b) other texts - of tradition which speaks about 'Varna-bhrmasha and (c ) last and not the least -within Gita context itself ?

Here are some pointers, which may point to clarify the 'negative mode of presenting Gita in global society, especially about denial of opportunities for women in the realm of spiritual final goal and within Indian society, the < profession of a brahmana in non-vaidik domains and places? and 'large section of ' Spirituality practices and goals recommended for non-brahminical population of India. >

The concept of 'papa-yoni' - is also deliberated in Ayurveda works, pointing to body -defects ( male and female - related to reproduction and child births) and hereditary deficiencies. Fits well with the part of word explanation < पापा योनिर्येषां ते पापयोनयः > a pointer to Women of profession, which resonates to Gita -1st chapter <streesu dushtaasu .... varna-sankarah>- One of the feared consequences of war, feared consequences of debauched life style.

Shaunaka's charana-vyuha talks of 'fallen Brahmins' from the 'Dharma Shastra standards (more specifically those disqualified for invitation to take part of Shraaddha offering) are identified as 'aabhira' bhill' and the other categories of society. These seem to fit in to the word explanation < पापयोनयः = पापजन्मानः> - those whose inheritance as Karma/ poorva paripaka / jeeva svabhaava-pravrutti is tainted with ' papa' and who are the seeds who trigger and cause proliferation of 'papas', by engaging in to ' taamasika karma'.

In Gita context itself, if a 'yoga-bhrashta -person 'is assured of birth in a 'shucheenaam shrimataam gehe ' - which in the worldly sense, would be 'a wealthy rich religious environment of family -lineage /parentage = 'Punya-Yoni', then the opposite of this would be ' papa-yoni'. This seems to fit in to the part of the word explanation as < येऽपि स्युर्भवेयुः पापयोनयः > where the stress is on the verb 'bhaveyuh' - <would be the cause of, without any binding on time and place and modality >. The elaboration of this would be < पापयोनयः स्वयमुत्तमवर्णा अपि पापहेतुका योनिर्जन्म येषां ते पापयोनयः > and < Api chet suduracharo bhajate mam-ananyabhak. Sadhureva sa mantavyah samyag-vyavasito hi sah (IX-30)>. And (7-29) < jara-marana-mokshaya mam asritya yatanti ye te brahma tad viduh krtsnam adhyatmam karma cakhilam >.


It seems different Acharyas have endorsed the intent of Gita from different perspectives, without loosing the key message < maam ashritya yatanti> and the assurance of goal as < para gatim>.

Regards
BVK Sastry

--

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.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4311/9337 - Release Date: 03/19/15

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Dear Friends/Scholars,

A very good explanation is given by Shri BVK Sastry.Congrats to him for a new perspective.

Siddharth Y.Wakankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Kindly permit me to add a few lines to qualify the following statement.

Quote

Shaunaka's charana-vyuha talks of  'fallen Brahmins' from the 'Dharma Shastra standards (more specifically those disqualified for invitation to take  part of Shraaddha offering) are  identified as 'aabhira' bhill' and the other categories of society.

Unquote.

Manu also says that the physicians and the astrologers should not be invited to accept the Shraddha offerings. . That does not mean that the professions of the physicians and the astrologers are, by any means, degraded professions. Even among the gods the Ashwini-kumaras were initially denied their share of the offerings, but eventually they did become entitled. Dhanvantari, the god of Ayurveda, himself was an avatara of Lord Vishnu. The reason for not inviting these professionals to the Shraddha was for the simple reason that they had good professional income and only the poor brahmins without such professional income were to be invited to the shraddhas.

Regards,

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Can the word ' papa-yoni', be looked at from different perspectives of (a) Ayurveda (b) other texts - of tradition which speaks about  'Varna-bhrmasha  and (c ) last and not the least -within Gita context itself ?

                                                             -- Vidvan B V K Sastry

Of course , you can .  What  you are doing is elaboration and समन्वय  and it is really nice.

The following  may also help in arriving at the right तात्पर्यम् --

Does  निन्दा mean निन्दा or something else ?

What is the problem ?

Some , nay , most of the commentators simply interpret the निन्दावाक्यानि as having their purport in निन्दा । This is against the standard of वाक्यशास्त्रम् , ie पूर्वमीमांसा ।

कुमारिल  laments at the outset of श्लोकवार्तिकम् --

प्रायेणैव हि मीमांसा लोके लोकायतीकृता (भर्तृमित्रादिभिः इत्यर्थः)

लोके आयतं व्याप्तं लोकायतम् = नास्तिकविद्या (even in अर्थशास्त्रम् it is the same meaning) - भर्तृमित्र etc had brought bad reputation to मीमांसा by their efforts. 

As a result today we do not have at least  a dozen scholars in मीमांसा ।

As has already been stated earlier , one should have the knowledge of the three basic systems - पदवाक्यप्रमाणशास्त्राणि - व्याकरणम् , मीमांसा and न्य़ाय ।

The सिद्धान्त is - any निन्दा would have its तात्पर्यम् into स्तुति of the praiseworthy rather than into निन्दा of the condemned - this is called नहिनिन्दान्याय । 

न्यायशरीरम् and explanation will be given.

If you are commenting / lecturing on रामायणम् , then the रावणनिन्दा , that is there is , to be interpreted  not as  रावणनिन्दा  but  as रामस्तुति ।

A वेद called रामायणम् should not generate any hatred against रावण , rather  generate  भक्ति in राम - रमन्ते अस्मिन् योगिनः ।

Just see योगवासिष्ठम् ।

Similarly , दुर्योधनादिनिन्दा in भारतम्  is to be interpreted  not as दुर्योधनादिनिन्दा but as धर्मराजादिस्तुति for the simple reason that a वेद called भारतम् should not prompt hatred against दुर्योधन etc. rather  generate शान्ति thru धर्मराज etc.

We come across five kinds of sentences in वेद -

विधि - मन्त्र- निषेध- अर्थवाद - नामधेय

विधिवाक्यानि स्वतः प्रमाणानि - विधिवक्यs are independently authoritative .

अर्थवादवाक्यानि are not independently प्रमाणम् , but by getting वाक्यैकवाक्यता with विधिवाक्यानि ।

Any sentence can be put under  two headings - विधि or निषेध (universal).

अर्थवादs are chiefly two kinds - स्तुत्यर्थवाद (commending/ eulogizing ) and निन्दार्थवाद (condemning) .

स्तुत्यर्थवाद s are विधिशेष and निन्दार्थवादs are निषेधशेष - generally .

आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वात् आनर्थक्यम् अतदर्थानाम् (जैमिनिसूत्रम् - अर्थवादाधिकरणम्, 1-2-1-1) - पूर्वपक्षसूत्रम्

वेद ordains कर्मs . Therefore , the sentences , which do not denote any कर्म , (  अर्थवादाः) are unmeaningful.

सिद्धान्तसूत्रम् --

विधिना त्वेकवाक्यत्वात्  स्तुत्यर्थेन विधीनां स्युः (2-1-1-7)

Such अर्थवादवाक्यs get एकवाक्यता with विधिवाक्यs( become विधिशेष )  since they praise the विधि  ( and thus are not unmeaningful)

Here Jaimini does not say anything about निषेधवाक्यs and निन्दार्थवाद --

शबरस्वामी  in his  भाष्यम् clarifies ( नहिनिन्दान्यायशरीरम्)--

"न हि निन्दा निन्द्यं निन्दितुं प्रयुज्यते ! किं तर्हि ? निन्दितादितरत् प्रशंसितुम् । तत्र न निन्दितस्य प्रतिषेधो गम्यते किंत्वितरस्य विधिः" |

निन्दा is not employed to condemn the condemned . Then what for?  To praise the other , i e the commendable . There  the censure of the condemned is not implied , rather the injunction of the other.

So , in the present context , ’पापयोनयः’ should not be taken as निन्दा of स्त्रियः , वैश्याः etc , rather स्तुति of others - that is the तात्पर्यम् ।

’ विषं भुङ्क्ष्व , मा चास्य गृहे भुक्थाः ’ - consume poison , do not have food in this person's house - here one has to take the तात्पर्यम् , ie not having food in that person's house, and not consuming poison ( if it is taken then one would die and the question of having food does not arise at all).

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

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Also, what is considered as puNyaphala or paapaphala also depends on the phalaseeker's/phalaexperiencer's perspective.

 

People talk of Svarga and enjoying the dances by Apsaras as puNyaphala. Does a viraagi consider that as puNyaphala? He doesn't and hence he doesn't get it too.

 

A financially poor Brahmin who is not spiritually oriented may consider his financial poverty as a result of his puraajanmakrta paapa only.

 

A money-oriented home-maker may consider her neighbour's richness as a result of the neighbour's puraajanmakrta puNya and her own relative poverty as a result of her puraajanmakrta paapa only.

 

Bh.G.9-32 and 9-33 are written, as vidwan V. Subrahmanianji has already pointed out, from the perspective of opportunity for saadhana as puNyaphala. That is why ब्राह्मणाः and राजर्षयः are considered पुण्याः. It is from such a perspective that the other births where there is no natural ( vihita in the case of Brahmins vratasiddha in the case of Rajarshis) opportunity for saadhana are being considered as paapayonayah.

 

9-32 says that even such persons with a natural deprivation of opportunity for saadhana through their concerted efforts and endeavour get paraagati. 

 

As Nagaraj earlier and Prof. Korada recently pointed out, the taatparya of 9-32 and 9-33 together is not to enlist, describe, define or condemn paapayonayah, but it is to motivate all manushyas through Arjuna towards an aversion for loka which is anitya and asukha and towards bhagavadaas'raya and bhagavadbhajana with an assurance of paraagati as a reward.  

 

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044