gita 9-32 revived
Mani Varadarajan
I do not wish to enter a long debate on the unique
Dvaita concept of svarUpa-jiva-tAratamya
(intrinsic inequality of individual selves).
While I am convinced that it is a foreign
superimposition on Vedanta, it is very difficult
to argue such a topic over the network. I also
think it will be pointless, as we are each convinced
of the correctness of our positions.
My only purpose in this post is to correct
misinformation about Sri Ramanuja.
Raghunandan writes:
> I only find his reading of Giita 9-32 not consistent
> with his (your) claimed doctrine.
The criticism appears to be that even though Ramanuja
and his school forcefully argue that women and non-brahmins
have an equal right to moksha through bhakti and
SaraNaagati, Ramanuja's direct comments on this verse
do not bear this out.
This conclusion results from a simple misunderstanding of the
position. Let me illustrate. In the Sri Vaishnava tradition,
people who do not know the Veda cannot perform *bhakti-yoga*
as such, since bhakti-yoga requires study of the Veda and
Vedanta, performance of Vedic duties, daily meditation, etc.
In a previous article, I have described how rigorous the
discipline of bhakti-yoga is, how it is different from the
popular notion of bhakti, and how even most of today's Vaidikas
do not have the ability to practice it. Recall that bhakti-yoga
is the same as the meditation described in the Upanishads.
SaraNaagati, on the other hand, constitutes an
alternate means to moksha. The rishi of the Svetasvatara
Upanishad declares, ``Desirous of moksha, I surrender to
You.'' (mumukshur vai SaraNam aham prapadye). Self-surrender
is open to all, constitutes a direct means to moksha,
and requires a discipline of a different sort. Unlike
bhakti-yoga, it does not require knowledge of the Veda,
performance of agnihotra and similar duties, and does not
require a daily dose of deep, dedicated, intense meditation
on the Lord. It does, however, require an intense resolve
that most people are capable of, provided they are willing.
This is complete SaraNaagati -- the aspirant must rely wholly
and completely on the Lord's grace and place the burden
of moksha upon Him. Nearly every work of Vedanta Desika
brings out this point forcefully.
If have not grasped this point, you will misread and
misunderstand the bhashyas.
Raghu continues:
>
> striyo vaishhyaaH shuudraH cha paapayonayaH api maa.n vyapaashritya
> paraa.n gati.n yaanti ||
>
> Translation :-
> (After consulting Vedanta Desika Venkatanatha's commentary on the same
> called taatparyachandrika)
> In this shloka (9-32) the Lord indicates that even if one is of
> sinful birth (like women, vaishyas and shuudras) they can reach him
> if they surrender to him.
This is certainly a valid way of looking at the verse.
The only reason why women, Sudras, and vaisyas are grouped
together is because of their lack of qualification to study
the Veda, which is an accident of birth. Rather than arguing
that they are inherently inferior due to some intrinsic
quality of their jiva, Ramanuja and Desika point out that
these individuals *also* have moksha as their birthright,
as all the need do is to perform SaraNaagati to the Lord!
The verse can also be taken (as other Sri Vaishnavas have)
to say that ``women, vaisyas, sudras, as well as those of
sinful birth (such as animals)'' reach the Lord by surrendering
to Him. We have the classic example of Gajendra aazhvaan,
the elephant who threw up his trunk in complete surrender,
with the Lord rushing to save his devotee, so much so that
He got there ahead of the Sudarsana chakra!
> Women and shuudras have been described because they do not have
> vedaadhikaara. Vaishyas have been described because though they
> have vedaadhikaara they do not have satraadhikaara(namely the right
> to perform yagnas).
So, one may ask, what is Ramanuja's final position? Are
women and the others of sinful birth? If we restrict
the term ``paapa'' to mean that they are disallowed from
studying or reciting the Veda, or performing the Vedic
sacrifice, the traditional usage of ``paapa'' is appropriate.
Notice, however, that this does not mean that they are
in any way considered inherently inferior in terms of their
ability to love God or their status in the community of
devotees. The Vaidika that he is, Ramanuja is maintaining
that even though such people are traditionally and socially
restricted from the Veda, they are in no way restricted from
moksha.
One may say that Ramanuja is fully inline with the spirit
of Krishna's words. While Krishna is not rejecting the notion of
caste, as it was and is a social reality, He undermines the
hierarchical aspect of it, by reasserting the doctrine of
complete self-surrender.
Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.23, 3/11/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
<Raghuna...@genius.tisl.soft.net> wrote:
[*chomp*]
>Giita 9-32 goes thus
>
>maa.n hi paartha vyapaashritya ye.api syuH paapayonayaH |
>striyo vaishyaastathaa shuudraaste.api yaanti paraaM gatim.h || 32 ||
>
>******************************
>Ramanuja Giita Bhashya :
>
>striyo vaishhyaaH shuudraH cha paapayonayaH api maa.n vyapaashritya
>paraa.n gati.n yaanti ||
>
>Translation :-
>(After consulting Vedanta Desika Venkatanatha's commentary on the same
>called taatparyachandrika)
>
> In Gita 9-30 the Lord states that even the most sinful person
>(by virtue of bad deeds) must be regarded as holy if he worships me
>with undivided devotion after having resolved/repented.
> In this shloka (9-32) the Lord indicates that even if one is of
>sinful birth (like women, vaishyas and shuudras) they can reach him
>if they surrender to him.
>
>Women and shuudras have been described because they do not have
>vedaadhikaara. Vaishyas have been described because though they
>have vedaadhikaara they do not have satraadhikaara(namely the right
>to perform yagnas).
Setting aside the question of what Gita IX-32 actually means, one
wonders how the conclusion that women do not have Veda-adhikaara is
reached? Certainly one may argue that because women do not undergo
upanayana, they are not adhikaaris. However, this is not a reflection
upon women, but upon the conditions of the present era when women do
not undergo upanayana, and the operative rule is that those who have
not undergone upanayana are not adhikaaris, not that *women* are not
adhikaaris. Even men who have not had upanayana are not adhikaaris.
If women are not adhikaaris, then how are the numerous instances where
women are referred to in the Vedas themselves as engaging in shaastra
debates on par with men, explained? How is it understood that Shachi,
Maitreyii, etc., could be mantra-drashhTas even though they were not
adhikaaris for the mantras they saw?
Thus, there is error in stating that women are not adhikaaris, and
there is disregard for women as not adhikaaris.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Regards,
>--
>
>H.P.Raghunandan
>hpr...@genius.tisl.soft.net
Shrisha Rao
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
> > [O]ne wonders how the conclusion that women do not have
> > Veda-adhikaara is reached?
>
> This has been the traditional opinion from post-Upanishadic
> times. The restriction is there in the Dharma-Saastras.
> I agree it is not a logical one, but a reflection of the
> society of the time. This is the only explanation for
> why Maitreyi, Gargi, and other women participated in
> philosophical discussions in the Upanishads.
It is _an_ explanation, yes, but I'm not certain it is the only
one. As far as my understanding goes, the dharma-texts were not
composed recently and specifically for this Yuga alone; they are said
to be ancient, and must have applied in the previous Yugas when
Yaagnavalkya, Gargii, etc., were around. As such, it may be the case
that these texts have been misinterpreted in some fashion to mean that
women are not eligible, whilst earlier on, these same texts allowed
the well-known women stalwarts of Vedanta to thrive. It may be the
case, for example, that a masculine pronoun used in the texts is
thought to exclude women; there is a case of a male pronoun used to
describe mantra-drashhTas being called applicable to women also -- the
justification for this being that women are known to have been
mantra-drashhTas, and that such uses of masculine pronouns to refer to
female deities, etc., is not unheard of (e.g., Lakshmi being referred
to as a "Purusha" in the Bhagavad Gita). Perhaps some such adjustment
is necessary?
Coming back somewhat tangentially to the subject of this thread, it is
certainly not the case that the 'Gita is specifically a text for this
Yuga -- its truths are quite eternal and not specific to any era. As
such, it is not clear why, even if women studying the Vedas is a
recent proscription, Krishna would cast this in stone by upholding it
as an example which would not make sense beyond a limited time
period.
> > Certainly one may argue that because women do not undergo
> > upanayana, they are not adhikaaris.
>
> Why not? Upanayana is not prescribed for women in the
> dharma-sutras or dharma-Saastras. Without upanayana,
> there can be no study of the Veda. Without study of
> the Veda, there can be no study of the Vedanta.
This makes things even worse, by saying that not only can women not
learn Shruti, they must be kept from all Vedanta! Whatever be the
status of the previous assertion, this latter one is definitely
suspect, because there is no bar on women studying the Smrtis, at any
rate, and I have heard it argued that even shuudras are allowed to
study the Smrtis.
> I do not think Ananda Tirtha or the present Dvaita
> acharyas would disagree with any of this.
Given that there has been at least one well-known female Maadhva
scholar by the name of KalyaaNii Devii (said to be a contemporary of
Ananda Tiirtha), I think they would.
> Or are they teaching Veda adhyayana to women in the
> eight mathas around Udipi now?
Perhaps they are; I wouldn't necessarily know. I do know that it has
been held that women can be ordained into sanyaasa in like fashion
with men, and there has been a case of this in the recent past. There
seems to have never been a bar on women receiving mantropadesha in
biija-mantras such as the Krishna-shaDakshara-mantra, etc., which also
carry the same status as other Shruti (although I'm not sure if they
occur within the corpus of the Vedas), and which are known to have a
Rshi, Chhandas, and Devataa, as with any other Shruti. This, to my
mind at least, is a strong denial by the Maadhva sampradaaya of the
generic disqualification of women to learn Shruti.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Mani
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Mani Varadarajan
> [O]ne wonders how the conclusion that women do not have
> Veda-adhikaara is reached?
This has been the traditional opinion from post-Upanishadic
times. The restriction is there in the Dharma-Saastras.
I agree it is not a logical one, but a reflection of the
society of the time. This is the only explanation for
why Maitreyi, Gargi, and other women participated in
philosophical discussions in the Upanishads.
> Certainly one may argue that because women do not undergo
> upanayana, they are not adhikaaris.
Why not? Upanayana is not prescribed for women in the
dharma-sutras or dharma-Saastras. Without upanayana,
there can be no study of the Veda. Without study of
the Veda, there can be no study of the Vedanta.
I do not think Ananda Tirtha or the present Dvaita
acharyas would disagree with any of this.
Or are they teaching Veda adhyayana to women in the
eight mathas around Udipi now?
Mani
Mani Varadarajan
>
> Shri Ramaanuja got Krishna completely wrong.
>
Wonderful! H.P. Raghunandan, not having studied
Ramanuja's bhashya under an acharya, not having
studied Desika's gloss of Ramanuja, not having
studied the basics of Ramanuja's philosophy,
and having grossly misunderstood many of the
principles of Visishtadvaita (which is obvious
from previous posts), has concluded that
``Ramanuja got Krishna completely wrong.''
A marvellous conclusion!
Mani Varadarajan
[This will be my final post on this topic. I do not
relish microscopic arguments with dvaitins, as we
invariably end up debating irrelevancies.]
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
> Coming back somewhat tangentially to the subject of this thread, it is
> certainly not the case that the 'Gita is specifically a text for this
> Yuga -- its truths are quite eternal and not specific to any
> era.
Its truths are eternal -- the couching of its words are not.
The Gita is a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, addressed
to the latter at a particular point in time. It too, uses
assumptions and language of its time period.
> This makes things even worse, by saying that not only can women not
> learn Shruti, they must be kept from all Vedanta!
Pardon me. What I meant by ``Vedanta'' was the Sruti
statements of the Upanishads. Women have always been
traditionally barred from this. This is also true of
the Dvaita sampradaya.
Everyone has been allowed to study smriti. You are correct
about this. And of course, the lack of Sruti study does
not mean that they cannot appreciate the grandeur of God
or love him as much as anyone else.
> There
> seems to have never been a bar on women receiving mantropadesha in
> biija-mantras such as the Krishna-shaDakshara-mantra, etc., which also
> carry the same status as other Shruti (although I'm not sure if they
> occur within the corpus of the Vedas), and which are known to have a
> Rshi, Chhandas, and Devataa, as with any other Shruti. This, to my
> mind at least, is a strong denial by the Maadhva sampradaaya of the
> generic disqualification of women to learn Shruti.
Please note a distinction between mantra upadesam and
study of the Vedas. The two are very distinct, even if
the mantra is from the Veda. To my knowledge, women are
not allowed to perform Veda adhyayanam in Maadhva-run
temples, nor are they taught ``hard-core'' Vedanta in
the form of direct study of the Upanishads by Maadhva
acharyas. If this is untrue, I am certain you will
correct me.
My personal opinion: anyone dedicated and interested
should be allowed to study, recite, and investigate the
Veda and Vedanta.
sh...@nyx.net
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> H.P.Raghunandan <hpr...@genius.tisl.soft.net> writes:
>
> > Shri Ramaanuja got Krishna completely wrong.
>
>
> Wonderful! H.P. Raghunandan, not having studied
> Ramanuja's bhashya under an acharya, not having
> studied Desika's gloss of Ramanuja, not having
> studied the basics of Ramanuja's philosophy,
> and having grossly misunderstood many of the
> principles of Visishtadvaita (which is obvious
> from previous posts), has concluded that
> ``Ramanuja got Krishna completely wrong.''
>
> A marvellous conclusion!
Indeed. It would be more helpful, would it not, to actually show
error in Raghunandan's specific claims, rather than to show asperity
and denounce him high-handedly? I do believe he has made an effort to
understand Ramanuja's bhaashya with the appropriate commentary, and
that his points cannot be lightly dismissed.
Anyway, I believe the following point made by R bears some discussion:
> I hope you agree with the 3-tier pramANa setup.
> Any thing can be known only thru
>
> 1. pratyaxa (Direct experience) or
> 2. anumAna (Inference or Logic) or
> 3. Agama ( Evidential apaurusheya text)
>
> If you say that the Lord can be known without the knowledge
> of the Veda, your Lord is knowable thru anumAna only because
> he is not known thru pratyaxa pramANa.
I'm not certain what the VishishTaadvaita position is, but if it is
similar to the Advaita position, then no, the Lord can also be known
through three other pramaaNas as well:
4. arthApatti
5. upamAna
6. abhAva
Of course, whether any of these is actually useful in learning about
the Lord, is something else. Even if they are, one can still show that
these three pramaaNas are subsumed within the first three, but that is
a slightly involved argument.
In addition, I gather that some people are supposed to know, or to have
known, the Lord merely through pratyaksha, according to the
VishishTaadvaita system. Their sharaNAgati thus would not require
Veda-adhyayana. In fact, under that conception, scripture is a sort of
second-rate device to inform those who don't have the insight to
perceive the Lord directly.
To beat that line of argument, one would have to justify the Lord's
"sadAgamaika-vigneyatva," but that tends to be a very involved argument;
as one recalls, the entire first parichchheda of the 'tattva-nirNaya
is devoted to that very topic. Of course, one need not bring out all of
it, but still, my point is that sadAgamaika-vignyeyatva, which is so
standard for Maadhvas that it permeates their very thinking, is not
taken as a given by adherents of other doctrines.
However, I believe sadAgamaika-vigneyatva *can* be justified, and that
Raghunandan's conclusion, and his other points, are quite well taken.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Mani Varadarajan
I am not qualified to give conclusive opinions
on these matters. I myself have not studied the
bhashyas of Sri Ramanuja properly, so what I am
writing in the following is purely my conjecture.
I also do not know if H.P. Raghunandan's translation
of Desika's gloss on Ramanuja is correct. From
what I recall reading, it do not recall it to be
accurate.
At any rate, here is my response. Please do not
expect any followups after this.
H.P.Raghunandan <hpr...@genius.tisl.soft.net> wrote:
>
> 1. Using what canons of usage and grammar can one conclude that
> "paapa" means "disallowed from studying and reciting the vedas"?
In traditional brahminical society based on the dharma-sastras,
birth as a human brahmin is the pinnacle of earthly existence,
because it gives one the opportunity to study the Veda and
Vedanta, perform the Vedic sacrifice, and live a spiritual
existence. While a spiritual life was theoretically also
possible for women and men of other castes, it was more
difficult, as they were either barred from the Veda or
barred from Vedic sacrifice or yajna. Yajna being the
Vedic method for worshipping the Supreme, these others
were naturally at a disadvantage.
With this background, it was also assumed that, because
of lack of Veda-adhikaara, birth as a non-ksatriya,
non-brahmin male is of a lower order in traditional
society. Compared to birth in the other two varnas,
birth here was considered due to a lesser stage of evolution,
or previous paapa, once again according to the dharma-sastras.
Krishna is speaking in this context. Even these people,
traditionally barred from Veda adhyayanam or yajna because
of birth, can achieve the highest through surrender to
the Lord and through bhakti. No one is denied supreme
beatitude.
> 2. What is meant by _accident of birth_ ? Who is responsible for
> the same ?
``Accident of birth'' means that the individual is born
into a social caste for some reason. Usually this is
because of karma from the previous birth.
I claim it is ``accidental'' because social caste should
not prevent one from developing bhakti to the Lord. I am
sure we are all agreed on this. In spite of one's birth
in a depressed social caste, in spite of all of one's
previous karma, bhakti and prapatti reign supreme, and
cut all these away. In other words, mere birth in a caste
does not give anyone spiritual superiority; greater
spiritual opportunity, perhaps, but nothing that is
insurmountable.
Even these people, denoted as ``paapayonayah'' for whatever
reason, with restricted spiritual opportunity in the traditional
sense, can attain the supreme goal through self-surrender,
irrespective of their traditional disbarment from the Vedas.
What then of the holy brahmins and ksatriyas who have the
opportunity to read and understand the Vedas! Not even society
is holding them back!
I would like to reiterate that other Sri Vaishnavas
have taken paapayonayah to refer to a separate class of
beings, and not strictly to women, sudras, and vaisyas,
even though this is also a plausible explanation in the
social context of the Gita. H.P. Raghunandan and Shrisha
can argue ``No'' till they are blue in the face -- I don't care.
It has been accepted for a long time as an alternative
explanation.
> I said that "Shri Raamanuja got Krishna completely wrong", and I will say
> that again.
Frankly, you are not qualified to make this statement.
If you have sincere doubts, don't ask me; I don't claim to be
a scholar of Visistadvaita. Go visit Dr. N.S. Anantarangachar
in Bangalore (Rajajinagar, I believe) and ask him. I am
sure he will clear up the doubt.
I am surprised how often supposed scholars come to premature
conclusions based on improper understanding. B.N.K. Sharma
is often guilty of this. His ``Philosophy of Madhvacarya''
is incorrect in so many places -- one wonders if he ever had
someone knowledgable in Visistadvaita ever check it over.
To answer Shrisha, regarding pratyaksha and anumAna:
Visistadvaitins and Dvaitins agree on the three means
of knowledge, perception, inference, and Sruti. Mediate
knowledge of the self and God can only be received from
Sruti, not through pratyaksha or anumAna. Just read
Sri Bhashya on Brahma Sutra 1.1.4. Don't come to
misinformed conclusions.
As to how people outside the pale of the Veda can get
mediate knowledge of the Lord, there are a number of ways.
Pure grace, for one. In addition, previous janma
samskAras could result in a birth where the individual
is gifted with insight that does away with the need
for study of the Veda. Finally, anyone can appreciate
the grandeur of God through the smritis, which are
open to all. Srimad Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, Ramayana,
etc., are examples of these. With all these various
methods of appreciating God, one can have a hint of
the supreme's glory, and love will eventually emerge.
God will take care of the rest.
namo narayanaya,
Parthasarati Dileepan
>
>
> Shri Ramaanuja got Krishna completely wrong.
>
Sri H.P. Raghunadan, would you please give a detailed
explanation of the Dvaithin interpretation of each term
in the verses 9:30 - 9:33 of srimad bhagavath geethai.
If time permits please contrast your interpretation with
that of Sri Ramanuja's. Since you make a rather fantastic
claim I hope you don't mind backing it up with some detailed
explanation that a novice like me can understand.
Thank you,
sriman naarayaNa saraNam,
-- Dileepan
Mani Varadarajan
I am loath to argue this as we are drifting away
from the essence of Krishna's statement, which is this:
no matter how depressed is one's status in society,
completely surrendering all to the Lord takes one to Him.
However, Raghunandan has once again brought up
some combative questions that contain misunderstandings
of Sri Vaishnavism.
H.P.Raghunandan <hpraghu@genius> writes:
> VaishhyAs have vedAdhikAra. If Women and shuudras are called
> pApayonayaH _only_ because they do not have vedAdidhikAra
> why are VaishhyAs called so.
>
> Is it _only_ because they cannot perform yagnas ?
Why are you performing a microscopic analysis of
my words when the surface meaning is obvious?
In orthodox brahminical society, women and sudras
had no right to Vedas, and consequently no right
to perform Vedic yajnas. Therefore, they are
doubly barred. Vaisyas are barred from Vedic yajnas.
This is the reason Desika says they are described
as pApayonayaH. It is straightforward.
> Why are the Women and shuudras not called pApayonayaH because
> they do not have the right to perform yagnas ?
By implication, they are. The meaning is obvious.
> How can you call the following as pApayonayaH :
>
> 1.RukmiNi who was an incarnation of Laxmi in dvApara yuga.
I never said anything of the sort. Lakshmi being a eternal
aspect of the Lord is absolutely free from karma. [I do
not wish to argue this particular point as it is a consequence
of Sri Vaishnava theology.]
> 2.Vidura, Draupadi and a host of others ...
Just because they are great souls in one life
does not mean they could not have been pApayonayaH!
I do not want to get into the specific cases of the
above two individuals, since I do not have encyclopedic
knowledge of the Mahabharata to debate this. I have
already expressed above my opinion on the general case of
vaisyas, sudras, and women in traditional society.
All of these are barred from yajna and/or veda adhyayana.
Therefore, they are called pApayonayaH. In the general
case, because of prior karma, they have been born into
a depressed social class and have decreased spiritual
opportunity in the traditional Vedic sense. *Even* these
people should not be counted out. For if they develop bhakti
and surrender to the Lord, their karma is wiped out and
they attain the Supreme.
> 3.AnDAl is accepted in your own tradition as an incarnation of Laxmi.
> (Correct me if I am wrong)
Please see the answer to (1) above. In addition,
Karma and pApa are irrelevant if one surrenders to the
Lord. Further, Andal is often pictured as the archetypal
devotee, intoxicated with love of Him, finally surrendering
herself to the Lord and living in constant communion
with Him. She is pictured as a separate PiraaTTi in her
own right.
>
> If all jiivas are non-different intrinsically why this difference
> in their karma, which leads them to being called pApayonayaH
> and puNyAH (gita 9-33)?
>
Karma is beginningless, as is samsAra for jIvas caught here.
>
> Does that mean that the Lord provides grace to _some_ jiivas only?
>
I cannot second-guess the Lord. He acts in ways that I cannot
comprehend. The Lord's grace is available for everyone.
Only a wise few ever take advantage of its overflowing presence.
bahUnAm janmanAm ante jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate |
Why some take advantage of it and some others do not is
almost an unanswerable question. This is the very mystery
of life.
In the end, all these arguments are pointless. As long
as you do not believe that you are damned to Hell, there
is only one path that all saints have agreed on, at least
for samsAris like us. Nammalvar says it best:
veedumin muRRavum--veeduseythu ummuyir
veedudai yaaNnidai--veeduseymminE.
neernNuma thenRivai--vErmuthal maayththu iRai
sErmin uyirkku atha--NnErnNiRai yillE.
-- thiruvaaymozhi 1.2.1, 1.2.3
Give up everything, surrender your self to the
Maker, accept His protection.
Uproot all thoughts of you and yours.
Unite with the Lord; there is no greater
fulfillment.
namo narayanaya,
Mani
Parthasarati Dileepan
>
>
> Pls refer to my original article at,
>
> http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1996_01/msg00087.html
>
Thanks for your above pointer.
You said in your January 96 article:
====Begin quote from Sri. HPR's article=======
******************************
Ramanuja Giita Bhashya :
[..snip..]
Women and shuudras have been described because they do not have
vedaadhikaara. Vaishyas have been described because though they
have vedaadhikaara they do not have satraadhikaara(namely the right
to perform yagnas).
******************************
====End quote from Sri. HPR's article=======
These individuals are "described" because they do not have vedaadhikaara. This does
not mean their births are _sinful_ due to lack of vedaadhikaara. It is the other
way around. Given below is an interpretation for "paapayOn^ayObi Syu" from a Sri
Vasihnava Tamil Geethaa book:
\bt janmaanthra paavaththinaal thaazhndha piRaviyaip peRRiruppinum \et
(even if one is of low birth, a consequence of sins of past births, .... )
Now, why are they specially described? Because, even they, who lack the authority
for the rigorous Bhakthi yoga, can adopt Prapatti and reach the Lord. That is,
Lord's grace is available for anyone who seeks, even of _sinful_ birth. In other
words, whatever may be your past, you have a bright future!
Sri H.P. Raghunadan, when I read your January 96 post detailing your explnantions
for verses 9:30, 9:32, etc. I was reminded of what Thirumangai Azhvaar says in one
of his poems,
"muyalai vittu kaakkaipin pOvadhE"
(why would a hunter go after crow's meat when rabbit meat, known to be more
delectable compared to crow meat, is readily and directly available?)
Even though Thirumangai aazhvaar uses this analogy to make an entirely different
point, it seems to fit the current situation in more ways than one. Two come to my
mind immediately, (i) when a direct meaning is readily available there is no need
for "epoch making and trail blazing interpretation", and (ii) Bhakthi is much more
delectable than lofty exercise in polemics that are of no practical value.
Finally, Sri Ramanuja never claimed he was a trailblazer; neither did his followers.
If anything, he was steadfastly faithful to the vEdhaas.
sriman naaryaNa saraNam,
-- Dileepan
anand hudli
H.P.Raghunandan <hpr...@genius.tisl.soft.net> wrote:
>
>
> Every one agrees that caste does not bar one from developing
> bhakti.
>
> If all jiivas are non-different intrinsically why this difference
> in their karma, which leads them to being called pApayonayaH
> and puNyAH (gita 9-33)?
>
The answer lies in the Giitaa itself. In verse 3.36, Arjuna asks
Krishna why one commits sins, anichchhan, unwillingly, and as if
compelled to do so, balaadiva.
In the next verse, Krishna gives a most enlightening answer by
pointing out that the enemies who drive one towards sin are
desire and anger, born out of the rajo guNa, often translated
as passion.
kaama eshha krodha eshha rajoguNasamudbhavaH |
mahaashano mahaapaapmaa viddhyenamiha vairiNam ||
Even though all jiivas are intrinsically the same, those who
are under the sway of the rajo guNa commit sinful acts and
are born as "paapayonayaH." Those who conquer the enemy called
desire (kaamaruupam duraasadam), which is difficult to overcome,
are assured of spiritual progress.
>
>
>
>H.P.Raghunandan
>hpr...@genius.tisl.soft.net
>
>
Anand
Manish Tandon
> H.P.Raghunandan <hpr...@genius.tisl.soft.net> wrote:
> >
> > If all jiivas are non-different intrinsically why this difference
> > in their karma, which leads them to being called pApayonayaH
> > and puNyAH (gita 9-33)?
>
> The answer lies in the Giitaa itself. In verse 3.36, Arjuna asks
> Krishna why one commits sins, anichchhan, unwillingly, and as if
> compelled to do so, balaadiva.
The above explanation and the following quote are both out of context
and hence meaningless to this discussion for reasons listed below.
> In the next verse, Krishna gives a most enlightening answer by
> pointing out that the enemies who drive one towards sin are
> desire and anger, born out of the rajo guNa, often translated
> as passion.
>
> kaama eshha krodha eshha rajoguNasamudbhavaH |
> mahaashano mahaapaapmaa viddhyenamiha vairiNam ||
>
> Even though all jiivas are intrinsically the same, those who
> are under the sway of the rajo guNa commit sinful acts and
> are born as "paapayonayaH."
Krishna here is talking about the actions of someone who already has a
certain bias in his nature. But we know that karma itself is beginingless,
na karmavibhagad iti cennanaditvat. Karma cannot exist in vacuum, it is
always an attribute (of someone capable of performing actions) which is
also evident from the sutra since it talks about the karma-vibhag of a jiva
being anaadi.
Now as per your claim, all jivas are intrinsically the same, which leads us
to two possibilities:
1. all the jivas always had exactly the same karma-vibhag. Than how is it
that some of them came under the sway of rajas while other acquired
something else the very first time and cansequently they attain mukti
at different times (even if we are to assume that they all do)? The
problems with this theory is identital with those of the "fall theory"
used by (at least) some Gaudias.
2. that jivas were/are intrinsically the same (and without karma) but the
karma-vibhag, which itself is anaadi was somehow superimposed on them
at some time. Again, whose karma-vibhag was it that was superimposed over
the jivas and why was it imposed such that some jivas were more influenced
with one guna than others?
Another great scholar here recently claimed that why some take advantage
of Lord's grace and others don't is a mystery of life. So we are faced
with the cold fact that Veda and Vedanta also are incapable of explaining
these fundamental questions and one must proceed with some faith upto the
very last point and hope that there really is someone called God out there
who will eventually rescue you.
This is the fundamental problem with all doctrines claiming the identical
nature of all jivas. They cannot explain the starting of accumulation of
such karma by the jivas which led to the difference in their present state
nor can they explain why different jivas attain mukti at different time (even
if all do). advaita can claim that jiva is not anaadi but than whose karma-
vibhag is called anaadi (in the sutra) and was imposed on the jivas, at what
time, and why don't they all shed it at once? Or rather why is there even a
need for all to shed it since they are nothing but one?
This is why advaita-vadins try to answer fundamental questions by silence
and great claims of such hand-waving are made, like the one recently about
Ramana Maharshi and Shankaracharya on srh.
> Anand
Manish
Parthasarati Dileepan
>
> Sri Raamanuja and Sri Desika describe them to of _sinful birth_ because
> they do not have vedAdhikAra and satrAdhikAra.
>
> You are contradicting Sri Raamanuja, Sri Desika and (Sri) Mani.
>
What I presented was an exact quote from a full-time
Sri Vaishnava scholar. Unless you are convinced of
your infallibility with respect to your opinions
regarding Sri Ramanuja's and Swami Sri Desikar's words
relating to 9:32, please consider approaching a Sri
Vaishnava scholar for a proper understanding of what
these saints are saying.
> In any case just get past this one.
>
> 1. How can RukmiNi and AnDAl be called of sinful birth in your tradition?
>
They are not. This shows you have misunderstood our
tradition. Please consider the possibility that you
have misunderstood Sri Ramanuja, Swami Sri Desikar, and
Sri Mani as well. It is okay to disagree with them,
but disagree with what they are saying, not with what
they are not saying.
The Thaayaars you mention above are beyond the pale of karma.
Their births are similar to the births of Lord Rama and Lord
Krishna on this earth, thus not _sinful_.
>)Sri H.P. Raghunadan, when I read your January 96 post detailing your
>
> This is the 2nd time you have misspelt my name. :-). Never mind.
Sri. Raghunandan, I am sincerely sorry. Please accept my apologies.
>
>)Finally, Sri Ramanuja never claimed he was a trailblazer; neither did his
>)followers. If anything, he was steadfastly faithful to the vEdhaas.
>)
>
> His reading of gita 9-32 indicates to the contrary.
It is okay if you don't agree with us, but we will
agree with you; Sri Madhvacharya presented some
"epoch making, trailblazing" intereprations :-)
praNaams to Sri Madhvaacharya
emperumaanaar thiruvadigaLE saraNam
-- Dileepan
Mani Varadarajan
> Another great scholar here recently claimed that why some take advantage
> of Lord's grace and others don't is a mystery of life.
I suppose then that some are predestined to be eternally
damned, others to predestined to be saved, others eternally
stuck in the purgatory of worldly existence. Hmm, this
sounds rather close to the doctrines of a religion which
celebrated its most holy day last weekend...
Is there any such thing as free will?
If there is, here is the conundrum:
Upon hearing that the great Brahman exists as one's
innermost Self, that His grace is ready for the partaking
upon self-surrender, it truly is a mystery that many
do not take advantage of Its presence!
Mani
Shrisha Rao
Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
>Why are you performing a microscopic analysis of
>my words when the surface meaning is obvious?
Perhaps because in shaastra, the surface meaning is rarely, if ever,
the best, or even right.
>In orthodox brahminical society, women and sudras
>had no right to Vedas, and consequently no right
>to perform Vedic yajnas. Therefore, they are
>doubly barred. Vaisyas are barred from Vedic yajnas.
>This is the reason Desika says they are described
>as pApayonayaH. It is straightforward.
Far from it. There are instances known from canonical scriptures
themselves where women are said to be yajamaanas. For instance, if
women are barred from Vedic yagnyas, then the putreshhTi yagnya, which
requires the participation of both husband and wife, must be
fruitless, because a husband cannot perform it alone. If you are argue
that women are barred from yagnyas unless accompanying their husbands,
then (a) your previous assertion stands diluted or modified, and
(b) the claim is not true in any event, because the reverse can also
be held to be true; the man cannot perform the yagnyas without his
wife, either, and a preference is not obvious.
>> Why are the Women and shuudras not called pApayonayaH because
>> they do not have the right to perform yagnas ?
>
>By implication, they are. The meaning is obvious.
How is there such an implication? Neither that, nor the meaning, is
obvious. How exactly does one parse `paapayonayaH' to mean "those who
do not have the right to perform yagnyas"?
Besides, of course, the claim that women do not have Veda-adhikaara is
as yet a hand-waving declaration, with some assertions made about
"orthodox brahminical society," etc., but no pramaaNa as such. Thus,
what is the evidence for this? In which grantha is it stated that
women do not have Veda-adhikaara "in an orthodox brahminical society"?
Otherwise, what is the anumaana used to derive this conclusion?
(I hope this is not claimed to be known from pratyaksha-pramaaNa!)
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Jagannathan Shrikanth
which, as SrimadYamunacharya puts it in his Gitarthasangraha, is
svadharmaGYAnavairAgyasAdhyabhaktyekagocharaH
nArayaNaH parambrahma gItashastra samIrtaH
Gita says:Narayana is the Supreme Brahman.He can be attained only
by bhakti, which is brought out by the observance of ones dharma,
knowledge and vairagya.
Why not start a new thread to discuss karma and related issues?
Anyway,returning to Gita 9 - 32,
Shri Raghunandan H.P <hpr...@aes.tisl.soft.net> in his post of 15 Jan
wrote:
|>
|>******************************
|>Ramanuja Giita Bhashya :
|>
|>striyo vaishhyaaH shuudraH cha paapayonayaH api maa.n vyapaashritya
|>paraa.n gati.n yaanti ||
|>
|>Translation :-
|>(After consulting Vedanta Desika Venkatanatha's commentary on the same
|>called taatparyachandrika)
|>
|> In Gita 9-30 the Lord states that even the most sinful person
|>(by virtue of bad deeds) must be regarded as holy if he worships me
|>with undivided devotion after having resolved/repented.
|> In this shloka (9-32) the Lord indicates that even if one is of
|>sinful birth (like women, vaishyas and shuudras) they can reach him
|>if they surrender to him.
|>
|>Women and shuudras have been described because they do not have
|>vedaadhikaara. Vaishyas have been described because though they
|>have vedaadhikaara they do not have satraadhikaara(namely the right
|>to perform yagnas).
|>******************************
|>
Sri Ramanuja's statement can be translated as
Women,vaishyas, shudras and even papayonis can attain me by
surrendering to me.
Here of course,papayonis have been considered a fourth class.
I have not read Sri Vedanta Desika's commentary.So let me use the
translation Shri HKR has kindly provided.
The statement just says: Just as women,vaishyas and shudras attain me
by surrendering to me,so can the papayonis.
Thus the "like" here denotes similarity in means to attain him,
which is surrender.This is perfectly in keeping with the Sri Vaishnava
claim that prapatti is a valid upaya.
The next two statements explain why women,vaishyas and shudras have
been included in the statement.They have recourse only to bhakti
and prapatti.
Now the papayonis..
As you say they can be human or non-human
|> 1. Birds and beasts (pashu pakshiH) - Krishhna was certainly
|> advising Arjuna about conduct for the human race. If you
|> notice 9-30 and 9-33, the advise is clearly intended to
|> the human race using Arjuna as a representative. Secondly
|> birds and beasts cannot be expected to surrender to the Lord.
|> (except highly superior jiivas like King Indradyumna who had to
be
|> born as gajendra in the gajendra moksha episode).
Krishna was advising Arjuna about the conduct of humans, true.But still
a statement such as
If even papayonis can attain me by surrendering to me,
then how much more so in the case of Brahmanas and royal sages!
certainly makes the point!
Secondly who decides birds and beasts cannot surrender to the Lord?
Certainly none but the Lord who in Gita 9 - 28 (just 2 stanzas before
the one we are discussing!) says:
samo.haM sarvabhuteshhu na me dveshhyo.sti na priye
ye bhajanti tu maM bhaktya mayi te teshhu chApyaham.h
I am the same towards all beings.None is hateful and none dear to me.
But those who worship me with devotion dwell in Me and I too dwell
in them!
|> 2. human yoni - Then the aadhikya is even more. Because the paapa
|> yonis would have to fall into one of the varNas and would have
|> to be male or female.
|>
First what is the Adhikya?Try denoting the set of women and vaishyas and
shudras as concisely and directly as possible.
If you try to come up with somthing like women who are not vaisyas or
shudras and vaishyas and shudras,then that is an Adhikya. Superfluous
use of words to denote a set which can be done in much less!
Secondly,why are all human yonis in the four varnas? There were
a whole bunch of people in Indian society who were outside the varna
system. Most of the tribal peoples. This you can check up in any
Indian anthropological survey
What about the so called paraiahs and chandalas? There were also the
outcast children born of a sudra woman and a brahmin man.
And as an aside where do you place people of other societies and
cultures?Certainly Sri Madhacharya was not ignorant of Muslims
and probably other peoples? In which varna did he put them?
Or does the Lord's advice hold only for those who believe in Him?
In which case asking them to belive in Him and worship Him is,
as you would say, an Adhikya!
namo narayana!
Shrikanth.
Mani Varadarajan
> >In orthodox brahminical society, women and sudras
> >had no right to Vedas,
> Far from it. There are instances known from canonical scriptures
> themselves where women are said to be yajamaanas.
This is news to me, and I seriously doubt you know what
you are talking about. Let us not quibble over the term
``yajamaana'' and get right to the root of the matter.
Can you name a single Vedic rite where a woman utters
Vedic mantras? Given your insistence on Sastra, it would
be nice if you yourself would give references to grhya-sutras
or dharma-sutras.
Second question: are people who have not undergone upanayanam
allowed to recite the Vedas in the Maadhva sampradaya?
Third question: are women or so-called Sudras allowed to
do Veda adhyayana in the Maadhva sampradaya? Do they do
so without the yajnopavita? Is so, what is the purpose of
the yajnopavIta in the Maadhva sampradaya?
All questions are respectfully submitted in a spirit
of inquiry.